The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start today's session, I want to welcome to the Speaker's gallery two special guests today visiting us from Quebec. We have the Deputy Speaker of the Quebec National Assembly, Mr. François Ouimet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: With him is the Parliamentary Relations Advisor, Richard Daignault.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Welcome to our Assembly, and I hope you enjoy your visit to Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Today, we have members' statements from the Member for the District of Burgeo – La Poile, the Member for the District of Bonavista South, the Member for the District of Humber West, the Member for the District of Torngat Mountains, the Member for the District of Bay of Islands, together with the Member for the District of Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Mr. Scott Francis, of Isle aux Morts, upon his recent receipt of the Most Deserving Official Award for the 2010-2011 hockey season. Scott was recognized for his officiating skills by Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador and Hockey Canada. Scott was a former member of the Port aux Basques Minor Hockey Association and was presented with the award on May 4 by his former coach, Mr. Joe Lane.

Scott has been officiating for seven years. He previously won the Most Promising Official Award for the 2007-2008 season. In 2010 he was selected to attend a program of excellence training camp in Gander, and from there was selected to officiate at the Atlantic Challenge Cup. Scott is currently certified as Level 3, and hopes to write his Level 4 test soon.

This past year, Scott played with the Port aux Basques Junior Mariners and was a mentor to younger players. He is currently studying engineering at Memorial University in St. John's, but still plans to referee games on the East Coast when he can.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Scott Francis for all of his hard work and dedication to this country's favourite game.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, I rise in this House today to recognize and congratulate Mr. Ryan Furlong, who was one of only eight youths in this Province to receive a URock Award during the 2012 URock Volunteer Award Show, that took place on May 12 of this year.

Ryan is a resident of Plate Cove West and at the young age of eighteen, it is commendable that he commits so much of his time volunteering. At school, he is president of the student council and he coaches the junior boys' volleyball team. Ryan is a member of the Centre for Distance Learning and innovation advisory group and a member of his school's social justice club, working to address serious issues of cyber-bullying. He sits on the provincial board of directors for Newfoundland and Labrador's Youth Parliament and he is a youth representative for Bonavista area Youth Network, focusing on enhancing educational and recreational opportunities for youth in rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of this young individual and I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating such an outstanding member of our Province, Mr. Ryan Furlong.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRANTER: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in this hon. House to congratulate the organizers of the Corner Brook Achievement in Community Awards held on May 15. I want to congratulate all nominees as well as all winners of individual awards.

Specifically at this time, I want to congratulate both Sheldon Peddle and Robert Leamon who were recognized as Citizen of the Year and Youth Citizen of the Year respectively.

Sheldon was recognized for his tireless commitment to the enhancement of Corner Brook through his volunteering and support of environmental and social causes. Sheldon was also recognized as the community environmental leader as well.

Robert, a Memorial University Grenfell Campus student puts many hours of volunteer work to aid his fellow students. He was a part of Grenfell's first Relay for Life, helped established the Bay of Islands Radio, volunteers as a firefighter and is a youth representative for the Blow Me Down Cross-Country Ski Club.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating both Sheldon and Robert on their achievements and in making Corner Brook a better place to live.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Sophie Pamak, Twiggy as she is better known as. Sophie is a home care nurse in the community of Hopedale, and this year she is the recipient of the First Nation Inuit Health Branch Award of Excellence in nursing.

This is a national award, Mr. Speaker, that has three categories. It is a very prestigious award, and the residents of the North Coast of Labrador are very pleased that Sophie has been recognized for her efforts and her contribution to her nursing profession and to her Aboriginal community.

Sophie is a beneficiary of Nunatsiavut Government and a fluent speaker in Inuktitut, Mr. Speaker, a trait that has helped her tremendously in applying her profession in the community of Hopedale, especially to her elders.

Sophie travelled to Ottawa earlier this month to accept her award and the scholarship that she can use for professional development.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Sophie Pamak on receiving this Award of Excellence.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a long-time volunteer from the Town of Irishtown-Summerside in the Bay of Islands.

Randell Loder has been volunteering in the Town of Irishtown-Summerside for over fifty years, having served with various organizations during that time. He has been a member of the Summerside Lions Club for over thirty years and is still active with the club today. He was a councillor with the Town of Irishtown-Summerside for seventeen years and he is still active with the St. Paul's Anglican Church committee. Mr. Loder has also been a member of the Summerside Recreation Committee, and for many years he was involved with the Summerside 4-H Rockets.

On May 17, Mr. Loder celebrated his eighty-fourth birthday with family and friends. He remains in good health and resides with his wife, Dulcie, in Summerside.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in extending congratulations and best wishes to Mr. Loder on his many years of volunteer service with the Town of Irishtown-Summerside and wish him continued good health.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the members of the Portugal Cove – St. Philips Lions Club on their tremendous success during this past year. The Portugal Cove – St. Philips Lions Club was chartered in 1976 and has nineteen members who work year-round to make Portugal Cove – St. Philips a better place to live.

In 2012, the Portugal Cove – St. Philips Lions Club was one of only a few clubs in our Province to receive the International Lions Club Excellence Award. The award is granted to a club that meets several criteria, including: good standing; community service projects; net growth in membership; raising the club's profile; receiving leadership training for club officers; and meeting international standards.

A President's Excellence Award was granted to Club President Bradley Moss for overseeing this development. He is a third generation Lion who has been a member for eight years and president for the last three. Mr. Moss is a 2011 recipient of the Melvin Jones Fellowship, which is one of the highest honours that can be bestowed on an individual Lion.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all member to congratulate the Portugal Cove – St. Philips Lions Club.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to emphasize our government's commitment to the recruitment and retention of qualified health care professionals throughout the Province.

Since taking off, this provincial government has established numerous programs and initiatives to improve recruitment of various health care professionals. These include student bursaries, grants, travelling fellowships, signing bonuses, and seat purchases in health sciences programs offered outside of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the total current investment in recruitment-related programs and initiatives is $7.1 million annually. Many of these initiatives secure commitment to work in rural and remote areas of the Province and there has been strong uptake of these programs. Our commitment to enhancing health care through the recruitment and retention of health care professionals in rural areas of the Province has been demonstrated time and time again.

We invest $2.8 million annually in the medical-dental student and resident bursary program to ensure more of our graduates stay right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Many of the students who accept bursaries practice in rural areas and all dental bursaries are for rural practice.

Mr. Speaker, our government has committed to increasing the Province's medical school seat complement to eighty-four seats by 2013, from the current sixty-four. We are working to improve accommodations for medical students in rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. Students tell us that if they have a positive experience during their rural placement, they are more likely to return to practice in the area upon graduation.

There are now twelve nurse-specific recruitment and retention initiatives in place, made possible through an investment of more than $2.5 million annually. These initiatives include the Bachelor of Nursing Bursary Program, Rural Nursing Incentive Program, and the Nurse Practitioner Bursary Program.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of these efforts, the Province currently has more doctors and nurses than it has ever had in its history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: In 2011-2012, practicing licences were issued for 1,096 physicians, 6,307 registered nurses and nurse practitioners, and 2,685 licensed practical nurses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. We are certainly pleased to see that government has invested into the recruitment and retention of health care professionals. We certainly acknowledge just how important this has been, especially in rural areas.

One of the things, as we define rural areas, we did some interviews with some health professional students just last week. Their definition of rural areas was just twenty kilometres outside of St. John's. I do not think many of us in this room today would consider rural to be – a place like Corner Brook would be considered rural. We are happy to see that we have seen significant improvements in the program, happy to see that our doctors and physicians finally got to Atlantic parity. We do realize that these recruitment and retention programs are having a significant impact.

One other thing that came out of the interviews that we did was that most students considered – when we asked what was inhibiting people from going to rural Newfoundland, it was spousal employment that by them was said to be the number one reason why they would not relocate to a rural area. The other one was the availability of community services like child care and high-speed Internet. In one particular case that I know of, even in my own district we lost a physician because of the availability of the Internet in the practice. Matching the community to the individual is extremely important.

One area of health that we have not discussed here today was physiotherapy – we understand that physiotherapists right now are in demand across the Province – and indeed, the improved role that nurse practitioners can do, and filling the role, and the need for hard-to-fill places in rural Newfoundland. These are significant improvements, we will acknowledge that, but there is more work to be done with other health care professionals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I too thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I would like to commend the willingness of government now to work with physicians and nurses' organizations on the serious recruitment and retention issues in this Province; it is essential. I am glad to see incentives to increase the number of medical and dental school graduates practicing in this Province, especially in rural areas.

National research tells us that an effective way to recruit and retain more physicians is to relieve the pressure on doctors, especially in rural areas, by using nurse practitioner-led primary health care teams – that would be both urban emergency room settings as well as rural – and placing nurse practitioners, as well, with specialists. We need to maximize the use made of nurse practitioners in our future health care system. That in itself will be an incentive for more nurses to move into this field.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize that May 27 to June 2 is Early Childhood Educators' Week, a week-long celebration that serves to highlight the professionals who make an incredible contribution to the care and development of children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are approximately 850 certified early childhood educators across the Province working in a variety of settings, including child care centres, family child care homes, and family resource centres. Many others work as instructors and consultants in a variety of sectors.

Our government provides an annual early learning and child care supplement to early childhood educators working in regulated child care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Full-time Level II's working in centre-based care receive an annual amount of $6,660 and Level I's receive $3,330. Level II family child care providers receive $4,660 per year and Level I's receive $2,330. Level II early childhood educators who own and operate their own centres and who work directly with children in these centres receive $4,660 per year.

We also provide a $5,000 bursary to graduates of the two-year early childhood education diploma program. This bursary requires a two-year return in-service agreement. Summer institute bursaries of $1,200 are also available to those students who are upgrading their credentials via the distance education program at College of the North Atlantic. As well, our government provides an Early Childhood Education Entry Level Supplement of $500 per year for those enrolled in upgrading to a Level I Child Care Services certification.

These early childhood educators are an asset to the children and families they work with, and to the Province as a whole. Through play-based learning, early childhood educators provide support and guidance to children as they learn to explore the world around them, interact with friends, ask questions, and solve problems.

By helping to set the stage for learning and development, early childhood educators are not just supporting our children, they are shaping the future. Our government certainly recognizes the vital role that these professionals play in our communities, and we will continue to support them in their important work.

In Budget 2012, we announced significant investments in child care, including the ten-year Child Care Strategy, which will see government double its annual budget for child care by 2021-2022 to approximately $56 million.

Under the strategy that will be released in the coming weeks, our government will implement a number of initiatives to address the recruitment and retention of qualified early childhood educators into the child care system. These include enhancements to Early Learning and Child Care Supplements and improvements to the process for attainment of a Level I certificate through post-secondary education, workplace training, and prior learning recognition. These initiatives reflect what we heard from early childhood educators during the Province-wide consultations on the ten-year Child Care Strategy.

I would like to thank the Association of Early Childhood Educators Newfoundland and Labrador and all early childhood educators, some of whom are in the gallery today, for their hard work and commitment to helping our young children reach their full potential.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

I, too, would like to congratulate and thank the Association of Early Childhood Educators Newfoundland and Labrador and other early childhood educators for their dedication to our youth. We all know that these childhood educators are a key to helping our children develop to their full potential. The only issue that we have is that we need more of them, there is not enough. There are key issues in the child care sector that need to be addressed, and that is the lack of available trained workers. We are glad to see the government has recognized this issue and is making changes to ensure that we are going to improve this area.

A 2009 report, Mr. Speaker, stated that 50 per cent of daycare centres in this Province were finding it difficult to recruit staff and 80 per cent of centres said they had difficulty recruiting qualified staff. They have empty rooms simply because they do not have the staff to fill them. These are very cost-effective means of strengthening society as a whole and ensuring that our children are getting the best possible start. We are very interested in learning more about this initiative. We absolutely need to recruit and retain more of these educators, so therefore we commend government for this initiative and we thank the educators for all the work that they do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thanks to the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

I am pleased to recognize Early Childhood Educators Week, next week. Early childhood educators are deserving of recognition and much more. They are essential to our society but often undervalued. The ECE profession involves considerable training to achieve competence, and given that the pay is so low it is important that they have access to bursaries such as these. Although wage supplements are important, they are no substitute for a Province-wide wage increase to all Level I and Level II early childhood educators to match the competence level in this profession.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has stated that her questions on search and rescue have not been answered by the federal government and that they failed their humanitarian responsibility. Two months ago Minister MacKay told us that he would co-operate with an inquiry into search and rescue in the Province. Yesterday, Minister Penashue reiterated that the feds would co-operate and stated it was the Premier's responsibility to call one.

I ask the Premier: It is now clear that the federal government will co-operate with an inquiry, so I ask the Premier, will you call one?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in my very first conversation with Minister MacKay in February about this issue, Minister MacKay made a pledge of providing information to the Province with regard to the Burton Winters search. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, I have pursued those answers, and I will be filing in the House today the correspondence that I exchanged with Minister MacKay.

We have the answers with regard to deployment of federal resources in this search, Mr. Speaker. We are not satisfied with the information, the explanations that have been given. We have said so to the federal government. We have asked them to review their protocols, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Quite frankly, that is the reason why the public inquiry would sort all this out really. We have seen many other inquiries in this Province and these include: Wells, Cameron, Lamer, the Ocean Ranger commission. All of these inquiries have produced good recommendations that are providing for a safer environment for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I ask the Premier: Seeing the benefits that came out of these inquiries and knowing that there is no downside to calling one, why do you continue to refuse to call an inquiry into search and rescue in our Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, inquiries have served Newfoundlanders and Labradorians well on very specific issues, but not every issue requires an inquiry. We are often called, sometimes almost on a daily basis in this House, for an inquiry into something or other.

Mr. Speaker, they were very definitive questions that needed to be answered with regard to the deployment of federal government resources. Federal government resources that we know do not have a dedicated responsibility for ground search and rescue in this Province, Mr. Speaker, but a long-standing practice of responding when requested in a humanitarian effort in search and rescue. We do not believe that they lived up to that long-term practice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been four months now and we still have not clarified this situation in search and rescue in Newfoundland and Labrador. A public inquiry is the way to go in our opinion.

I ask the Premier one more time: What is standing in the way of calling for a public inquiry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is true, in the months that have followed the Burton Winters tragedy there has been quite a lot of information brought into the public purview, Mr. Speaker. I encourage the Leader of the Opposition to have a good look at that, to have a good look at the timelines. There is an explanation for everything that took place.

The question remains around why cormorants were not dispatched from Gander on the morning of January 30, Mr. Speaker. Minister MacKay and JRCC have provided answers to that question. It is the same answer: they will give an inquiry. What we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is the explanation is not satisfactory and you need to review your protocols.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: We have asked for the review of protocols and we have gotten two different answers, quite frankly. One was that the protocol was an evolving situation and the other one was a plan. The other thing too, to the Premier, we do not have access to all of this information yet. We are still waiting on the documents from Minister MacKay.

Mr. Speaker, the new EI rules released today by the Harper government appear to take aim at frequent users and the workforce to accept lower-paying jobs.

I ask the Premier: How will these changes affect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who rely on this program and will you be discussing this with the Prime Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we recognize that the EI program in Canada is a hallmark program. It is one that supports people when they find themselves in a crisis or unable to work for some reason, or for people who are in seasonal employment, and it bridges them from one season to another. We want to ensure that the changes that are brought in by EI certainly benefit Newfoundland and Labrador and the workers in this Province. We have many people who work in the fishery who are in seasonal work. Mr. Speaker, we also have an economy right now where we are able to train people so that they will be able to meet the labour gaps that we see in this Province.

I will have the opportunity to speak with Minister Finley about these changes sometime this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premiers of Nova Scotia and PEI are warning Ottawa it is wading into dangerous political waters on EI reform, calling for a public debate on the issue of seasonal work. Not surprisingly, our Premier was not mentioned in this response.

I ask the Premier: Will you now stand with those two other Premiers from the Atlantic Provinces for the need for a public debate?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will point out to the Leader of the Opposition again today that, in fact, Newfoundland and Labrador has led the discussion on EI reform at the Council of the Federation. We have made our views known to the federal government, Mr. Speaker.

EI is an important program to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians generally, Mr. Speaker, but to the fishery it is a very particular program.

The food production around the world is subsidized. There is no such direct subsidy for the fishery in this country even though there is for agriculture activities, Mr. Speaker. We point this out to the federal government on a regular basis. If you are going to remove eligibility for EI for fishers, then you have to compensate with some kind of other support program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, in all due respect to the Premier: This is what you call leading debate? If this is what we get, those types of changes, I really think we need to actually change the approach.

The new EI rules will require frequent claimants to expand the scope of their job searches. Also, job ads will be e-mailed to claimants.

So I ask the Premier: What does expanding the scope of job searches mean? How will Newfoundlanders without Internet access receive the e-mailed job ads?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we want to look at the changes to ensure that the changes brought about by the EI system do not affect what we consider some of our seasonal industries or our fishing industry. With regard to how they will roll out some of the supports that will help people conduct job searches, we will certainly explore that with the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Advanced Education and Skills has a number of career information centres across the Province and we also provide supports for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are looking for work. We want to make sure we provide the necessary supports to help people attach to the labour market.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few days ago we learned that the federal government will no longer be funding the Province's Regional Economic Development Boards. This means these boards could see cuts of 75 per cent of their operating budget. The minister said a few days ago there would be no additional funding forthcoming. The Premier said yesterday there was a suite of programs that was inside of government. I do not think we can ignore that these are grassroots organizations that plan and develop future initiatives in many rural communities across the Province.

I ask you: In the absence of these organizations, who will be moving forward with the rural agenda in economic development?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government has been engaged in rural development from the very first day that we took over as Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as I pointed out in the debate, an exercise that had not happened in this Province for a number of years prior to our government being elected in 2003. Sometimes I think these organizations by former Administrations were used to fob off responsibility. When they came to the table of organizations like ACOA, they had nothing to bring, because they were volunteer organizations.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, $2.6 million is what the Liberals had designated for rural development in this Province in –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, fobbing off responsibility is what the government is doing with boards like the Rural Secretariat, which are completely ineffective. Economic development boards, Mr. Speaker, are the people on the ground that develops the proposals and the applications, who have a vision to move forward with economic development and come to government to access those suite of programs that you have.

If they do not have the resources and the tools to do that, how will they diversify in rural communities around this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying in my earlier response when we came to government in 2003 the Liberal Administration, the former Liberal Administration, had designated $2.6 million for economic development annually in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Today, we have over $200 million annually available –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – to communities and business people in this Province, Mr. Speaker, for economic development; over $5 million available directly to community organizations to leverage out other funding for economic activities in their part of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we have a regulation in place in the Province which states that crab harvested in 2J on the Coast of Labrador must be landed and processed in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, previous operators of the crab plant in Black Tickle are now landing as much as 400,000 pounds of 2J crab in Quebec and selling it to Quebec processors.

I ask the minister: What steps can be taken to ensure that this crab stays in Labrador and Labradorians reap the benefits of that resource?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the current policy of this government around crab in that particular zone is as the member illustrated, that any crab that is landed either on the Island part of Newfoundland and Labrador, or in Labrador, must be processed in Labrador. The policy was put into effect a number of years ago and it has been maintained by our government because we see the value of the benefits that would accrue to the people of Labrador.

The challenge we have today, Mr. Speaker, is that the assignment of quotas to fishing enterprises and all restrictions, or landing requirements, or lack thereof is the responsibility of the federal government. The only jurisdiction that the Province has is once the fish is landed either in Labrador or on the Island part of the Province. I say to the member opposite that I am certainly not happy at all to see that happening. I think it is disgusting that someone is catching our resource and taking it to –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of this crab going to Quebec means that there is going to be fewer jobs and fewer hours of employment in Labrador plants. The plants that are currently in operation and licensed can handle the additional product.

I am asking the minister today: Is there any kind of way that we can strengthen the adjacency restrictions in 2J at all to prevent that crab from going out of the Province right now?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the short answer – without a second opinion – to the member opposite, is no. We do not have any jurisdiction whatsoever over quotas. We have expressed on many occasions – both myself and the Premier – to the federal government that we think there ought to be more requirements around quotas, so that if you hold a quota you hold the opportunity to harvest a resource so rich and so valuable to this Province that you ought to live up to expectations around where it is landed and where it is processed.

The challenge for us, Mr. Speaker, is that we do not have jurisdiction over that. We can only advocate, as we continue to do – both myself and the Premier – at every opportunity, and that is why we continue to try and talk to the federal government and find a way forward through negotiation advocacy, Mr. Speaker.

It is a serious issue, I fully understand where the member is coming from, and I support her in trying to get that landed back in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister confirm that it is because of the absence of provincial government funding initiatives for enterprises that they have been forced to go to private companies to buy out their vessels, to buy out their licences, and now it is these private companies that are controlling the fishery in this Province because they are telling me that it is the private company that is telling them that they have to go to Quebec and sell this crab?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: No, Mr. Speaker, I absolutely cannot confirm that. What I can say is that our government has continued to invest in the fishery. I have talked many times in this House about what we have done to support processors. Just last Friday, my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development had the opportunity to not only announce but strengthen the Fisheries Loan Guarantee Program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on many occasions in this House, the fishery is a business, and how business transactions occur is operating outside of the sphere of government. Individuals are choosing to get their finances in many types of forums, Mr. Speaker. Some are community business development corporations, some are banks, some may be private loans. Government does not intrude in the day-to-day lives of operators to regulate that kind of operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the last couple of months the Province has seen a number of closures of fish plants and the displacement of a large number of our dedicated workforce. While a workers adjustment program will assist some, it will not meet the needs of all of our older workers.

I ask the Premier today: If the Province is prepared to step forward and lay money on the table? They said they had 30 per cent to commit to an early retirement program, are you prepared to step up now and put a program in place for early retirement of displaced fish plant workers?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the closure of fish plants is absolutely number one on the priority for the Premier, for Cabinet, and for this government. We recognize the challenges that exist. It is why a number of years ago it was our government that put in place the fish plant closure program to provide a suite of programs including economic development opportunities, wage subsidy opportunities, and an employment program to assist a one-year transition for workers.

We fully recognize the challenges that are there. It is why we also put on the table a 30 per cent contribution to a retirement package. I can confirm today, on behalf of government and the Premier, that that still stands. Mr. Speaker, we have to get the federal government onside and we continue every single moment an opportunity that we get to advocate with the Prime Minister and the federal minister, but they have to come to the table if there is going to be any meaningful package for workers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his response.

I would like to ask the Premier, in light of that: If and when she gets a meeting with the Prime Minister, will the early retirement program for the displaced plant workers in this Province be one of the priorities on your agenda for discussion?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, these are serious issues. When we have a discussion with the Prime Minister we put issues that are important to the people of the Province on that agenda, Mr. Speaker. That is what I will do. I encourage the Opposition House Leader to do the same, and this time she might take her leader with her if she gets an opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister.

All of us should be advocating strenuously on behalf of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is what we do every day, Mr. Speaker, and it is what we will continue to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the Premier gave for not calling a public inquiry into the death of Burton Winters evaporated yesterday with the revelation the federal government will co-operate with a provincial public inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today: What is the rationale that she is now giving for not calling a public inquiry in this instance, not in others, but in this one?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in Question Period, when we first discussed this issue with Minister MacKay back in February, he offered to provide any information he had. Mr. Speaker, we have taken him up on that order and we have laid out a timeline, Mr. Speaker. We have been able to identify quite clearly where the issue arose. That has been articulated very clearly by the people in Labrador, by Burton Winters' family and by our own analysis, Mr. Speaker.

I have asked Minister MacKay for an explanation of the gap that occurred on January 30 in the search when there was a five-hour period that they were not engaged in the search. The answers are not satisfactory; the protocols need to be changed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

It is the protocols that I am concerned about and the Premier's interest in getting them changed. A public inquiry with the full involvement of both levels of government and other interested parties could result in the development of fail-safe protocols, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Would she please put in place an inquiry to develop appropriate protocols for search and rescue so that needless tragic deaths never happen again? That is the action I am looking for.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Then the very first thing that the Leader of the Third Party should do, Mr. Speaker, is find out who has responsibility for what. Mr. Speaker, we have no responsibility for the deployment of federal government resources, nor would any inquiry or recommendation coming out of any provincial inquiry have the authority to demand, or command, or require the federal government to change any of its protocols. They do not have a specific responsibility in ground search and rescue, Mr. Speaker, as I have said a number of times. They respond as part of a humanitarian effort. We think they failed in this case, in this instance, on Monday, January 30, and we have pointed that out, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I think the Premier fully understands the interface between both, and people have to work together in the two sets of protocols.

Mr. Speaker, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador is concerned about the void that will be created with the loss of the RED Boards cut by the federal government. MNL insists these boards play an important role in co-ordinating municipalities and developing and encouraging the capacity building necessary for regional economic development. Their loss will be another serious blow to municipalities across the Province.

I ask the Premier: Will she direct her Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development to meet with MNL to outline to them how government will address their concerns?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege since I was a very young woman to be engaged in community. There was a time when I served as a member –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – of a town council, Mr. Speaker, directly involved in economic development in a community. I served as a member of a REDB. Mr. Speaker, I also had the privilege of being minister of the lead business department in this government.

I understand the efforts of community volunteers, Mr. Speaker. We cannot backfill every void left by the federal government or any other agency, whether it is municipalities or anybody else. We will continue to support where we think it is appropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

So I guess the answer to MNL is that they are not going to sit and talk with them.

Mr. Speaker, just a year ago this government was praising RED Boards and the important work they do. The minister at the time was effusive in her praise, noting that the work RED Boards were doing was "essential in enabling small firms to compete nationally and internationally." She said their work allowed them to "punch beyond their weight." What a difference a year makes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will she acknowledge the importance her own Administration has placed on these boards and find the funding to allow them to continue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am so delighted to hear the Leader of the Third Party acknowledge all of the economic activity that is going on in rural parts of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: It is the first time in the number of years she has been here that I have heard any such affirmation come from her on economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador. To use the familiar expression from one of her colleagues: Bravo.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is important is to put real tools in the hands of people who are trying to drive economic development in our Province. We do that through our lead Department of IBRD, we do that through our Regional Economic Development offices, we do that through MNL and what they are doing, we do that through ACOA and what they are doing, and we do it with the $200 million annually –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Sandy Cove plant owned by 3 T's Limited was closed in 2009 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, the Sandy Cove plant owned by 3 T's Limited was closed in 2009 for failing to meet basic federal safety standards and therefore could not meet minimum processing requirements. Despite this, it appears the licence was retained until recently.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Why did his department extend the licence of the operator who did not have an operational plan and could not meet basic operational standards?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for the advance copy of the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that protection.

The plant in Sandy Cove was indeed licensed to a company named 3 T's in 2003. It operated until 2009. For two years, Mr. Speaker, the plant was inoperable, no processing at all. As per provincial policy we removed the licence from the plant in 2011. I say to the member opposite, I understand the concern for the plant and the community and I would certainly implore upon the company to do the right thing and fix the plant.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At least now the people of Sandy Cove have an answer.

Mr. Speaker, the system has failed the people of Sandy Cove. A processor was able to retain his licence for more than two years when the plant was deemed unsafe, creating unemployment for local plant workers and limiting options for the harvesters to sell their catch. Mr. Speaker, DFA has stood in the way of economic development in this area and the people of Englee know the consequences of continued government inaction.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister what plans his government will make to quickly remediate the site and help the region in new economic developments.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would implore upon the member opposite to try and bring some consistency to his message. For a number of days he has been asking me about opening plants all across this Province and why we are not doing more. Today he is asking me why we did not close Sandy Cove earlier. Mr. Speaker, I say to the member: shameful, if that is the view you have for rural Newfoundland and Labrador that you want to close plants at the very first sight of trouble.

Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear here that the onus to cleanup a dilapidated fish plant does not rest with this government. It rests with the company. I say to the member opposite, and I say to the company 3 T's: do the right thing. The community and the workers have been loyal and committed to you over the years and helped you earn money from that plant. Do the right thing; go back in that community and fix it up, or take it down and leave the community in good stead like it ought to be left.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the Province has banned the use of some chemical pesticides for cosmetic use of lawn care, other pesticides are used in a wide variety of uses. We have learned of a company that has now been charged with the use of a chemical pesticide in the agriculture industry.

Will the government table a list of all chemicals currently used in the practice of aquaculture in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too would like to thank the hon. member for an advance copy of his question, Mr. Speaker. They have been very kind to us today, the members of the Third Party, and shared their questions with everybody in government, I believe, so thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, we recently banned five pesticides here in the Province because –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: – a number of people believe that they were cosmetic pesticides, and that is what we did. Certainly, if the hon. member would like to see which chemicals are banned in that field, we would be more than honoured to share with him. I am sure the hon. member knows about the pesticide ban. He was going around shopping, looking for them a while back, Mr. Speaker, so I am sure he is well-aware of all the pesticides banned in this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Cooke Aquaculture is facing serious charges with the illegal use of pesticides in two other provinces.

Can the minister assure this House and the consumers of fish products that his department has been taking the proper steps to monitor the aquaculture industry to ensure this does not happen here?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A very good question, and I do not often do this lately but I will thank the member for the question because it gives me an opportunity to talk at length. As I said a few days ago here, Mr. Speaker, our Province is leading the country and perhaps leading North America in biosecurity of the aquaculture industry.

I remind people that it is our government that invested significantly in a $1 million-plus facility in St. Alban's, Mr. Speaker, where we have veterinarians and top-qualified and trained staff who deal on the leading edge of aquaculture. Mr. Speaker, I also say to the member opposite that it is our government that invests in biosecure wharves around the aquaculture industry to ensure further protection. We also engage in the fallow field concept, Mr. Speaker, so that we allow the process.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a series of correspondence between myself and Minister MacKay, Minister of National Defence.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the requirements of the Transparency And Accountability Act, it is my pleasure to table the 2011-2014 activity plan for the Health Research Ethics Authority.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Section 26.(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling two Orders in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2013-2014 fiscal year relating to paving contracts on the Trans-Labrador Highway.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Tabling of Documents?

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice under Standing Order 11, that I shall move this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 28, 2012, and further I give notice, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 11, that I move that this House shall not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, May 28, 2012.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I started to answer a question that was put forward by the Member for Burgeo – La Poile yesterday and I did not have an opportunity to finish my answer, my response, because at 3:00 o'clock on Wednesdays we have to go to private member's motion, so I will continue my response here today, Mr. Speaker.

I will provide some context, rather than just starting in the middle of what I was speaking about, as to what I was answering. I will just go over the introduction to make sure people understand what it is I am continuing with today.

There was a question tabled by the Member for Burgeo – La Poile regarding the business transformation project for the Department of Advanced Education and Skills. As I said yesterday, as confirmed by an Order in Council tabled in the House of Assembly on Thursday, March 8, 2012, former Auditor General John Noseworthy has been retained by the Department of Advanced Education and Skills as a consultant to complete an assessment of current programming and business transformation for the Department of Advanced Education and Skills.

This department was created to help address labour demand and has a mandate to ensure Newfoundland and Labrador has the highly-educated graduates and skilled workers needed for this fast growing economy. Given this new mandate, a comprehensive transformation plan is needed to ensure all departmental policies, programs, and services –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: – are streamlined and best fitted to meet the growing labour demands of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was basically why we undertook the business transformation process, and yesterday I spoke about it, and I will continue now where I left off with that yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

Immigration will be another key source of specialized labour, and we will be working with business and industry to maximize the opportunities for older workers to remain in the labour force for longer periods of time. As a new department, AES brings together substantial fiscal resources, human resources, and educational and training infrastructure. The department fulfills its mandate through a spectrum of services, supports, and strategies in the following areas: helping employers with accessing and keeping skilled workers, supporting delivery of post-secondary education, administering the Student Financial Assistance Program, providing programs and supports for apprenticeship and trade certification, offering career development and planning services, providing employment and training supports, delivering Income Support and other financial supports, leading the Poverty Reduction Strategy, leading the provincial inclusion strategy, engaging youth, and increasing the recruitment and retention of immigrants.

I will now get into an overview of the project. The department has substantial resources available to it, but as a new department, all these resources have not yet achieved a unified and consolidated focus on labour market development. The program review and business transformation project therefore encompasses the development and discharge of a comprehensive plan to review and evaluate the full suite of programs and services offered by the Department of Advanced Education and Skills as well as the development of a business transformation plan. The required outcome is the refocusing of the department's policies, programs, and services to position it to deliver on its mandate in a timely fashion.

Included within this project's scope will be the programs and services for which the department has a direct role in delivering. As well as those programs and services that are delivered by community-based organizations funded by the department, the department's executive team will determine whether programs and funding instruments of the department are congruent or can be made congruent with the department's mandate.

The programs and policies and supports which do not meet the test of congruency will be terminated or transferred to other departments of government. Within this context, the consultant will carry out the following role. I will now discuss the role of the consultant. The consultant will provide analysis, advice, and recommendations on business process improvement, program efficiency, program consolidation, change management, monitoring, and evaluation. These activities will be carried out consistent with direction from the deputy minister regarding the department's mission, goals, priorities, values, and intended client outcomes.

The consultant will report directly to the deputy minister but will interact on a regular basis with the minister. Small, project-specific teams will be established on an ad hoc basis from existing staff resources with subject matter expertise. Administrative support will be provided by staff in the minister and deputy minister's office; otherwise the consultant will work independently. The consultant will be expected to provide status updates on a minimum of a weekly basis. It is anticipated that this project will be a minimum of one year in duration.

I will now speak about the goals of the project: to enhance the delivery of services to clients by streamlining service delivery and realignment of available resources; to evaluate and/or develop a plan to support external evaluations of all programs being delivered and/or funded by the department; to reduce, simplify, and streamline the department's suite of programs consistent with the department's mandate and strategic plan to support the development of the Province's labour force; to provide advice and recommendations on the transition from independent branches into an effective, single, integrated, organizational entity, while balancing the needs of the different groups which often have conflicting operational priorities.

I will now speak about specific functions and expectations. The consultant is responsible and accountable to provide professional counsel to facilitate and implement change management, identify, prioritize, and facilitate program and policy evaluation, and develop a schedule of continuous improvement activities and other planning initiatives. The consultant will examine the programs, services, and delivery methodology of the former Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and the Advanced Studies Branch of the Department of Education, and recommend standardized approaches to achieve synergy and program supports, and efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of programs and services.

The consultant will review the current business processes with the goal to simplify and streamline how clients move through and are supported by the department, and recommend processes and structures to effectively carry out its mandate. The consultant will recommend initiatives to support and strengthen the efficient and effective delivery of integrated services throughout all programs and services consistent with the strategic direction of the department. The consultant will make recommendations relating to the consolidation of numerous programs and services in order to transform these functions to align with a continuum of supports from social and employment supports through to post-secondary education and ultimately to work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I could not hear you over the applause from the previous answer to the question.

I want to thank the Member for Torngat for his questions. I want to get a chance to respond to some of his concerns, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government takes site remediation very seriously and is committed to following through on its commitment to access and clean up specific contaminated sites in our Province. Public health and safety remain a priority of our government, and our significant commitment to our ongoing remediation efforts certainly speak to this. An assessment of all provincial contaminated sites would be a very costly venture for the provincial government, amounting to tens of millions of dollars. Money spent on such an exercise would be much better spent on actually cleaning up these sites, Mr. Speaker.

The provincial government endeavours to use the best science available when it comes to remediating impacted sites in our Province. As science changes, the ranking of the sites would also change and the original assessments would be outdated. Therefore, such a ranking system would not be financially prudent or responsible and would be using funds that could otherwise be spent on actual remediation.

What is important to understand is that we use an informed risk assessment approach to evaluate impacted sites in the Province. Sites are evaluated and ranked according to the risk that they pose on human health. Whether provincial or federal, if an immediate human health risk is identified for the people of our Province, immediate action is taken. The remediation effort at Buchans is a perfect example of how impacted sites in the Province are given government's attention. An immediate action is taken when a human health risk is identified.

In Budget 2010, the provincial government committed $9 million to remediation efforts in Buchans. Areas of exposed concentrated mine tailings from the former Buchans Mine, known as the Tailings Spill Area, Mucky Ditch, and Tailings ponds were the major contributors to the dispersion of heavy metal impacted tailings throughout the town. I also want to acknowledge the work of the member for that area as well, Mr. Speaker.

Our government responded to the human heath concerns in the area, and this work has been completed. Given the sources of the impacts have been addressed, only the residential and public spaces impacts remain. Budget 2011-2012 allocated $5 million for a three-year program to remediate the soil in the public and residential areas of Buchans. As part of this multi-year funding commitment, $2.5 million was allocated in Budget 2012-2013.

A Risk Management Plan was developed by an outside consultant who recommended the removal and capping of impacted soil on four impacted public areas – ball field, tennis court-hospital, memorial, and the museum – as well as 234 residential properties. This initiative will see the soil in the residential and public areas of Buchans remediated to a level that does not pose any unacceptable risks to human health. I am pleased to report this is the last outstanding immediate human health-safety issue related to the former Abitibi-owned Buchans Mine site.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: A commitment of $6.2 million was also made to support ongoing remediation efforts at the former military site in Hopedale – which I am sure the Member for Torngat is certainly well aware of, Mr. Speaker – with funding of $2.23 million in Budget 2011-2012, and an allocation of $2.03 million in each of the following two years. A consultant was retained to complete an extensive environmental assessment in Hopedale, as well as human health and ecological risk assessments at the former US military site and the subdivision area. Following completion of these assessments, a remedial action plan was developed.

The provincial government continues to move forward with its work plan regarding remediation efforts in Hopedale and, through a stakeholder advisory committee, will continue to work closely with the Nunatsiavut Government and the Hopedale Inuit Community Government to ensure they have input into this project. The initiative will continue to focus on efforts to have soil in the residential and public areas of Hopedale remediated to a level that does not pose any unacceptable risks to human health or the environment. These commitments are testimony to the great emphasis we place on our environment and the remediation of areas of concern that pose an immediate human health concern. It also clearly demonstrates that our government is responsive to the needs of our residents and to the needs of our environment.

While the value of a good inventory of impacted sites is indeed recognized by our government, our main focus continues to be on addressing the remediating of these sites. We are confident in the experience and expertise of staff who continuously do a good job of identifying priorities that are of significant human health risk.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on March 21, the hon. Member for Burgeo – La Poile placed a question on the Order Paper to ask the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General to lay on the table of the House any analysis, reports, or projections which the provincial government has compiled in relation to the cost and impacts for this Province of the recently passed federal government Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand and address that question 5 on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's Safe Streets and Communities Act, Bill C-10 is, as I have said before, a significant piece of legislation. It has some positive components to it, Mr. Speaker, as we have seen; for example, the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act is a part of that omnibus bill. The Increasing Offender Accountability Act is also in that bill, as is the supporting victims of terrorism act. There are some very positive pieces of legislation in that omnibus bill, Mr. Speaker.

Other proposed changes, Mr. Speaker, involve complex amendments. We are continuing to review that legislation. We continue to analyze what impacts those acts may have on our judicial system, everything from prosecutions to corrections. This is a significant piece of work, Mr. Speaker, and the four Atlantic Provinces have committed to join together and do this analysis together.

There has been a long-standing committee of Atlantic Heads of Corrections who meet regularly to discuss issues relating to corrections. By working together, this group is able to pool resources and do in-depth analyses, which is mutually beneficial for all Atlantic Provinces. It also allows them as a group to compare data with the larger provinces such as Ontario and Quebec.

This working group, Mr. Speaker, of the Atlantic Heads of Corrections is currently reviewing the projected costs associated with criminal law amendments. It has held face-to-face meetings as well as numerous teleconference calls. Following a review of recent and proposed criminal law amendments, the working group is now examining the issue with regard to the range of potential impacts on the Atlantic Provinces.

We have provided information along with the other provinces and this is currently being compiled. This information was gathered for the retrospective analysis which examines the impact of the legislative amendments. A consensus methodology for the prospective analysis will investigate the potential impacts of recently passed amendments to criminal law in Canada. This methodology is intended to be a very practical analysis.

Mr. Speaker, the central variables to be looked at are based on a number of admissions and the average length of sentence, and include five to ten years of data to examine any historical trends. Historical data was used to inform changes in sentencing practices for applicable offences affected by legislative change and to predict potential growth in the coming years. The goal of the predictive analysis is to determine how many offenders will be in custody in Atlantic Canada, and for how long.

In addition, at the federal-provincial-territorial meetings of Ministers of Justice in January, which I was pleased to attend, this topic resulted in some discussion. The federal ministers agreed on the need for continued collaborative dialogue in managing the shared FPT responsibility in criminal justice. The federal minister stated that the views of the provinces and the territories would be considered regarding the coming into force of amendments included in Bill C-10, and that the staggered implementation of amendments to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and the Controlled Drugs And Substances Act within a reasonable time will facilitate preparation for implementation for all jurisdictions.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that other provinces are in the process of making policy directions and initiatives in light of passing Bill C-10, and we will monitor what other jurisdictions are doing to determine if these initiatives would be applicable to our own circumstances in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are currently interested in reviewing such initiatives as Bill C-10 is being rolled out.

With respect to impact on prosecution, Mr. Speaker, we will also review our own discretionary policies as they relate to the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The hon. Member for Burgeo – La Poile, as a lawyer, would know that we have certain discretionary policies within our own prosecution and within the legislation itself; we will continue to review that, and we will continue to monitor the other jurisdictions in this regard, as I just pointed out.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice remains committed to ensuring the safety and security of individuals and communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. In April 2008, my department launched a review into the state of adult corrections in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was clear from the Decades of Darkness report that adult corrections had issues which needed to be addressed. I am certainly pleased with the progress that has been made on the recommendations contained within the Decades of Darkness report. In fact, seventy-six of the seventy-seven recommendations contained in the review have either been fully addressed, or are in various stages of progress. This report is a living document, Mr. Speaker, which will continue to guide and direct adult corrections well into the future. Approximately $7 million have been allocated towards adult corrections, since we received the report.

The improvements we have made have helped to revitalise the Adult Corrections Division of the Department of Justice to better meet the needs of inmates, corrections officials, and indeed, the general public. We are doing our part to ensure the corrections system in our Province continues to improve. Our government is committed to providing a correctional system that works for everyone, including employees and inmates, and we will continue to look at ways to ease inmate capacity as well as provide adequate facilities across the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I will have more to say on this later when I have the opportunity to address questions 13 and 14, which are also on the Order Paper.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I bring a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there is no cell service in Nunatsiavut; and

WHEREAS many individuals travel in close proximity to their respective communities and are subject to accidents and/or misdirection; and

WHEREAS cellphone coverage could well have prevented the death of young Burton Winters;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to work with the appropriate agencies to provide cell coverage to the Labrador North Coast.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, there are many areas in our Province that does have coverage, and I think we are all glad for it. It was indicated that, I believe it was 85 per cent coverage in our Province. As well pointed out by my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, there is a remaining percentage that does not have coverage, and one of those areas is Northern Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the telephone system in Northern Labrador is run by microwave towers and line of sight, and this is also how cell coverage works. The point I am making here, Mr. Speaker, is that the infrastructure is in place, it just needs to tie into service. I know that it does cost a significant amount of money; however, the infrastructure, as I said, is already there, it is already in place. Not only would cellphone coverage bring an increased capacity for development, which would be an investment as defined, but, Mr. Speaker, it would also help bring the North Coast of Labrador up to standards that most of the rest of the Province enjoy.

I humbly ask that all members of this House urge this government to push forward and to tie in the northern part of our Province, Mr. Speaker, with the rest by using the infrastructure that is already in place, and to work with it. It works well with the telephone communications and I see no reason why it could not work with cellphone coverage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to present a petition once again for the removal of the Englee fish plant.

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

WHEREAS the provincial government refuses to admit that they have a role to play in the removal of the condemned Englee fish plant; and

WHEREAS the Town of Englee has exhausted all avenues over the past seven years, lobbying government for removal; and

WHEREAS inaction has resulted in economic loss for the town, delay of new infrastructure and has become a concern of public safety as large debris has fallen into a major shipping route;

We the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to immediately order full removal and environmental clean up of this condemned property of former fish plant in order to restore public confidence in the system and settle land issues to permit new wharf development to provide residents of Englee with a mechanism to revitalize a presently devitalized economy.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. Sincerely, the undersigned.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite nice to hear the Minister of Environment Conservation highlight all the money that is being invested in site remediation when it becomes a health and safety concern for the public. That is certainly something that we are seeing in Englee, where we have an environmental assessment that was complete through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans federally, through public works. They have outlined a number of hazardous materials and chemicals, PCBs, things that are quite dangerous. The roof has collapsed. It is a grave environmental concern to contaminate our waterways, it is a main shipping route, and this is something that this government should really look at addressing. It is spending money in other sites doing the remediation and the removal. We have hindered an economy here and it is something that this government has not done all that it can do when it comes to looking at the appropriate site remediation. There are certain ecological risks. There is a social responsibility for doing this. It comes out of neglect from all the years, the past eight years. We have a structure that is completely in a deplorable condition.

I am not against having fish plants operable, but these two sites in Sandy Cove and Englee are calling for the removal. If the licence, and if the quotas associated with any licences, can be moved around to create regional opportunities, then certainly that is great. The people would like to see that. They would like to see the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture start working with the people of Englee again, and other areas, to see the action that is needed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition for anti-replacement worker legislation. To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS strikes and lockouts are rare, and on average 97 per cent of collective agreements are negotiated without work disruption; and

WHEREAS anti- temporary replacement workers laws have existed in Quebec since 1978, and in British Columbia since 1993, and successive governments in those provinces have never repealed those laws; and

WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement workers legislation has reduced the length and divisiveness of labour disputes; and

WHEREAS the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or a lockout is damaging to the social fabric of a community, the local economy, and the well-being of residents, as evident by the recent use of temporary replacement workers by Ocean Choice International and by Vale in Voisey's Bay;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or a lockout.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, petitioners today are from Spaniard's Bay, Port au Port, Indian Bay, Holyrood, Gambo, Carbonear, Broad Cove, Torbay, Colliers, Northern Bay, Job's Cove, Burnt Point, Broad Cove, Trinity Bay, and St. John's.

Members will recall that Vale used scab labour during two different labour disruptions at Voisey's Bay. The first strike was two months long and the second was far longer, eighteen months, and that ended only after an industrial inquiry commission was called at the time and appointed to find a resolution to the dispute. It is clear that these labour disputes were exasperated by the use of replacement workers, by scab labour. With anti-scab legislation, we would more likely see fewer strikes and shorter labour disruptions. There would be a less likelihood for aggressive and potential violent confrontations at the site of labour disruptions, and provide for a greater labour stability in the Province, Mr. Speaker. There could be more trust and more economic security as a result, and provide an even playing field for both workers and employers.

I encourage the members to urge the government to act on the concerns of these petitioners as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

WHEREAS in the District of The Straits – White Bay North, despite the $4 million Rural Broadband Initiative announced on December 22, 2011, only one community, Ship Cove, is slated for broadband coverage; and

WHEREAS the communities of Pines Cove, Eddies Cove East, Bide Arm, North Boat Harbour, L'Anse aux Meadows, Great Brehat, St. Carols, Goose Cove, Grandois, and St. Anthony Bight still remain without services; and

WHEREAS many small businesses within the district rely on Internet to conduct business; and –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: – WHEREAS broadband Internet permits a business to be more competitive than the slower dial-up service; and

WHEREAS broadband Internet enhances primary, secondary, post-secondary, and further educational opportunities;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to reinvest in the rural broadband initiatives in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to highlight that the RED Board in my district, the Nordic Economic Development Corporation, really spearheaded getting rural broadband. They made sure that thirty-six communities on the Northern Peninsula tapped into the BRAND initiative by the federal government. Seventy per cent of that funding came from the federal government. The Province, the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development at the time, committed only $85,000. The remainder was made up by the provider.

Mr. Speaker, if the Province at the time had committed more money, then we would not have seen such a scattered demographic and pockets of broadband coverage in some of the communities like Pines Cove, Eddies Cove East, Bide Arm, and L'Anse aux Meadows would have gotten coverage. We would not have to be spending millions of dollars to try to fill these gaps right now. It is something that comes at a time when it is too little, too late. If you do not put the investment in early and have a strategic plan when it comes to telecommunications services, the people of the Province, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, are certainly going to pay for it. We are certainly seeing that.

Now, with cutbacks to the RED Boards, where are we going to see a lead agency that is going to take on, pressing and pressing to ensure that rural broadband initiatives are taken in Newfoundland and Labrador? The CRTC is going to demand that coverage be taken all across Canada and that we get 100 per cent coverage for broadband Internet. This is something the Province is going to have to come to grasp with, and $2 million in Budget 2012, Mr. Speaker, is not going to cut it.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 1, that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just have few minutes left, so I will finish up my debate from a few days ago. Of course, one of the pressing issues – because there are many issues that are facing the Province, especially in light of all the cuts that we are seeing by the federal government right across the Province, and right across the country; I do not know if it seems like we always get hit harder here in Newfoundland and Labrador, or it is just our perspective on how we look at things when it comes to losing services that we rely upon so very heavily.

Mr. Speaker, over the past number of weeks and months we have constantly seen a cut of services from a federal perspective in Newfoundland and Labrador, obviously downloading more on communities, more on regions, and more on the provincial government. While, Mr. Speaker, we wish that there was another way, we also know that we have a responsibility to fight back and lobby for better services and better treatment, but also to be able to step up and ensure that we can maintain the integrity of a lot of these programs and services.

When I look at things like CAP sites, for instance – I have a number of them in my district, they have been ongoing for a number of years, almost twenty years in some cases – these particular sites are very critical in communities where there is no other high-speed Internet access for people to be able to communicate and access the outside world. I look at things, Mr. Speaker, like the outreach employment offices that have been in districts like mine; fourteen of those offices have closed across the Province in the last year alone. These were front-line services for people in all of our communities who need to get access to Old Age Security programs, Canada Pension programs, Income Supplement programs, all services that are offered by the federal government and delivered, at one time, as close as you could to the people that needed it; even then, it was hours away driving distance. Now those services are not going to exist anymore, leaving rural Canadians, Mr. Speaker, and people in our own Province with nowhere to turn to get access, other than a machine at the end of a telephone when they dial a 1-800 number, and that is not acceptable either.

Mr. Speaker, more so than that, we have seen cuts that could endanger the lives of people in our Province, cuts to marine safety services like we are seeing in St. Anthony right now. I listened to Dwayne Cull on the radio a few days ago talking about how devastated he was to see the marine radio services being taken out of his community. I know the people in my district use that service a lot, especially those who are going 100 miles offshore to fish on a regular basis. That is their landline. That is their lifeline in terms of something happening and reporting any events that could occur when they are that far away from home on the sea in some pretty harsh conditions at times.

Mr. Speaker, I look at search and rescue and how important that is to the people of our Province, how critical it is to saving the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. How many times have we seen it? How many times have we seen a boat lost at sea where they have been able to pick up that phone and make that call, where you had people at the end of the line who could dispatch the services that were required immediately because they understood the geography, they understood the landscape, they understood the dialect; they were able to respond to what was a critical situation where time was of the very essence in saving those particular lives.

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing from the federal government today is a complete disservice to the people of this Province. What we have seen in the response to the Burton Winters tragedy was totally inadequate and would not be tolerated in any other parts of this country, I would suggest to members. We have been encouraging the provincial government to step up, to act on behalf of the people of this Province, to do a full inquiry into search and rescue. Do not wait until we have another disaster. Do not wait until another life is lost. Do what is the best thing to do, the most positive thing to do, Mr. Speaker, and that is to do a public inquiry.

The Premier has said time and time again the responses that they have received from Peter MacKay have been inadequate. They have said time and time again that there are gaps in the information. They have said that there was bad judgment calls on behalf of the people who were in place to make decisions. How can the Premier stand in her place and say those things day after day but not want to do an inquiry into what happened? How can we correct it? Where did we go wrong?

We have been served well by inquiries in this Province. I look at the Cameron Inquiry, because I was one of the people in this House of Assembly, and Hansard will show, who stood every single day asking the government of the time, of which many of you were a part of, for an inquiry into the ER-PR testing, the faulty hormone testing. Every day you stood and said there was no need to do an inquiry. After weeks and weeks you come to realize that the inquiry was warranted. As a result, there were sixty recommendations that were passed down as a part of the Cameron Inquiry. These recommendations have served to improve the health of women and men in this Province. They have served to restore confidence in our health system. There is no downside to this inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier stood day after day and said she had written the federal government, written Peter MacKay. Today, she tables in the House correspondence, and not one letter from the Premier of this Province, not one. She stood and mocked my leader because he was not there when I went in to meet with Peter MacKay in Ottawa, although he did show up immediately after; he was there and he got to speak to minister, Mr. Speaker. He did not come back and deceive anyone. The Premier stood day after day and said: I have written Peter MacKay, and I have written the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

MS JONES: Not one letter has she signed that she has tabled here today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Every letter came from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker, so if the Premier has letters that she claims she has written, it is time for her to table them in the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand here today and speak t Budget 2012 that is aptly entitled, I believe, People and Prosperity – Responsible Investments for a Secure Future.

Mr. Speaker, as you can tell from the rhetoric that is happening here on the floor of the House – before I get to that, I think I need to address some of what we have been hearing as it relates to what it is that we are talking about, generally speaking.

What we are talking about when we talk about this Budget is we are talking about vision. We are talking about leadership, and yet I hear the person from the other side of the House stand just before me and criticize the leadership that we have been exhibiting on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and that is unacceptable.

When we are standing here to talk about the Budget of Newfoundland and Labrador, and she stands and simply criticizes for the sake of simply criticizing –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS SULLIVAN: – or criticizing for the sake of political gain, Mr. Speaker, I find that totally unacceptable. If we want to talk about leadership, then let's really look at leadership here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask all members for their co-operation, please.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about leadership here in the House, if that is what she wants to talk about during the Budget, then let us talk about leadership here. That is exactly where I am going to go at this particular point in time, because the skills that we have seen, the vision that we have seen, what we experience and what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador experience in terms of the leadership of this Party, and in particular of our Premier, Mr. Speaker, is exemplary.

Not just today, but in the nine years that our Premier has represented this Province in all of the roles, in all of her portfolios, we have seen nothing but exemplary leadership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, let us just take a few minutes to look at some of that: the energy plan that has been developed for this Province, for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to take us into the future, to secure for us the kind of future that we all want for our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, the architect of that energy plan was our current leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: The architect of that plan that will develop for us where it is that we need to be going was the then-Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is leadership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, that particular plan sets out for us a vision and a direction that is going to lead us well into the future and that is going to deliver on the promise of a secure future for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.

There are many other ways that we can talk about leadership in terms of what it is that this government has to offer. Of course, we all know that has been the choice of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador three consecutive terms now, Mr. Speaker; three huge majorities were returned and returned and returned – three times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Why? Because we have good leadership, Mr. Speaker, because we have that vision; it is that vision that underscores everything that we do over here. This is about looking at opportunities, Mr. Speaker. This is about finding a way forward, yes, in difficult times, but it is not about bending to political whim.

Time and time again, when we sit around our caucus table, when we sit around our Cabinet table, Mr. Speaker, time and time again we are reminded by our leader that if we are going to have success in this Province – and the other parties might want to take some note of this – if we are going to have success, we are going to have success because we go back to the touchstones and the values that brought us here in the first place. Those values have to do with being true to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not about making political decisions, not about grandstanding, not about saying what you think people might want to hear, because sometimes, Mr. Speaker, decisions are tough. The easy decisions anyone can make, but when it comes to making principled, sound decisions in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, let me tell you, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were 100 per cent correct when they chose this Premier. I have no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, let us just highlight a few more examples of why it is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been so right so many times. Mr. Speaker, this government has a track record of supporting people in Newfoundland and Labrador when they need support. Particularly when times are tough, Mr. Speaker, and we have seen evidence of that a number of times. When we look at what happened in Stephenville, Mr. Speaker, when we see that a mill like AbitibiBowater pulled out of Stephenville, left people high and dry there in Stephenville, this government came forward and said, we understand where you are, we understand what is happening out there. We will appoint a ministerial task force and we are going to work with you and we are going to make a difference. Well, guess who chaired that ministerial task force, Mr. Speaker? It was the then Minister of Natural Resources, or I think maybe INTRD at that time, and the current Premier of the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, look at Stephenville today. Stephenville is a thriving, prosperous community.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who would have thought?

MS SULLIVAN: Who would have thought that could have happened after that point in time is absolutely correct. That area of the Province, that region of the Province is thriving. Mr. Speaker, it is thriving because of leadership, it is thriving because of vision, it is thriving because people on this side of the House were able to see opportunity, were able to work through difficult times, see opportunity, and under the guidance of our Premier were able to find the right opportunities to make that area of the Province prosperous once again. That, Mr. Speaker, is leadership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I look back and I see my colleague up here from Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, and she can tell a story about the difficult times that were experienced in her area of the Province.

If we recall the Open Line shows, day after day after day that said, you have to find a way to renew the traditional fishery down here. You have to find a way to keep us on track doing what we always did down here. Well, Mr. Speaker, again, we are talking about difficult decisions that had to be made, because that was not the right decision. That was not the way to go. That would have been the easy way to go but it was not going to be sustainable, Mr. Speaker. It was not going to take the people of the Coast of Bays to where they are today. Where are they today, Mr. Speaker? They are at a point where they are exceptionally successful. The whole area of the Coast of Bays is alive, and they are seeing progress like they never saw before. Why is it, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to stop and consider once again? Because this government, with this vision, and with this Premier who once again played a huge role in that, Mr. Speaker, went there and supported the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, again, it is not about making the easy decision, it is not about making that decision that says, let's run out there and do what we think ought to be done right now for political reasons. It is not about that, and, Mr. Speaker, no one knows that better than I do.

I know that from my experience in Grand Falls-Windsor – Buchans and the whole of the Central region, Mr. Speaker. When AbitibiBowater pulled out of Grand Falls-Windsor, let me tell you that was a difficult day, that was an exceptionally difficult day. The days and the weeks and the months that followed were exceptionally difficult, Mr. Speaker, were very, very hard for the people of that region.

We had men, Mr. Speaker, primarily, there were some women in that mill but primarily men in that mill who did not know where to turn, who did not know where the next cheque was going to come from, who did not know how they were going to survive. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not a real easy thing to face when you are the MHA in the area and you are representing the area. When you are the government of the area, that is not very easy to face either.

Mr. Speaker, AbitibiBowater made their choice and they left. We said to them – under the guidance again of the Minister of Natural Resources, the current Premier, we said to them, we are not going to let you go. We are going to be with you, we are going to walk this journey with you, we are going to find a way forward and we are not going to take the cheap, easy decisions to do it either, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Where are they today? It is one of the most prosperous communities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MS SULLIVAN: That is right, I hear my colleague behind me commenting. This area of the Province, the town that I know and love and am so proud of, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most prosperous areas and is enduring and enjoying one of the most prosperous times it ever had. The reason is because we were there for them, Mr. Speaker. We carried the day and we will continue to do that.

Forty-three million dollars in severance, Mr. Speaker, that they never would have seen from AbitibiBowater, never would have seen; $100 million pumped into the area overall to make a difference. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because this government has vision, because this Premier, the minister at the time, was able to say we will lead the way for you. We will show you how to get there.

Mr. Speaker, there was opportunity on many occasions to sell out. There was opportunity to make a decision that could have seen the use of the fibre out there given away, given to a particular company here, there or anyway. Again, we do not make the real easy decisions. We make measured decisions, Mr. Speaker. We make decisions that are going to see to the long term, to the sustainable future of a region, Mr. Speaker. That is what we have been doing in Grand Falls-Windsor and we will continue to do.

Mr. Speaker, our region of the Province is going to survive. I invite members opposite to come out not just on Labour Day, Mr. Speaker, or not just during election time. Come out; come and see all of the excitement that exists in that town. Come out and see that the retail sales that are happening out there are beyond where they were when the mill was operating. Come out and see that residential –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS SULLIVAN: He is coming – good.

Come out and see that all of the economic indictors that can make a difference in the community are evident in every way. Take a drive down to Harmsworth area, take a drive up to Peddle Drive, and take a drive down to the Grenfell area, all brand new areas of the Province, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS SULLIVAN: Again, I need to point out to you that the reason for it is not simply because it happened. It is because of leadership, Mr. Speaker. It is because of vision. So when I hear members opposite stand every now and then and say there is no leadership over here, I want to point out to you that you are very short ‘visioned' in that; you are not seeing it. This Premier has vision; this Premier has displayed it over and over and over again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I hear some talk about the cuts from Ottawa. We understand that. You do not have a monopoly on that. We get it. We understand and feel the cuts that are happening, just like anybody else does, Mr. Speaker. We are looking to find our way forward there too. We invite you to join us; not be critical, but join with us to make a difference there. Are you contacting your Liberal friends up there? Are you contacting your NDP friends in Ottawa? You sent them there. What are they doing for us?

Now, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we have tried just about everything that we can think of. We have tried from the perspective of arguing with them, of fighting with them, of being the fighting Newfoundlander, Mr. Speaker, the ABC campaign, let's take down the flag. What did that get us? Tell us what that got for us.

Mr. Speaker, while that was happening, we were hearing people on the other side of the House saying to us do not be doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS SULLIVAN: How are you going to make your way forward if you continue to do that? How are you ever going to be heard in Ottawa if you continue to do that? That was the criticism they levelled over here when that was the approach that we took. Mr. Speaker, now we try the other approach. We are trying the power of our arguments. We are trying to be in the room. We are trying to make a difference. Now, Mr. Speaker, the criticism is: What are you doing? You are not standing up for us. How do we win with you people? What is it you really want, or do you know?

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province know though. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador know and that is why they elected the Premier they elected. That is why they rejected that side of the House –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: – and then said this is the Premier we want. This is the leadership we want. We know that in the end she will prevail, because, Mr. Speaker, we have seen evidence of that so many times.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the MPs?

MS SULLIVAN: What about the MPs I am hearing some of my colleagues asking. I do not know what about the MPs. What are they doing? I am looking for those answers too. What are they doing? They were elected to go to Ottawa but what are they doing, what have they accomplished for us to this point in time? Nothing that I am able to hear – absolutely nothing that I am able to hear.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I would want to see – and hope that it will happen at some point in time – is that we will come to a point where we recognize and at least we are able to say to each other the way forward is not the easy way, the way forward is a measured approach to how we make a difference. That is what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want, Mr. Speaker. They showed us that in the last election. They do not like nasty, they do not like criticism, and they do not like going after the jugular. What they want is measured, sound, organized approaches to the problems of Newfoundland and Labrador. They want research; they want us to find a way forward.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS SULLIVAN: As somebody said, they do not want us to be seen holding hands and singing necessarily as we have seen in a few places and a few protests. That does not work, Mr. Speaker. Not that we should not stand up, Mr. Speaker, we are not saying that at all. We are saying for heaven's sake, let us let experience be the teacher here; let us let experience show us what we can do. Mr. Speaker, our experience has shown us that when we take that measured approach, when we follow the leadership that we have seen from our current Premier over the last number of issues that we faced in this Province, then we are going to see a difference.

Mr. Speaker, it is not happening like that; it never does. It did not happen like that in Grand Falls-Windsor, it did not happen like that in Stephenville, and it did not happen like that in the Harbour Breton area. It happens when we take the time to sit down and to work it through. Mr. Speaker, that is what we are doing here in all of these issues.

Mr. Speaker, if you think about some of the accomplishments of this government that are reflected in this particular Budget because it means that we have monies to spend. I want to talk about the mining industry; I want to talk about the oil and gas industry a little bit and the leadership that has been shown here in this Province. What we see here and what we are experiencing here are some of the best rewards that have ever come from the proper use of these resources.

Let's think about the royalty regimes, for example, that have been negotiated – and negotiated by who, I might point out, Mr. Speaker?

MR. O'BRIEN: By the current Premier.

MS SULLIVAN: Exactly. My colleagues are helping me here because it is so obvious. They are negotiated by our current Premier; some of the best royalty regimes ever seen in this Province, heralded by many around the country –

MR. O'BRIEN: In the Province? In the world.

MS SULLIVAN: That is exactly right, heralded by many, but again done under the watchful eye of our current Premier.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something else. The women of Newfoundland and Labrador get it. The women of Newfoundland and Labrador understand experience and they understand how differences can be made when we sit and make a difference. Let's look at some of the things that have happened in this particular Province in relation to women's issues.

One of the things that we have to talk about first of all would be the real gender equity agreement that allow women to take their place in the economy, in the society, and their place in Newfoundland and Labrador as they could never contemplate having done before.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is about time.

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, about time is right, as I hear one of my colleagues saying. It did not just happen, Mr. Speaker. That was something that was worked at, that was fostered, that was designed, and that was promoted by our current leader, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, that is why the people of this Province have chosen this government to be here because they really do recognize leadership when they see leadership. There is no question about that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I had intended to talk a fair bit about the Budget itself, but having been thrown off by the speaker who spoke before me, in terms of talking about lack of leadership. I really thought it was time that we did a lesson here in terms of what leadership really does look like. That is a very small portion of what I can point out in terms of what leadership looks like.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to end with this. When we sat down then to do the Budget this year, we knew were facing deficit. We knew what was coming over the next year or so. We knew we had to make some hard choices, but this government is not afraid of hard choices, Mr. Speaker. So we made some hard choices, but as we sat around the table to make those decisions, there was one thing that was immediately evident to all of us. That was the Premier's resolve to make sure that the cuts we had to make, the decisions that we had to make were clearly balanced and were clearly couched in the credo that what we do has to be the best thing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

She looked at me at that time and said: In terms of health care, do not impact the front lines. The front lines of health care are so important. We have to be concerned about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I heard her say to the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services: Minister, you have to get this right, because our children are our most important resource. Our children are precious, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, that is leadership. At a time when we know we have to be so fiscally prudent and responsible, direction was given to make sure that the areas where we focused were going to mean a meaningful, a profitable future for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially our children and our grandchildren, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the lesson on leadership has only just begun here. I think the members opposite need to work with us, to understand that working with us is what moves us forward, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you so much. This Province is in good hands with the Leader…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to rise once more in the House to speak to the Budget. The title, People and Prosperity carries with it a promise; a promise of prosperity and a promise of a Budget that is focused on the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, putting people first. The title promises that the focus is on people.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that prosperity equals success. It is the condition of enjoying wealth, success or good fortune. We have seen great growth in many areas in our Province in the past decade. As a result of that, we have seen investment in infrastructure and programs that help us with our day-to-day living, with some of the larger basic tools that we need in order to get on with life. Now is not the time to stop. Now is not the time to simply tread water or to stay in place, because to do so, in fact, means losing ground.

Many of our average working families are scrambling in their daily lives. The are trying to cope with the demands of modern-day life, trying to balance family life, work, budgets, scrambling to find affordable daycare for their children, care for the elderly members of their families or the infirm, trying to find affordable housing. Mr. Speaker, this Budget does not deliver on the promise to them. This Budget stops us in our tracks rather than continuing to compel us forward into a fully modern society that invests strongly in its citizens and provides supports and services that allows each and every citizen, each and everyone of us, to get on with it, to be part of both creating and sharing in our collective prosperity.

In this time of prosperity, what do the people of Newfoundland and Labrador need? What do we all have a right to expect? Because this prosperity does not belong to the government but to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador – all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - what would make sense in a Budget focused on prosperity and people? Prosperity is not just about amounts of money invested, but it is about whether those investments are good, sound investments, investments that bring returns. We know that – we all know that. So, to assess whether the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: – investments in this Budget are good, sound investments, one must look at the returns it brings to the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is undeniable that great gains have been made in several areas for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador over the last decade. People, prosperity, and to add to that, pride – when we have pride in ourselves as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, then we invest in ourselves because we know we are worth it; we know that it is worth it. It is the responsibility of legislators to direct the resources and prosperity of the Province to address the needs of the people in order to facilitate and enable all of us to live fully, and to participate fully to each and everyone's full capacity.

This Budget, to deliver on its promise, should be delivering programs and services that are for the collective good of the people of this Province. It should be relieving some of the incredible burdens that people carry that prevent them from fully participating in our society. In health care, we need universal home care. We need publicly-funded, administered home care. Because the people of this Province want it, they need it, and they have a right to it. There is no longer any valid reason to deny the people of Newfoundland and Labrador this basic service, a service that is available in other provinces. This is possible, attainable, and all it takes is political will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has asked for order now several times. If members continue to be disruptive, I will have no choice but to name them by the district. So I would ask all members for their co-operation, please.

The Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A universal, publicly-funded, and administrated home care program would generate employment. It would free up families to carry on with their work and with their lives. It would ease overburdens on more expensive hospital services and long-term facilities, thereby actually saving the Province money. It would allow seniors and the infirm the dignity to have choices on how and where they will live. The benefits far outweigh the costs, and we all know this to be true. It has been proven to be true in several jurisdictions.

I would like to tell the story of a few people in my district. Rose Marie, a woman in her early fifties with severe diabetes, had one of her legs removed and then a year later had her other leg removed. Confined to a wheelchair, living in her house alone and could not get the full amount of home care that she needed in order to be able to live in her home, but decided to anyways; and, at night, somehow has to figure out how to get herself around in her home, how to get herself in and out of her bed, while she was convalescing. Mr. Speaker, she could have gone to live in a much more expensive long-term care facility rather than living in her home and being independent with just a little more help – far more economical to the Province, far more humane to the Province.

Bradley, a young man who uses a wheelchair who is deaf, who is a talented artist, who needed just a few more hours of assistance to help him live independently at home, but it was denied. Today, he called and informed us that he is heading off to Ontario where he knows that there will be more support and better opportunities for him.

Mr. Rose, in his early eighties, his wife with Alzheimer's, when I visited him last he was worn out trying to care for his wife in his home, but it is what they wanted. With a universal home care program, it would be more possible. He was worn out trying to find and hire and supervise and pay for home care. It was breaking him.

Mr. Speaker, this is not what prosperity looks like. So many families in Newfoundland and Labrador have had family members who have had to move away for work or education, thus leaving a smaller family support system in place. Our elderly and infirm can no longer rely on immediate family members to be their caregivers. Also, we have the fastest growing aging population in the country. We have to develop a new innovative, comprehensive, and more cost-effective way of addressing the home care needs of this growing population. In the far run and in the future, it is more humane and it saves us money.

Seniors; there are but crumbs for seniors in this Budget. We need a universal pharmacare program for our seniors. The present systems falls short. What kind of prosperous society has seniors sixty-five plus worrying about how they are going to pay for medication they may need that keeps them alive. The cut-off ceiling for the drug card is a little more than $16,000. With the increase in the cost of living, food, housing, transportation, and heating, $16,000 as a ceiling for eligibility is way too low. The Access program is simply not comprehensive enough, particularly if you are just on the borders of eligibility. This is 2012; in a time of prosperity our programs should and can do better than this. We can afford more than crumbs for our seniors.

In the area of housing, in the Budget document The Economy 2012, in the Real Estate section, the government boasts, "The residential housing market remained strong in 2011. Housing demand reflected solid economic conditions, low interest rates, optimism about future major projects and growth in a number of households." It sounds like a good thing. It also states, "Housing starts and residential sales activity remained high and residential prices reached record levels. The residential rental market remained strong in 2011 with low vacancy rates…" and stronger rates. It goes on to say, "It is expected that improved labour markets, positive net-migration and higher housing prices will continue to keep vacancy rates low…" – the average of 1 per cent to 0.9 per cent Province-wide – "…and exert upward pressure on rents."

In this context, Mr. Speaker, what exactly does a strong market in housing mean? Strong for whom? For working families who are trying to find housing? For the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian needing affordable shelter for their family? Increased costs for the purchase of housing, increased costs for rental in housing. Lower vacancy rates do not mean a strong situation for the working poor, for the moderate-income working families of our Province. As a matter of fact, it causes great challenges and causes great economic burdens for these families.

When housing is so affected by resource development and will worsen or get better this year, depending on where you sit, government must play a role to assist those in low and medium incomes in their housing needs and in their housing affordability. There is nothing in this Budget to help folks who are challenged by the volatile housing market.

The government in the Blue Book promised to provide a program of home ownership assistance for low-income owners. In Estimates, the Minister of Transportation and Works said there is no timeline and no Budget allocated for this initiative. This initiative is but a passing, fleeting thought or a hollow promise. There is no plan. There is nothing substantial. There is nothing concrete.

Now more than ever, with this volatile housing market, we need a division of housing to address the housing-need issues Province-wide to establish policies and plans. Groups and individuals working in the area of affordable housing have been asking for this. They are the experts out there in the area. They see the incredible challenges that are faced by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians Province-wide trying to get housing.

There are a number of sound housing proposals for affordable housing projects for seniors and people with complex needs that were left over from the last federal-provincial Affordable Housing Initiative. People in the field are asking this government to do bridge financing so as to not lose ground, so that those who have worked so hard and expertly to create these proposals can move forward. This would be a great investment.

Family debt ratio is growing because of the high cost of housing, the high cost of child care, the high cost of living, and young families who are carrying student loans, all of whose rate of increase has surpassed the rate of increase of their incomes. The real wages of middle-income earners have gone down because they have not kept up with the rising cost of living. The Consumer Index has risen. Families have less money to live on and are carrying increased debt loads.

Then they scramble for child care. They scramble to put the names of their children on wait lists, paying minimally $800 per month per child, making it unaffordable for some families who want to work. There is no justifiable reason in this day to not have a publicly funded and administered universal early child care program. There is no justification. There is no good reason. To place the burden on working families to try to figure it out and make it work is wasteful, to say the least. We need to move beyond this piecemeal approach. This is not prosperity. Our role is to do whatever we can to make sure we put the resources in place so that people can be as strong and as stable as possible so that they can, every citizen, participate in the working economy of our Province.

Now is not the time to stop our movements forward. Now is the time to take us even further, to capitalize on our successes and our prosperity. People in the fisheries, people in their fifties and sixties, people who left school at fourteen or fifteen years of age to go on the water or to work in the plants, for those who are adversely affected by the closure of the plants, we need a real adjustment plan for workers who are affected by permanently closed fish plants. Not just a piecemeal approach, but a real adjustment plan that helps them get on with their lives.

With the environment, we need a full, comprehensive retrofit residential program for all citizens, not just for low-income earners, and a full, comprehensive retrofit program for commercial buildings that will take us again into the future. This has proven to be a sustainable and economically feasible investment in other jurisdictions. It saves consumers on energy costs and it creates jobs. It creates solid, sustainable jobs in a new economy.

In our arts and cultures; we know that for every dollar invested in the arts and culture sector that four more dollars are generated. This makes sense. Now is not the time to hold back in our arts and cultures; our arts and culture is a viable industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: In the area of justice, we have antiquated, inadequate prisons, bare minimal programming for rehabilitation and training of prisoners. Her Majesty's Penitentiary, our largest prison facility, has no room to house the programs that we need in order to help rehabilitate our inmates. We have physically inaccessible courthouses. Citizens are not able to fully access justice because of costs, because of the eligibility ceiling for Legal Aid is too low. So people either represent themselves or go broke hiring someone.

The increase of self-representation in our legal system is having a negative spin-off effect on our justice system itself. Case law is not being brought forth, nor challenged, and therefore our law itself is not being modernized. A thoroughly modern justice system that includes a mental health court and an addictions court, with the appropriate supports and services, can help us stop locking up folks again and again in expensive institutions that do not address their needs, that are not built to address their needs, and are not responsive to the needs of these people. We have to make sure that people get treatment so they can live fully and participate in society.

Our Poverty Reduction Strategy needs to be amended to be a poverty elimination strategy. If there is still a commitment to this strategy, a director must be appointed. That position has been vacant for almost a year now.

Mr. Speaker, why would we not use this time of prosperity to develop services and programs that enable all of us to live together and facilitate the possibility of each and every person to participate more fully in society? These recommendations are for the long term. They are about sustaining us all.

What level of prosperity will it take for this government to move forward on some of these basic needs and rights that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been asking for? This is not doom, this is not gloom. This is hope and this is optimism. It is hope and optimism, Mr. Speaker, because we believe that this can be done. We believe in a present and a future where these basic needs are the rights of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that together we can do this. We have the resources. All that is needed is a political will and a commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; $646 million for Muskrat Falls put aside just in case; $2.2 billion in cash assets tucked away just in case. If ever there was a time, Mr. Speaker, to compel us forward, to equip us all so that we could all do this, it is now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, leave to wrap up.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Are there any other speakers?

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: The members of the Third Party here – Mr. Speaker, can you give me some protection?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I say to the members of the Third Party, they have come a long way from –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I am floored. Just a few short months ago, Mr. Speaker, if you watched the evening news during the election there were clowns running around, they were handing out cans of orange juice, orange drink and oranges. It was all about love, hope and faith, Mr. Speaker. Now, they have gotten right nasty, Mr. Speaker. They have gotten saucy somehow along the way.

The Leader of the Third Party just stormed to her feet, Mr. Speaker. Something happened since the juggling, the love and the hope speeches, Mr. Speaker. I do not know, I do not feel the love here today, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do not feel the love here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I have to point out. Before I get in, I have a few things I want to say about a couple of the parties opposite. I cannot let it go, Mr. Speaker.

We just heard the hon. Member for St. John's Centre stand to her feet, and individual things that she is saying, there is nothing really bad about it. This party believes in a lot of what she is saying, Mr. Speaker; however, there has to be a bottom line. She started off by talking about universal home care. Mr. Speaker, we believe in home care. Tens of millions of dollars a year we invest in home care; however, she believes it should be free for everyone. Mr. Speaker, when people make these statements, the benefits outweigh the costs. Now that is an interesting statement: the benefits outweigh the costs, which means that there is no cost, keep writing the cheques, spend as much money as you possibly can on universal home care.

Mr. Speaker, the next thing was universal home care. Again, Mr. Speaker, we put tens of millions of dollars into drug programs in this Province.

MS SULLIVAN: It was $155 million.

MR. FRENCH: It is $155 million, the Minister of Health tells me. Yet, Mr. Speaker, that is not enough. We have not been spending enough, which is fine. That is the member's opinion, we have not spent enough.

Then they went on to housing. We should be now buying houses for people because the economy is going well, housing costs are going up. The hon. member, I guess she is suggesting we shut the taps off out on the oilfields, we shut that down. We cannot develop oil because the prices of houses are going to go up.

Mr. Speaker, the whole thought of the argument – here we go, she is warming up again. The love and hope is gone again, Mr. Speaker. I do not feel the love coming here now.

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason I get out the big calculator every day. I should table that here in the House so the hon. members –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Do I have permission to table the calculator, Mr. Speaker, so the hon. members could add up what they cost? We went on to say publicly-funded child care – Mr. Speaker, I have children myself. I have a child in daycare today - hopefully, unless he ran away, which I hope he has not. He is capable of it, but he is in child care right now today, Mr. Speaker, in daycare that we pay for. Yes, there are a lot of people who could use extra subsidies in daycare.

Mr. Speaker, that is a $300 million or $400 million bill to have a totally publicly-funded child care system, so now we are into another $300 million or $400 million. Mr. Speaker, we are right now faced with a $258 million deficit. Because of the leadership of the current Premier, we have managed to do the things that we are doing in the best possible way with the finances we have available while running that minor deficit, Mr. Speaker.

If the crowd opposite ever get into power, Mr. Speaker, it will be simply what happened in Ontario. They will have them for three years and they will have to throw them out because they will have deficits that they will never be able to handle. Mr. Speaker, I am as left-leaning and as red a Tory as possibly you can find. It is unbelievable, this hon. crowd. They want more for Arts and Culture Centres, Mr. Speaker. We have taken the arts and culture program in this Province from a pittance to tens of millions of dollars to what it is today, Mr. Speaker. I cannot remember the exact number but I am sure my colleague would tell me. It is 100 or a couple of hundred per cent increase since we formed government, Mr. Speaker.

Then it was the revamp and the Poverty Reduction Strategy; $150 million investment, Mr. Speaker, by this government, heralded throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, I could not go without mentioning all these things. Individually, they are wonderful things, but, Mr. Speaker, somebody has to pay for them. If we want to make our children and our grandchildren pay for them, for us to have them today, Mr. Speaker, then that is the belief of that party. That is not the belief of this party, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier, and I cannot let my friends of the Official Opposition go. I have kind of left them alone for most of this session because the Third Party are so tempting for me, Mr. Speaker, because of their lack of respect for the all-mighty dollar. As a friend of mine says the all-mighty Queen. You have to know where the Queen is all the time. Mr. Speaker, the Third Party forget about the Queen altogether.

I could not let the Official Opposition go; I have been letting them go a bit too much this time. It has been affecting me in the last couple of weeks because they have done nothing but challenge the leadership of this party. There is a lesson here when you talk about leadership and it is one that I would like to point out.

There was nothing more obvious than the first question that came out of the Leader of the Opposition's mouth today; it was about a meeting. Was the Premier speaking to the federal minister in Ottawa and did she ask him this and did she ask him that? Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this Province has regular contact with federal ministers. When the time comes up, we will now be having a meeting with the Prime Minister and sharing many, many concerns.

I tell you what the Premier of this Province does not do, Mr. Speaker, which the Official Opposition did very, very recently. Mr. Speaker, you have to picture this now. Picture: the Opposition House Leader rallies the troops, the old leader, she gets all hands together and all hands worked up and she hauls in the current leader. Now, boy, we have to go to Ottawa, take on Ottawa. They are going to Ottawa – and they took the Member for Torngat too, I believe, with them. They board the plane, Sir, and all hands are savage – savage mad. I do not know if they are going start a war in Ottawa or what they were going to do, but they are gone and they are gone mad. Mr. Speaker, what should happen but the Opposition House Leader gets on the phone and gets a meeting with a federal Cabinet minister. Aha, now buddy, they got it; they got it knocked. We are going to see a federal Cabinet minister. They get to the meeting, Mr. Speaker, and the leader goes in with his chest out and right next to him is the Opposition House Leader and she says: Hang on now. You sit right there, and I will be out in a minute.

So, here is what happens now, Mr. Speaker – true story. She links into the federal minister, sir, into the office, has the big meeting, boy, never asked any of the questions she wanted asked. Got in there – I do not know if he cozied up to her and she went off her thoughts or what. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition was out in the office, must have been having a glass of water or drinking a cup of coffee or something; he never even went in to see him. He never met him, did not know who he was, never shook hands – yes, that is wrong. I believe the Opposition House Leader introduced him in the hallway after the meeting, Mr. Speaker. If we want to talk about leadership, let's compare apples to apples, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the ironic thing about this too is that the Opposition House Leader, she was leader herself one time. The Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, she was the leader of that party. Mr. Speaker, the old boys club came in like the dogs. They were having meetings in Toronto, they were having meetings in St. John's, they were having meetings all over the Province, the old boys club coming together, could not wait to get clear of her. Oh, half of them were candidates in the last election; I will get to that now in a second, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, you would not believe it how much they were out to get her. There was once where, one of the former members, she had to get in the paper and call him a nuisance that is how bad he was treating her, Mr. Speaker. He was on CBC Radio saying everything about her. He tried to become leader and did not quite make it, and I will get to that now in a second too, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, you have to go back and size up the leadership of the Opposition Party. The leadership of the Opposition Party is a great story. When they refer to the great leadership we have, we should examine what they have offered over the last few years, we will say. So we will go back. Tobin leaves and – bang! – Grimes comes in right off the bat. So Grimes comes in and stuck it out. He could not run and could not get elected. He hung around, got nasty, and got mean. First, he had a big scrap with John Efford. Who was it going to be?

Now, there were all kinds of things went on then. Danny Dumaresque – he ran in the last election, by the way. Here is a blast from the past – Danny Dumaresque. Now, what did he do? Now, Mr. Speaker, this is pretty funny. I am going to get to the Member for St. Barbe now. I cannot wait to get to him, so I better hurry on. That is the best one of all, the Member for St. Barbe.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, apparently there was a letter circulated on the floor of the Liberal Party Convention. Here was Grimes and Efford ready to eat one another. It was a close race. They almost did it. They almost ate one another. So, Mr. Speaker, it was a close race and Dumaresque circulates a letter. Grimes goes off his head. Grimes believed the letter said that Grimes, Brian Tobin, and Danny Williams were the best of buddies. That is what the letter said and that is why Dumaresque and Grimes fell out, over that letter. That is apparently what the letter said.

Now, when Grimes found out about that, he was not too impressed. I quote Mr. Grimes: I would never be able to sleep any one night in comfort knowing that I had the full support and confidence of a minister that Danny Dumaresque was the advisor of. Now, Mr. Speaker, imagine. That is something. He could not sleep at night.

Then what happened, Mr. Speaker, well, they were going down in the polls and they were going down fast. Poor old Roger went and apologized to Danny: Danny, I am sorry. I did not mean it. Yes, it was all right that we were the best of buddies, the three amigos, years ago, so do not worry about. He apologized. Dumaresque forgave him and life went on, Mr. Speaker. What should happen after all of that, of course, Grimes left kicking and screaming, I might add. He was Premier for a couple of years, went to the polls, and was thrown out in great embarrassment.

Then it was time for a Liberal leadership. This is where it gets good. Then it was time for a Liberal leadership. Who should put his name on the list but the Member for St. Barbe? He flies down and blows back from Toronto, Mr. Speaker. The man from Toronto is going to save us all, boy. It was some good that he came because we were really hoping that he would. Poor old Gerry gave it off to him, first off. Yes, my son, go on. It is good to see a fellow from Toronto take over and look after the crowd in Newfoundland and Labrador. We got a fellow from up in Toronto here.

So the first thing he says: We are going to have a two-tiered wage system. That was his first public policy statement. I wonder if the Member for St. Barbe still believes that, by the way. He was having a two-tiered minimum wage system. If you were under eighteen years of age, you got paid two dollars less. Now imagine, if you were seventeen, you got paid two dollars less than a fellow who was eighteen or nineteen; a young girl who is seventeen working in the same job as a man who is two years older, she gets two dollars less. Now, he believed in that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the ironic thing about it, even the Opposition, their comeback was: boy, we never heard about that before; we never heard about that before. Mr. Speaker, let us just say they did not like the idea. That is about the best way I can describe it, what they did not like.

He did not give up there, he did not give up there. In a Telegram article on April 25 of 2006 he made it quite clear: I have no intention of pulling this policy. So, he must still believe that policy, he must still believe in a two-tiered minimum wage, Mr. Speaker. That is all I can figure. Then he went on to say: listen here, the party, or my executive, does not decide the policy around here; I decide the policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: So, he did not care about his party. He is making the rules, Mr. Speaker. He is making rules over there, that fellow. This is the leadership of the Opposition, now, Mr. Speaker; we have to talk history and the quality of the leadership opposite. This is important. So, the best is yet to come, the best is yet to come on the Member for St. Barbe.

So, the Member for St. Barbe, he flies down from Toronto, going to save all of us poor Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker. Just as he starts to take over the job, some politician up in Ontario said, hey, do you know what he is doing? He is flying around Ontario on the government plane. Flying around Ontario, Sir, on the government plane, he was. No problems, empty seats on her; he said he did not have a problem with that; he can get aboard the government plane for free. The crowd up in Ontario was thrown out, I believe is why he ended up down here, not because – I do not know if he got the plane down here. He got the Ontario government plane flying around Ontario. I do not know if they brought him down here or not. They probably did, Mr. Speaker.

But anyway, he hitched a ride, we will say, on the government plane, Mr. Speaker. And this was his quote of the day; in the local paper of the time; his dismissed the issue, saying he was not surprised that they made a big deal of it, because he did not see it as that big a deal. His actual quote was: it is too trivial to be upset about, he said, too trivial to be upset about. Now, can you imagine?

Now, so, when he was pressed a little bit and said, so you would consider that a pretty minor issue; when he was asked, Mr. Speaker, if he would do the same into the future, you know what his comeback was? I quote, this was his comeback when asked: well, he said, maybe in two or three years time, I will be the Newfoundland and Labrador Premier, and we will use the Newfoundland and Labrador government plane. That is what he was going to do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: When he took over, he was going to buy a plane for scooting back and forth to St. Barbe. That is all I can figure, Mr. Speaker. The former member had an old van with 500,000 kilometres on it, Mr. Speaker, but this member needed a plane to get him back and forth. Mr. Speaker, again, this is the Liberals; this is the Liberal leadership, this is the Official Opposition and the leadership that they bring to the Province.

Not to be outdone, the Opposition House Leader, when she became leader, like I mentioned earlier, the boys were out to get her, the old boys' club, they were having meetings. She had to go. She was dug in, Sir, nails in. The Opposition House Leader, the Member for Cartwright, she was the now-leader. There was a bit of a toss up there; Gerry was around for awhile, but the Member for Cartwright, she got back.

Mr. Speaker, then the racket broke out down in Labrador in a by-election, my colleague from Lab West, a racket broke out. Here is what happened. The NDP, the Third Party, they had a candidate and they figured they had a good chance at it because of the former candidate. What should the leader of the Liberals do, the Member for Cartwright? The leader at the time goes and robs their candidate. I thought the Leader of the Third Party was going to blow a gasket, Mr. Speaker. You think I did not feel the love today; you should have heard the love she shared at that time with the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. Mr. Speaker, I could tell you it was not pretty, to say the least. She turned on the Leader of the Opposition, she turned on the candidate. What a row. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we cleaned them up in the by-election for obvious reasons, another show of strong leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I had to go back. Life goes on. The old boys' club could not wait to get rid of her, so they were working at it and working at it. Finally, I have to quote the former leader, the now-official Opposition House Leader – I will get all of this right in a minute, Mr. Speaker; there are: "people out there like John Efford that have been nothing but an absolute nuisance in recent years to the Liberal Party..." I do not expect that attitude is going to change any time soon.

Mr. Speaker, she is absolutely right, because all of them have been a nuisance on times to the leader of the day. It was not fair what they did to her. She was there, nails dug in, and Sir, they did everything to get rid of her.

Mr. Speaker, there is a full circle that goes here now. Remember the Dumaresq captain I was talking about a while ago, he ran for them in the last election. Now, we have this Dumaresque dude, who is John Efford's main honcho, who fell out with Roger; he was going to sue Roger Grimes, who had no time for the Member for St. Barbe. Now the Member for Cartwright, she is still the leader. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is all coming full circle. They all ran in the last election; Dumaresque ran, the Member for St. Barbe ran, Efford –

AN HON. MEMBER: Cabana.

MR. FRENCH: Oh, I cannot go to Cabana. I cannot even go to Cabana. He was leader for three hours I think, but they did the right thing with him. If they have done nothing right in the last ten years that is one thing they did right, was get rid of the Cabana fellow.

I am going to clue up now, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about leadership, I think it is very, very important –

MR. A. PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I just heard the Member for Burgeo – La Poile. I cannot leave him out; he just brought something to my mind, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Burgeo – La Poile got elected, a nice young man. He got elected on his own, ran. Mr. Speaker, he was offered up to us as a sacrifice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: It is no joke, Mr. Speaker, and I only have a minute left. I only have a minute to get it out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, on a point of order.

MR. A. PARSONS: The Minister of Environment is wrong in his assertions there. I believe he has his facts misstated, so I would just put that out there. I think he is factually incorrect.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. FRENCH: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I got mixed up with his brother. Sorry about that, Mr. Speaker. It was his brother. It was the same family, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: He was offered up as a sacrifice –

AN HON. MEMBER: His brother.

MR. FRENCH: His brother was. I believe he was lugging him, bringing him across. You take my brother, Sir, on the key crowd and give him a half decent job and I will leave the seat open for the young fellow to get in. See, Mr. Speaker?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, on that note, I could not let the Member for Burgeo – La Poile go without an honourable mention here this evening. The Member for St. Barbe, I want to thank the Official Opposition, Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: I want to thank the Official Opposition for their enlightening and their leadership over the past ten years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment was so entertaining that I offered him leave because I wanted him to keep on going. It was really entertaining. Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the people really got their money's worth from the African safari. We should send all Cabinet ministers to Africa for a safari. Undoubtedly, the Minister of Municipal Affairs could probably go on Aeroplan points. The Minister of Municipal Affairs would not need the government; he would have enough Aeroplan points to go, so he should be just fine.

In any event, while we are discussing leaderships, which is quite entertaining, the biggest issue my party has with respect to the leadership is that we do not know when the government is going to have the next leadership because we could be caught by the Grimes rule. The way this current session of the House has been going the Premier is unlikely to come back into the House ever after this session, then these hon. members would have to run for leadership. Then we would be caught by the Grimes rule and we would have to have a general election within a year. We could easily have a general election. I say to the Minister of Fisheries, and the Minister of Natural Resources, and the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, you could be in a leadership convention in less than a year and go straight into a general election, because the Progressive Conservative Party has not had a leadership convention. Verge, I guess, and Sullivan was it? The three votes - an actual contested leadership convention. That would be very interesting to see. Then maybe the government side would be more focused.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would really like to talk about the Budget because I am trying to figure out whose Budget this is. It is almost like I want to know whose child is this. In the same way, if it was a family law case it would be whose child is this? It is a budget, so whose budget is it? I am pretty certain, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the Budget of the Minister of Finance. I would like to perform a DNA test on the Budget and prove that the Budget is not the Budget of the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, knowing the Minister of Finance very well, and he is a very good friend. As a matter of fact, he has been a family lawyer for years; not a family lawyer in the sense of family lawyer, but in acting for my family members. We still send work to his firm. I cannot figure out whose Budget this is but I am pretty sure that it is not his Budget.

It has been very entertaining to watch members opposite for the last several weeks taking credit for all of the spending of public dollars as if they actually did something to earn those public dollars. Mr. Speaker, it is almost like a little rooster on a dung heap in the morning crowing and taking credit for the sun coming up. That is exactly how the members opposite have been with all of the public money that they have been blessed with. I suppose they should because maybe people might think that they actually had something to do with the oil revenues. Certainly they did not, and it has been public money.

The concern I have is that because we have been awash in cash - and I take a different view than the Third Party because I think this Budget has too much fat in it and it has a deficit, a double curse of a Budget in my view. My concern is with too much money we may have gotten careless with money. We are in a situation where we can spend in big, big numbers. We can spend in big dollars when the money is flowing. What happens if the money tapers off and ceases? Then we have a big problem. Have we become arrogant with money? Have we become arrogant enough that we can set aside huge sums of money, maybe for Muskrat Falls or for who knows what?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said some weeks ago when he was speaking in the House that we are in this economic downturn and it was unforeseeable, it could not have been helped, and I disagree. I think the reason for this economic downturn has just been pure greed and carelessness by people in financial capitals of the world who took too many chances with other people's money and came to harm.

Mr. Speaker, a concern that I have with the way the hon. member's opposite have been congratulating the Minister of Finance, it is not that he is not a great fellow, but I am afraid they have been spending so much time reaching around and patting themselves on the back that we might not get enough chiropractors in St. John's to straighten them out. I can see that being a real problem over the long term.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, this Budget, in my view, is too speculative. One of the reasons that it is too speculative is that it is based on Brent oil at $124 and more per barrel. Brent has not reached $124 this year. It was around $118 when the Budget was actually introduced. It is around $108 now. I believe that the DNA of our Finance Minister would say we should be a little more careful, we probably should only take 85 per cent or 90 per cent of the current price and just be a little more careful. Instead of that, for some reason, he has used a higher number than actual. I do not think that is in his DNA. I think that is in the others members of his caucus with demands that might be almost similar to the demands of the Third Party, except they cloak themselves differently.

Another problem in this Budget is that we have set aside a huge dowry for Nalcor. It has to be a dowry because it is not consummated. We have no marriage. We know it is not – what is that word that they are using – sanctioned. I think sanctioned means yes, it is okay or whatever, but we set aside a $664 million dowry for Nalcor based on 500,000 people. That is $1,328 in this Budget to be set aside for every man, woman, and child in this Province.

If the dowry represents $664 million and Nalcor is going to be $6 million, $7 million, $8 million, or $9 million, whatever it is, then that is only 10 per cent. So realistically, at the end of the day, we are looking at maybe $13,000, $14,000, or $15,000 per man, woman, or child. So, difficult decisions will have to be made related to energy. There is a hard, tough, gut-churning decision coming for people to make regarding Muskrat Falls. I am concerned that too many of the members opposite have already made their commitment without actually understanding the facts.

Mr. Speaker, we were provided an opportunity to have Budget Estimates and go and figure exactly what is in the Budget. I am referring to page 11.8 under the Innovation, Business and Rural Development, under 3.1.02.10., Grants and Subsidies. Last year, we budgeted $25,000 and we only spent $4,000, and this year we are budgeting $25,000 again. When I asked what does this relate to, it relates to the old Fisheries Loan Board and apparently there are seventeen licences, and this is interest rate differential from seventeen years ago and more. The explanation that I was given is: Well, why did you budget $25,000 if you only use $4,000? The individual from the department said to me: Well, that is because interest rates might rise. I said: Good grief, man, if interest rates might rise and you have to count on $25,000 instead of $4,000, based on seventeen old Fisheries Loan Board – I said: Have you ever heard of Mark Carney? He said: Well, yes. I said: Well, Mark Carney does not think interest rates are going to rise in the next year. I am certain that all members opposite know who Mark Carney is. If he does not think interest rates are going to rise, then why should Innovation, Business and Rural Development think interest rates are going to rise such that a $4,000 amount this year is going to cost us $25,000 next year?

To me, Mr. Speaker, that is simply building fat at a rate of six to one into that Budget item – $4,000 is what we used last year, why would we need to use any more than $4,000 this year is beyond me. We have put in $25,000.

So, then I went looking for where else is the fat, Mr. Speaker. I read financial statements from time to time and quite a few of them, so you wonder, the people who are putting together the financial statements, what are they talking about, what are they hiding, and what are they burying. So, I went through the Budget – and undoubtedly members opposite have probably seen me jotting in this little book, and I can table the book if they want me to – and I came across a recurring item. That recurring item is professional fees. Professional fees are listed in the Budget 168 times, Mr. Speaker. So, 168 times we have put in professional fees – the young man from our office did the calculation for me, and he says, $115 million has been allocated for professional fees in this Budget. Now, we do not know what they are going to be spent for, but we know they are called professional fees.

So, how does that compare? If we had a department called the Department of Professional Fees, who would it be bigger than? Well, it would be bigger than Municipal Affairs, because they are only getting $56 million. It would be bigger than Tourism, Culture and Recreation, so African safari or not, I say to the minister – that was the other minister, that was the Minister of Environment. Well, let's see, Finance gets $114, so not quite as much as professional fees; the Public Service Commission gets $5 million, so that is a lot less. Service Newfoundland and Labrador gets $47 million. The Legislature only costs $25 million. Environment and consternation, I say, costs $55 million. So the minister who was last up, who was so entertaining after his African safari, gets less than half of what the professional fees will be. Fisheries and Aquaculture, close to my heart, $50 million for its budget. Innovation, Business and Rural Development, $87 million.

If professional fees were a budget item for a department, it would be the tenth biggest department in government. In asking the question what the professional fees are, I was given a variety of explanations. It seems to me that the professional fees are literally rolled over and it is an area to put fat in the Budget so that later on money can be – what do they call it again, I think they call it reconfigured or something; that means they are supposed to take it from here and put it over there. You can put it in as professional fees and then pretty much use it for whatever comes up, I suppose, or what kind of professional fees or who gets them.

Mr. Speaker, the concern that I have with the Budget is that it too speculative and that it counts on oil prices being too high. I know we can fix that problem because we can pump more oil. We can permit the companies to pump more oil, but then we are getting rid of our valuable resource at less money because we miscalculated.

There is a $660 million dowry for Nalcor that we have not sanctioned as yet, which certainly would be double what the projected deficit is. Then I wonder, why do we have such a Budget as this? This brings me, Mr. Speaker, to political ideology. I think that issue by issue, it is quite possible to see the ideology of different members of the House. Mr. Speaker, ideology – and I went to Wikipedia, because who would not go to Wikipedia nowadays? You would never go to the Encyclopaedia Britannica or some place like that; it has been discontinued. Go to Wikipedia, and it says, "…ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview)…" I think we can agree on that.

Then I come to liberalism, and this is one that I am very familiar with. It "…is a political ideology or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion."

Then, Mr. Speaker, I come to socialism: "Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. ‘Social ownership' may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: co-operative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises. There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism."

Then, Mr. Speaker, I went looking for Progressive Conservative and I could not find it. I had to put together progressivism and conservatism. This gets me to where the Budget is. "Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favouring social, political, and economic reform or changes usually in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies." That I understand. Conservatism "is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to ‘the way things were'."

Mr. Speaker, this brings me to what this Budget is all about. I am fairly certain that the Minister of Finance is a conservative. He may be progressive, but he is more conservative, and I have no issues with that whatsoever. The founding Prime Minister of the country was a conservative. I do have some issues with raw conservatism as we see from Stephen Harper and I have some issues with raw conservatism as we see from his Finance Minister.

Mr. Flaherty was a leadership candidate in Ontario in the mid-1990s, a government that defeated the Bob Rae government – mercifully, I might add – a socialist government that increased the provincial debt in Ontario from 1990 to 1995 from $40 billion to $100 billion, two-and-a-half times in five years. Mr. Flaherty was far too conservative and too radical for the Conservatives to elect as a leader. Now we have him as a Finance Minister of Canada. He is a bright guy with his own worldview, and it is not the worldview that I think is best for this Province.

How do we deal with this Budget? It is supposed to be progressive and conservative. Mr. Speaker, I know we use nautical themes in this Province quite a bit. If a person was rowing a dory, one of the old-fashioned, high-end dories, and on your left hand you had your progressive paddles – and I know others are going to want to call them oars, but I would still call them paddles. That is what we do. So you would be pulling on your paddle this way, going as fast as you can. Now, if you are going to turn the dory around, the other paddle goes the other way, so you spin around. In fact, that one, if it were conservative and wanted to stop, then it would be dead stopped in the water.

By Progressive Conservative, I see one paddle dead stopped in the water, and that likely would be the Minister of Finance who wants to hold the line. The other paddle is paddling as furiously as possible. All I see is the government going around and around in circles because one paddle is stopped and the other one is going forward. It seems like that must have been the debate in Cabinet when all of the ministers came with their want list, powerful ministers who advance their case. The Minister of Finance basically said we need these things in the Budget, we need Muskrat, and we are not going to cut anything whatsoever. Even though the Premier said there would be 3 per cent across the board, I am not sure that across the board is the best idea because targeted cuts would be better and targeted spending is better.

Mr. Speaker, the concern I have is that the Budget has too much fat. It has not been as carefully crafted as it should have been. There is a huge dowry set up for Nalcor, and we have not voted on the Muskrat Falls development. We do not really know where we are there. We just seem to be going around and around in circles spending more and more of taxpayers' money with ill-defying goals.

Mr. Speaker, I do not require more time. I am happy to concede that time to somebody else, maybe to the last speaker who would like to entertain us a little longer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a caution for the Member for St. Barbe, just for him to beware, because I can tell you that the Minister of Finance is certainly qualified to do the job that he is doing. Marjorie will be coming, I am telling you, so you beware. Marjorie will be coming.

The other thing as well, they talk about leaders and leadership, as my colleague, the Minister of Environment, Mr. Speaker. The thing about this party over here is that when we wake up in the morning we know that we have a leader, Mr. Speaker-

AN HON. MEMBER: A great leader.

MR. FORSEY: A great leader.

Like my colleague, the Minister of Environment, I will try not to leave out the Opposition today; however, I have to go back to May 16 when the Member for St. John's North put forth a private member's bill. He wanted to put into legislation disciplined structures. Well, he gets everything confused. I do not think that he is fully informed of things when he brings it into the House or when he asks questions, because I know yesterday or the day before, Mr. Speaker, he could not average out class sizes and the Minister of Education figured that out for him.

When I went back to my district last weekend, Mr. Speaker, I spoke to a couple of educators and they wanted to know where this Member for St. John's North was getting his information in the private member's bill that he put forward. I know that I do have a copy of a correspondence that was sent to the minister from one of the educators out there, actually, and he commended the minister on the positive support for the system and the financial investments like we have never seen before in education, Mr. Speaker. He went on to say that the recent investment in technology, like computers and TeamBoards has moved us quickly into the cutting edge of technology. However, his problem with the private member's bill, Mr. Speaker, was that as an educator of an elementary school he said it troubles him when we have private member's bills as a reaction to media rather than the full approach to what actually should be entailed with regard to the bullying aspect, and that is only one part of it.

Basically, what he was saying, there are many diverse challenges that face children daily, and he cautions moving forward without consulting with the appropriate stakeholders. This was in part of his correspondence that he wrote to the minister, Mr. Speaker. So, he cautioning. He is an educator in an elementary school, so he knows full-well that there is more to it than just punishing somebody and putting in a penalty for bullying. You actually have to take in the complete picture of what is happening to the child as the child grows up, with regard to abuse and everything else that goes on within certain realms of the children. I think that is why - when our minister brought in the amendment - the amendment said we should consult with the stakeholders, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to make it clear that probably when the Member for St. John's North brings in another private member's bill, they will probably do a little bit more research on what they are trying to present. Maybe he will find out what the average size is for classrooms and how to make an average. The average is to take the total and divide it by the numbers. That is how he gets his average, and that is how we got our average.

I cannot leave out the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. Talking about leaders, I think my colleague, the Minister of Environment, did a great job talking about the leadership from the Opposition and what they have gone through. I recall one of their leaders was in New York at meetings, and when he was down there he made a comment about his own Province and his own people. It was not very nice. A lot of people were really upset about that at that particular time, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of leadership they have had over there; no respect for the people of the Province, none whatsoever. Then, get out of the country or out of the Province, and just more or less undermine us and put us down – wrong, I say, Mr. Speaker. That is not what is happening to this Party and this government. That is not what is happening under this leadership.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member for the Bay of Islands, on a point of order.

MR. JOYCE: I just ask the member – and I do not mean to interrupt, but I must have missed it, Mr. Speaker – did I hear you speak up when I heard your Premier say someone at Eastern Health should be shot? If you are going to talk about current issues, let us talk about something that is important to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Exploits, to continue.

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The last time I spoke, Mr. Speaker, I asked the question: do we want to go back to what we had fifteen years ago? Do we want to go back to the cuts? Do we want to go back to the freezes? Do we want to go back to the rollbacks? Do we want to go back to all of that?

They are over there the past few days and they are talking about Labrador and the investments in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I love talking about Labrador just as much as I love talking about the Island portion of this Province, because we invest wisely right across the Province. Everybody benefits. I would just as soon talk about my own district because there are lot of things after being invested in the District of Exploits.

However, when they get up and they talk about Labrador, what did they do when they wanted to try to build the road from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Lab City? What did they do? They had, I think it was, $97 million in a trust fund. What did they do with it? They spent it. Now, they are over there – we are not doing anything. The Minister of Transportation, Mr. Speaker, got up a couple of days ago and announced that the tenders were awarded to finish Phase I of the Trans-Labrador Highway, a total of over $65 million; the total investment in that highway, Mr. Speaker, $250 million. That is the kind of investment this government is making and have been making since we came in here, Mr. Speaker, I say.

They get up there and it is like they are going to fix everything. Well, they had their chances. Do we want to go back to that? I do not think so.

I recall, I think it was maybe twelve, fourteen years ago, a very close relative of mine had to go on dialysis, had two choices actually: go to St. John's or go to Corner Brook. That was it. That was all we had. Today, we have fourteen sites; we just invested another $1.9 million, Mr. Speaker, for Harbour Breton, St. Anthony, and Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Guess what the member, who actually was their Leader of the Opposition, he was the leader of the government at the time – that person who I am talking about was very fortunate, got a kidney match. They had to travel to Halifax for the transplant, Mr. Speaker. In talking to their member, and the Premier of the time, and the Member for the District of Exploits at the time, the previous member who was the Premier – they called because they needed assistance. Do you know what he told them? We have nothing for you; get over there the best way you can.

We got there, Mr. Speaker, because of myself and my wife, who decided that we would take them there. That is how they got their transplant. That is how we got things done then. That is what we had to do. We had no choices because we were not getting any support from any of the previous government. It just was not there, we were not getting it. The investments today, Mr. Speaker, it is unprecedented the investments that this government has had.

I know they talk about the debt. Guess what? When we came to power in 2003, Mr. Speaker, our debt was $12 billion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twelve billion dollars.

MR. FORSEY: Twelve billion dollars. Did I say $12 million? Twelve billion dollars – $12 billion, I will repeat it. That was the debt of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Today, we are less than $8 billion, thanks to this government and thanks to some wise decisions on our Minister of Finance. If the Member for St. Barbe thinks that he was not part of this Budget – now no doubt we have a very smart leader and she invests wisely, and she also asks her departments to do the same thing. When this minister went on his consultations around the Province, that is how we came up with some of the incentives that we have.

I will also say, Mr. Speaker, even though our Premier asks some of our departments, and it was public knowledge that she wanted to try to save 3 per cent, she asked our departments to do that, but she asked them to do it without cutting vital services to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was her approach. That is this minister's approach and that is this government's approach. We will not cut vital services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

The Opposition are great with promises and they are great with doing things the wrong way. I would like to recall a scattered thing, Mr. Speaker, and jog people's memories because we all forget. You have to do that because if not, what happens? Do we want to go back to that time when the Liberals were in? Do we want to go back to that type of leadership? I do not think so.

I have to bring up the development, because Muskrat Falls right now is a very important project for this government and this Province – very important. I think the Minister of Natural Resources has certainly detailed the information in his speeches on the Budget to this House and to the people of the Province – done it very well, very detailed, and very informative. Well, it is a big move, big investment, but we need it; however, I recall from the other government – and I am sure my colleague for Grand Falls-Windsor – Green Bay South will remember – when this government was asked: Can we develop Star Lake? That was asked by Abitibi at the time, Mr. Speaker. Can we develop Star Lake? What did they do? They went up, they developed Star Lake, no tie-ins to the pulp and paper industry, no commitments to the Province, take your $12 million or $13 million profit from it every year and do what you like with it. Take it back to Quebec if you want, or give it to your shareholders, whatever it was. Mr. Speaker, there was no commitment to the Province. What we are doing with Muskrat Falls is not going to go Quebec, I say, Mr. Speaker. It is not going there.

I will also mention that – because it was promises from the Liberals and it was always promises that were never kept. I go back to the cancer treatment centre in Grand Falls-Windsor. That was a big promise of theirs as well. Did they fulfill it? No, because it was just a promise. Did this government put it here? Yes, we did. It is working very well, I say, Mr. Speaker. It was a welcome addition to the central regional health care centre in Grand Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you.

There are a lot of people in the Central Region now who do not have to travel long distances, neither do they have to travel long distances for dialysis work, Mr. Speaker. We have spent more money on diagnostic equipment than was ever seen, but it was needed. Today, you can get cancer treatment in Grand Falls-Windsor, you can get dialysis treatment in Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Speaker, and you can get it in Gander. Twelve, fourteen years ago, you could not get any of this. People wanted it and were looking for it. It is essential. It is health care. Everybody has a belief that we should have the best health care, and I think we do, Mr. Speaker. We are doing very well in health care.

So, our investments have been great. The Official Opposition get up there and accuse this government of not doing certain things but all that is, is bringing back memories of things that they wanted to do, things that they could not do.

I will say, when the Minister of Finance was going around doing his consultations, there was a lot of good that came out of that, Mr. Speaker. There was the cost-share ratio that came out of that. There was the improvement and investment in the Fire and Emergency Services. I know, because of that, the Minister of Municipal Affairs was able to access more funding to provide more pumper trucks and more emergency equipment to fire departments – and they could get it at a 90-10 if the population was 3,000 or less, I say, Mr. Speaker. So, that is the kind of investments. We have made it so that these communities can avail of it without having to go bankrupt. We have seen more small communities this past couple of years, because of the cost-share ratio that was brought in by this government, that we have been able to supply more towns with more municipal infrastructure, more emergency equipment than ever before. They are pleased with that.

I say, Mr. Speaker, do we want to go back to when you had to pay 50-50? When you had to pay 50-50, there were very few communities able to avail of that kind of funding, Mr. Speaker, because they could not come up with the 50 per cent. Now if you are between 3,000 and 5,000 in population, I think that the cost-share is 80-20. It is a great incentive and a great investment made in these communities.

I wanted to touch on a couple of things on the Budget, especially the 35 per cent reduction in fees, I say, Mr. Speaker, to seniors.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yea!

MR. FORSEY: The Minister of Justice applauds that one, Mr. Speaker. Thirty-five per cent, that is on car licences, driver's licences, big game licence – the Minister of Finance applauds that one as well, Mr. Speaker, on small game licence, big game licence.

The reason I say that, Mr. Speaker, and I bring this particular piece up, is because back last year I was on a committee with my colleague from Lewisporte and my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor – Green Bay South. We were on a committee and we worked with the domestic wood cutters in Central Newfoundland. It was a very productive committee I say, Mr. Speaker. The Chair of that committee was the Member for Lewisporte and did a very good job. I think the main object of the committee was to make sure that we brought in the policy where they could be like their neighbours and be able to cut softwood. That was one of their main concerns.

In the meetings, they brought up about the cost of permits. A lot of people out there use wood for fuel rather than electricity or oil, and a lot of them are seniors. With the reduction, it gives them the opportunity to get out there, to be able to source their fuel at a cheaper cost. It also lets them get out, Mr. Speaker, and get in the outdoors, active living. This is what we are promoting; that is what the Minister of Health is promoting, Mr. Speaker: active and healthy living. We know we have an aging population so this is only good for our seniors.

There have been so many investments and there is so much good news in this particular Budget, I am sure if I get a chance I will be able to get into more of it. I see my time has expired, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am very pleased to be able to stand today and to speak to the main motion of the Budget. I have had a fair bit to say the other two times I have spoken on the amendments. Today I want to bring a bit to a conclusion what my thoughts are and what my analyses are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I have been sitting here now for a number of weeks, as we all have, and I hear over and over the government accusing the New Democratic Party of not understanding money, of not understanding the implications of paying for programs, and of not being able to put two and two together. What I want to say here today, Mr. Speaker, is our very concern is how money is being spent by this government, because we do understand the implications of money and what it means to spend money on programs.

A bottom line for me is, because this government is so focused on the major project of Muskrat Falls, I have a very basic question. It is the question I will be looking for the answer to when the time comes to make a decision in terms of where my vote goes and where I think our vote goes when it comes to Muskrat Falls. The question is: As a Province, with our history, with the poverty we have had in the past, and with all of the catch-up that we have to do to put programs and infrastructure in place, can we afford to put over $4 billion into this development? Can we afford to do that and also take care of the people of this Province? That is the bottom line, Mr. Speaker.

When we raise the issues about programs, we are not saying: All this money for Muskrat Falls and the programs. We are saying we are putting the challenge out to the government: Can we afford to do both?

I am well aware of what the cost is and that is why I will be very concerned when the time comes to look at Muskrat Falls to find out if we can afford it and take care of our people at the same time. That is the bottom line. That is the question that we are going to have to get the answer to in order to say yes or no to this project. That means looking at it from every angle, and that means determining if we can take care of people, pay for the project, pay for the debt as we go down the road, and get enough money back to continue to take care of our people. That has not been proven yet, Mr. Speaker, and that is what I am looking for.

I cannot talk about this Budget without talking about that, because when I look at our pie, the pie for the Budget for this year, I see that 12 per cent of the Budget is money going to Nalcor for Muskrat Falls; 12 per cent. I look at the pie and I see that Education is 10.8 per cent of our Budget pie; 10.8 per cent while Muskrat Falls is 12 per cent. I look at the pie and I see that Child, Youth and Family Services is 2.5 per cent, while Muskrat Falls is 12 per cent. So, Education and Child, Youth and Family Services together only take 1.3 per cent more of our Budget than does Muskrat Falls. My question is can we afford to do both? That is the question. This year alone, that money may not even be spent. That is being stockpiled and saved, whether it is needed this year or not, for the following year after sanctioning, along with the $2.1 billion in cash and temporary assets. My question is can we afford to do both?

It is not that all we want to do is spend money, Mr. Speaker. We want to take care of the people of the Province. We want to make sure that our money is being spent to benefit the people of the Province. Mr. Speaker, if it gets proven to us that the investment is so real that it will benefit people, the question then is when will the benefit start? Is the benefit going to start in five years? Definitely not, not in terms of money coming in. Will it start in ten years? How much will it be? Those are the questions we have to answer, Mr. Speaker, because we have to make sure that we have money to take care of the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: What we are questioning, Mr. Speaker – the difference between us and the government is not that one is spendthrift and the other is not, it is not that one understands economy and the other ones do not; it is the priorities. It is the priorities that are different.

If I find out that the priority of Muskrat Falls is not something we can afford when Decision Gate 3 is reached, if we find out that Muskrat Falls is something we cannot afford and at the same time take care of people, then I will not be able to vote for it because that is the bottom line for us. I have not the proof yet that putting over $4 billion - that is the minimum, that is without the new figures; that is what it is right now - that by putting $4 billion into Muskrat Falls is the best thing for the future of the people of this Province. I have to find that out.

One of the things that bother me about this Budget, and the ongoing discussions I have had with this government around budgets over the last six years, is the difficulty of this government to put things down in real commitment form. By that I mean, Mr. Speaker, whenever we ask for a plan from government, they put out a plan. It is not a plan, it is a strategy. They do not have goals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS MICHAEL: There is a big difference, Mr. Speaker, between strategies and plans. I would point that out to the mocking laughter of the people in this room right now, a big difference. A strategy is sort of a vision. This is what we would like to do but then you have to have goals and you have to have objectives that have real timelines, that have money attached to them and you can be held accountable for. That is the difference. I would not think I would have to give that lesson to people in the House of Assembly, the difference between a plan and a strategy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: People listening know the difference. People watching us today know the difference between a plan and a strategy. Mr. Speaker, when we look to plans from government that is what we are looking for. We want something for which they can be held accountable, Mr. Speaker.

I want to use a couple of examples to show how this government does not allow itself to be held accountable by putting things in something fixed and something they can be held accountable for. Let's talk about the Poverty Reduction Strategy. Note the word strategy. Every year since it started, 2006, I think, every year since it started there were things identified in the Budget as Poverty Reduction. Some of them helped people who lived in poverty. A lot of them helped people deal with the effects of poverty, and they were good things. They were programs that we needed, programs that we did not have, because we did not have the money to put them in place in the past, and I have said this over and over. There was not very much that actually put new money in people's hands. Even when the government decided that they would give an annual cost-of-living increase to Income Support, they based that decision on an amount of money that was so low that it just means people in poverty are still in poverty as time goes on. They did not put, in their plan, any kind of a gate – if you want to use their Decision Gate making language – for looking at, how is this working?

They did not do, for example, Mr. Speaker, what they have done in Manitoba. In Manitoba, they have a Poverty Reduction Strategy Act. It is in legislation, and because it is in legislation, Mr. Speaker, they can be held accountable for what they are going to do, because they have an act that actually lays it out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Then, Mr. Speaker, there is Quebec. Quebec also has an act to combat poverty and social exclusion. They adopted their act in 2002. One of the goals of the Quebec act, Mr. Speaker, is to have the least numbers of people living in poverty by 2013. They have an action plan in their act. It requires an action plan with activities and targets, with 2013 as the deadline, Mr. Speaker, and they have to give an annual progress report. We have not had a report lately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: We have not had a report lately from this government on the poverty reduction, something that they gave the first year. I have not heard anything lately. Maybe if they had a director in charge, maybe we would be getting reports.

Mr. Speaker, if this government were serious about really having fewer people living in poverty, really having fewer people living under the poverty line, really having people with a better quality of life, why wouldn't they have put an act together, a piece of legislation for which they could be held accountable? This government seems to be weak with regard to that kind of thing, Mr. Speaker.

There is another example of a place where this government even stood last week in this House and said it was impossible to put this thing in legislation; that was anti-bullying. Oh no, no, my gosh, we cannot do that. Imagine putting that in. We cannot even be sure how to define it.

Well, it is really funny, Mr. Speaker, because there are five provinces in Canada that not only are concerned about anti-bullying but have managed to introduce anti-bullying legislation. Five: Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta; but no, we cannot. Why? Because they might be held accountable; they might be held accountable. This is one of the biggest weaknesses of this government, Mr. Speaker: taking action, putting things in writing, being held accountable for what they do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I appreciate that.

I understand clearly where we are as a Province. I am sure we all do. I have heard the Premier say, too. We all do understand that for generations, for centuries, for recent decades, we had very little money as a Province. We were poor; there is no doubt about it. Individuals were poor; the Province was poor.

I think some years ago I used this example when I spoke to the Budget, and I am going to use it again. I lived in Ontario in the 1990s when the Harris government came in. I was living and working there. When the Harris government began their cutbacks, people in Ontario were up in arms - and they should have been, because the cutbacks were draconian - but even with the cutbacks that Harris was bringing in, Premier Harris of the day, people in Ontario were still going to be so much better than we were here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I remember saying that to people in Ontario: I am opposed to what Harris is doing, and I will take part in the protest days against what Harris is doing, but even with your cutbacks you are still better off here in Ontario than we are in Newfoundland and Labrador.

They had things in the educational system that we were dreaming about here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Even then, they had home care that we are still dreaming about here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Even then, they had child care that was better than what we have here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of catch-up to do. This is something that we have to recognize and something that I am sure people across the country do not recognize. I am sure it is something that the federal government does not recognize. We have a lot of catch-up. We have infrastructure that has been falling apart, not because of any political party's responsibility, but because we did not have the money to do it. We did not have the money to do it, to take care of the infrastructure. We did not have the money to put the programs in place, Mr. Speaker. This is the problem, and I am well aware of that fact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Then we have federal governments in the 1990s that were making changes to federal-provincial relationships, that were costing us more money and causing us problems. When the Canada Assistance Plan was gotten rid of in 1996 and was replaced by the Canada Health and Social Transfer program, that made a big difference to the relationship between the federal and provincial governments. There was a heavier load put on provincial governments. Certainly, in 1996 we were not ready for that heavier load. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

When we became identified under the equalization program as a have Province, I would be the first one to say that we were not ready to be called a have Province under the equalization program. Let's remember what we are saying here now. Under that program I know, because of what it is based on, we are no longer able to receive money under the equalization program; but when you look at how much we have to build up to make up for the past in terms of getting a child care program in place, in terms of getting a full long-term care and home care program in place, programs that are part of our systems, not programs that are out there being taken care of by the private sector, but programs that are part of our systems. The private sector has to be built into it because it is there right now, but we have to have these programs, home care under our health care system, managed by government. We have to have our early child care - child education, rather, and child care, under the educational system. We have an educational system, it is public and it is administered by government, and that is where our child care should be as well. These are the things that we have to do.

When I hear people saying in this House, as the government sometimes does, that we are the best in this in Canada, and we are the best in this in the world, it is not true, Mr. Speaker. All I want is reality. All I want is reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: When it comes to the services, this Province's services, for example, for children with autism, services for children with Asperger syndrome, services that are needed if you are going to do inclusion in the school, the services that are needed. Mr. Speaker, we are so far behind in those services when I look at what is available in other provinces, and this government knows that.

My point, Mr. Speaker, is that if we are going to get to where we need to be –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I would ask all members for their co-operation.

The Leader of the Third Party, to continue.

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

If we have to get to where we need to be, Mr. Speaker, yes, money has to be spent. Money does have to be spent. We have to stop just dealing with crises as they happen. We have so many things that are crisis intervention, Mr. Speaker.

The problem with the lift bridge out in Placentia should have been taken care of years ago so that they would not have the crisis situation that they are in. The situation with the ferries in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is disgraceful. We have a partial plan in place that still does not deal with the problem over on Bell Island.

We have also, Mr. Speaker, the whole thing around our social system where we wait until things are a crisis before we take care of them. We have to put the money in to make the systems work. We have to put the money in to make sure that all our people are being taken care of and that it will be continued, Mr. Speaker.

That is why, when I look at this year's Budget, and I look at the discussions around Muskrat Falls, and I see 12 per cent of the Budget this year alone going to Muskrat Falls, where we are saying that a minimum of over $4 billion will have to be spent by the government - the Government of Nova Scotia does not have to pay for Muskrat Falls. The money in Muskrat Falls will be coming from Emera; it will not be coming from the government. Here, it is coming from the government. I believe we should have a Crown corporation, but I do not think we should have had a Crown corporation that was set-up merely to do the wishes of this government. That is why it was set-up, to make sure that Muskrat Falls would happen.

We have to be sure, in putting that money out, that we are being responsible, that we are allowing money to take care of the needs of the people, and that we are allowing money to take care of our seniors and of our children, and of people who are on the poorer end of the income. This is what we have to do, Mr. Speaker, that is what our Budgets have to do, and that is going to be the test of this Budget. That test will come when we get the real figures, Mr. Speaker, about Muskrat Falls. Then, Mr. Speaker, we will have more to say.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the next speaker, I would like to remind all members of Standing Order 7. (3) which says, "When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between him or her and the Chair, nor interrupt him or her, except to raise a point of order."

On a couple of occasions today when members were recognized to speak, some other members were standing between the Speaker and the person who was recognized to speak, and the Speaker could not actually visualize the person who was recognized to speak. If you are consulting with Table Officers about something, for example, please go to the opposite side so that the Speaker still has clear vision of the person who is recognized to speak.

The Member for Mount Pearl South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to stand here again today and have yet another opportunity to speak to what I certainly consider to be a great Budget. I just want to go back very briefly to my maiden speech so people, certainly in the House of Assembly and those watching, understand where I come from as it relates to this Budget, this government, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing the people of Mount Pearl South; it is something I do very proudly. I was born and raised in the City of St. John's. So, when I see the prosperity that is occurring in our Capital City, it is certainly something that I support. It is certainly something that is good to see all the prosperity that is happening as a result of the great decisions, the vision that this government has had. I have seen great prosperity in my community, Mount Pearl. Mount Pearl means everything to me, and I am so pleased when I see all of the positive things happening in my district and in the adjoining District of Mount Pearl North, and certainly Topsail. There are a lot of great things happening in our community.

MR. KENT: What a city (inaudible).

MR. LANE: It is what a city – absolutely, it is a great city.

Mr. Speaker, I also have a lot of connections, as I have said in this House before, to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I just want to point out again that my father was born in Englee on the Northern Peninsula. My mother was from Wesleyville in Bonavista North. I have family members scattered all throughout the Province. My wife's family are all from St. Mary's Bay. So, when I look at this Budget, Mr. Speaker, and I am so pleased with all the investments that are certainly going to have a positive impact on my particular district, I am also equally pleased to see the positive impact and the investment that is also taking place in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is very important to me, and I know it is very important to all my colleagues, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Now, Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, none of this stuff happens by accident. Unlike the Third Party who apparently has discovered the magic formula for growing money trees, we have not. We are where we are today because of sound investments that this government has made, because of vision, because of a Premier who, when she was Minister of Natural Resources and now our Premier, was certainly involved in making good deals which yield benefits to this Province. As a government, we are going to continue to make good deals as they come about. We are so fortunate.

I hear people talking about Muskrat Falls. I heard the Leader of the Third Party talking about Muskrat Falls. How fortunate that we can have a debate on Muskrat Falls. How many provinces, Mr. Speaker, how many states in the United States would love to have the resource that we have here in Newfoundland and Labrador called Muskrat Falls, and instead of shooting it down, instead of trying to make it a bad thing, Mr. Speaker, we should be celebrating the fact that we are so fortunate to have this resource.

When I hear the Leader of the Third Party talking about Muskrat Falls – and I believe her question was: Can we afford Muskrat Falls and take care of our people at the same time? Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to not engage in this Muskrat Falls Project because we know that we need the power, we are going to need that power, and we know that Muskrat Falls is the lowest cost option for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; that is why we are doing it. We are not doing it for us today. We are doing it, Mr. Speaker, for our children and we are doing it for our grandchildren. You have to have a little bit of vision – and I know that the Member for St. John's North agrees with me because he is nodding in approval and he is shouting out to me about how much he approves of what I am saying here, and I appreciate that. He is encouraging me, and that is great.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's North, on a point of order.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, this member is attributing actions to me. I certainly was not nodding in agreement with him whatsoever. I have been trying to decipher what it is he is saying over there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe he was heckling me, maybe that is what it was, but he was saying something over there. I know that the Member for St. John's North and the party in general, the Third Party, say they do not like to heckle. Now, I have seen a little bit of it today; I think they are starting to break free of that pact for sure – including their leader, Mr. Speaker. If they want to heckle me a little bit, that is fine. At least it is a change from heckling on Twitter.

If I have something to say, Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid to say it on Twitter and I am not afraid to stand up in House of Assembly and say it. I am not afraid to say it to a citizen. I am not afraid to say it on the Open Line. I am not afraid to say it on Here and Now. I will say it because I believe in what I am doing. I believe in what this party is doing. I do not need to be taking cheap shots on Twitter all night long and not standing up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are so many positive things we have to be thankful –

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's North, on a point of order.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the member is talking about cheap shots. That, in fact, I believe, was a cheap shot in itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE: Anyway, the member would certainly know all about cheap shots, Mr. Speaker, but at least I am not afraid to take them in public.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know sometimes the Third Party may think that I am a little bit hard on them, a little bit harsh, and some of us are a little bit harsh. Mr. Speaker, there is a reason. There is certainly a reason why I do it, Mr. Speaker. It is because, as I said, I care about my Province, I care about my community, I care about my children, and, God willing one of these days if I have grandchildren, I will care about them. Newfoundland and Labrador is important to me, it is important to all of my colleagues. We want to do the right thing.

We do not want to see Newfoundland and Labrador at this time of prosperity, go from prosperity right straight to bankruptcy. That is why I have to continue to point out some of the things that I hear, which is very depressing, actually, from the Third Party. They would see us bankrupt. That is where they would see us as a Province, Mr. Speaker. Every time they open their mouths, Mr. Speaker, more money for this, more money for that, decrease taxes here, and decrease taxes there. How are we going to pay for any of this stuff? Mr. Speaker, build new homes.

Mr. Speaker, look at the money this government has invested in education, both in K-12 and in post-secondary. Look at the money we are investing in the skilled trades. Look at the money we are investing into health care. We are building new hospitals, Mr. Speaker. There are new dialysis clinics being put throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker. We are investing in retention of doctors and nurses, RNs, LPNs. We are reducing wait times in emergency rooms, Mr. Speaker, for knee and hip replacement.

We are putting money into municipalities, despite what the Third Party would talk about municipalities. I am going to say something about municipalities, Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of people on this side of the House who have a total grasp on what is going on in municipalities. We understand the challenges they had, certainly the challenges they had in 2003. There are so many members here – I know, I look across – who would agree with me.

I was the Deputy Mayor of the City of Mount Pearl. My colleague in Mount Pearl North was the Mayor of Mount Pearl. My colleague in Port de Grave was the Mayor of Bay Roberts. My colleague from Topsail, the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, was the Deputy Mayor of CBS. My colleague here in front of me, Mr. Speaker, was the Mayor of Flatrock and he is in the District of Cape St. Francis. There you go. The former Mayor of Bonavista North, the Minister of Justice, Cape St. George's, Kilbride, Bonavista South, and Norman's Cove. Mr. Speaker, everybody is raising their hands – Exploits.

Mr. Speaker, we understand. We understand the issues that municipalities face. We understand the investments that this government has made, Mr. Speaker, into municipalities, thanks to one heck of a minister, I might add, who is very engaged, who is out to the municipalities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: He is not spending all his time on Twitter, Mr. Speaker. He is out meeting with mayors and town councils and city councils face to face, making investments in communities, in water and sewer projects, in roads, clean drinking water, Mr. Speaker, recreational facilities, and the list goes on.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I get so upset. It may seem like sometimes I am targeting the Third Party, but that is why I get so upset, Mr. Speaker, when I look at all the good that this government is doing and I have to sit here day after day after day listening to nothing but doom and gloom - no money for anything. Mr. Speaker, I pointed these things out before but it is important that we point them out again. Once again I am going to point it out for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, some of the things that have occurred as it relates to the Third Party, Mr. Speaker, and why it is important that people get that message.

Mr. Speaker, we all remember the full-day kindergarten. During the last provincial election, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Third Party said: Elect us; we are going to implement full-day kindergarten. When the reporter put the microphone to her face and said: Well, how are you going to pay for it? What is it going to cost? I do not know, she said, I have no idea. She had no idea. We are talking about millions and millions, tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions of dollars in renovations to all the schools and staffing issues and busing issues and everything else. She had not even bothered to research it, Mr. Speaker. This is a party that say they would want to lead our Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, also in the last election, I am going to bring it up again. Also in the last election, Mr. Speaker, the Third Party said if you elect us - they made all these promises, it was hundreds of millions of dollars in money they were going to spend, but where were the revenues coming from? They were asked: Where are the revenues coming from to pay for all of this? No, they were going to breach all the oil contracts, Mr. Speaker. That is what they were going to do, breach all the oil contracts. Now, I tell you, that is really who you want running your Province. That is the type of strategy. The Leader of the Third Party talked about a strategy, their strategy is bankruptcy, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shut down all the oil companies.

MR. LANE: Shut down all the oil companies, cut all the taxes, Mr. Speaker, and spend money we do not have. Mr. Speaker, I want to go back again, and I do not want to be too repetitive but it is important that people hear it and get the point. I want to go back again to the ordinary person who gets lost in all of this I think sometimes, certainly with the Third Party.

I am talking about the ordinary person who has to pay for all this. The person who gets up every day, goes to work, gets the kids to school, or to daycare, or whatever the case might be, out working hard trying to earn a living. Perhaps, like in my community it is two, the husband and the wife are both engaged in that activity, Mr. Speaker. When they get their paycheque at the end of every week, or two weeks, or whatever the case might be, they look and they say, wow, what happened, where did the money go? The money went to pay for all of these services, Mr. Speaker.

There has to be a balance in terms of how much people can afford to pay. We as a government recognize that. That is why we have given back on things like the Home Heating Rebate and things like that, cut some taxes where we can. We recognize that, Mr. Speaker, particularly for people who have lower incomes, seniors and so on. We do have a social conscience, Mr. Speaker, we realize that.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot, as a government, be all things to all people all the time. Sure, we have wish lists. I have all kinds of wish lists, Mr. Speaker, things I would like to do, places I would like to go, new vehicles I would like to have, a new home, whatever it might be. Mr. Speaker, we all have our wish lists, but we have to come down to reality.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I have to say, when I stand up here I listen to the Third Party. Mr. Speaker, where my mother is from, as I referenced earlier, from Bonavista North, and the member here for Bonavista North can say there are a lot of famous sea captains from Bonavista North who –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Here, here, absolutely. Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the Third Party there is one captain who comes to mind, and he is not from Bonavista North. The captain who comes to mind is Captain James T. Kirk. That is who comes to mind, Mr. Speaker, and he is on the orange planet. He picks up his communicator and he says: Scotty, beam me up, there are no intelligent life forms down here.

When I listen to all the rhetoric that is what I have to say, because, Mr. Speaker, they are on a planet of their own. They really are on a planet of their own. I do not know where they are coming from, Mr. Speaker, but logic does not seem – Mr. Spock is obviously not there, because there is no logic for sure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member for Bay of Islands for his kind words over there. Maybe I should turn some attention to the Opposition, but we will do that next time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is also important - and I am starting to get down in time here. Mr. Speaker, I think we all realize the challenges facing the fishery in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. As a government we recognize that, and we are very supportive as a government as it relates to the fishery, Mr. Speaker, in terms of making strategic investments where they make sense, investing in innovation and investing in marketing. Certainly, when we have unfortunate circumstances as has happened and some plants shut down, Mr. Speaker, we are there for the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Mr. Speaker, I want to say one thing we do not do as a government, because I do not think it is appropriate that we go there as a government. Unlike the Third Party, Mr. Speaker, we are not out attending union rallies for photo ops. We are not doing that. That is not benefiting the people of those communities. Attending union rallies, just there for the photo op, Mr. Speaker, playing on the emotions of people who are going through a difficult time in their life. You can imagine that they are going through a difficult time, Mr. Speaker, but to be going out attending union rallies, visiting the picket lines, giving false hope and preying on the emotions of people who are going through tough times, I think is absolutely shameful and certainly not something that this government stands for or I would ever condone, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Mr. Speaker, if we do not understand now, I think over time we are all starting to get it, as it relates to the Third Party and what their plan is for Newfoundland and Labrador. We have heard so many outrageous asks that have come. There have been so many outrageous asks.

We even heard one of the members of the Third Party one day here talking about a public transit system on the Northern Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, a public transit system. The City of St. John's and the City of Mount Pearl, they struggle to keep their public transit system going in a large area, with a large population. I know in the City of Mount Pearl, the taxpayers of Mount Pearl are like subsidizing Metrobus by seventy cents on every dollar. Now we are going to talk about putting public transit on the Northern Peninsula, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we are going to put in a subway from Conche to Flower's Cove or something. I am not sure what the plan is, Mr. Speaker, but this is the kind of stuff we hear day after day. It is just not realistic, Mr. Speaker, it is just not realistic.

Mr. Speaker, thank goodness I have the pleasure of being on this side of the House, with the members I have here, under the leadership of a Premier and Cabinet who have vision, understands budgets, understands how the real world works, and invests wisely and strategically in all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether that be urban Newfoundland and Labrador or whether it be rural Newfoundland and Labrador, because all Newfoundland and Labrador is a priority for this government, Mr. Speaker. We are going to continue for the next three-and-a-half years, and I predict for many years after that, we are going to continue to invest wisely. We are going to continue to show great leadership to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because they deserve no less, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very happy to stand here today. I already realize I will not be able to finish my time today, but I figured I would have an opportunity to make some comments as to the Budget and some of the debate that is going on here today. It will be a nice way to send everybody off into the weekend.

What I would say first of all, relating to the Minister of Environment, I certainly enjoyed the Minister of Environment's comments on the Budget today. They were very enlightening. He had a lot to say about the Budget that this government is bringing in. I can stand here today and say that after hearing his comments, I know absolutely nothing more about this Budget than what I knew before I came here today.

That being said, history is a nice thing. History is not a bad thing. I enjoy history. I would toss that out there. I have seen some of the other comments as well. The Member for Exploits, I enjoyed what he had to say. Although a lot of it seems to be a history lesson, going back in time. I do not know if the word future was used once. I do not know if there was any mention of it. It was all mention of old stuff. What have we done? What was done? There was no mention of where we are going. That is the problem that I have. We should be using this time to talk about where we are going. That is not there.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Where would you go?

MR. A. PARSONS: I am going to give you some comments as to where I would go. Don't you worry I say to the Member for Port de Grave, I will give you those comments as to where I would go.

We talk about leadership. Leadership is a great thing. There were some comments made here today about leadership. Again, I would say certainly on the other side is that there have been some leadership issues as well. I believe there are actually still a few knives in some people's backs on the other side there when it comes to leadership. We have all seen that in the past. Everybody has a closet and some skeletons in that closet.

I look to the future, because these conversations are going to happen again in a few years here. I believe we are going to have that conversation as to leadership and where this Province is going, the leadership of the government. I look forward to that. I look forward to taking that in, seeing who is interested, who might not be interested, who wants to go but does not get the phone call or maybe who gets the phone call but then gets another phone call saying it is not going to happen that way.

I will continue on, but what I would like to do, I would like to actually talk about the Budget and talk about things in this Budget. I am not going to talk about that stuff because that is better left to another day and another forum. This is my third opportunity to stand and speak to this Budget. What I would say is that it seems we have pulled a page out of Mr. Harper's playbook. This is what concerns me, and I will lay out how I see that, because the federal government spent the better part of a year telling this country about the austerity Budget and how bad things were going to be. They had told us that, and said look it is going to be bad. They had everybody worried for the worst case scenario. Then they unleashed the Budget, and on its face, on that Budget Day when we all sat there watching, it did not appear bad on its face; but, as they say, the devil is in the details. We are seeing those details now since the release of that Budget. The changes that the federal government has brought in are having and will have a terrible, terrible impact on this Province. They are going to have a terrible impact on this Province.

What I would say is that I hope what we are doing provincially is not going to be a repeat of that because I think we have been going down the same road. There was some talk, especially in the last three months about an austerity Budget, job cuts, how bad it was going to be. Then we have the Budget released, and on its face, not so bad. It does not seem so bad. It is a lot better than what we had but I am hoping that as time goes on it does not resemble the federal Budget in that we are going to tell you the cuts little by little over a period of time. I really have a bad feeling about that. These federal cuts are going to have a terrible impact on this entire Province, especially the rural areas.

I mentioned the comments made by the leader today when he was responding to the ministerial statement. I am not sure if it was health care, it was twenty kilometres outside of St. John's. That classifies as rural, and obviously I disagree with that classification. That means the City of Corner Brook is classified as rural. There is a big difference between the City of Corner Brook and the community of Grey River, two different things here. I do not think we can talk about what we are doing for rural Newfoundland and Labrador and consider Corner Brook rural because that is just not the case. That is just patently ridiculous actually.

What I would say is that I am hoping as we continue on we can talk about – there are some positive steps in the Budget, I have mentioned them before. I do not think you should sit here and just slam something without acknowledging positive steps. There have been positive steps in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. The fact is also that there has been a lot of money spent in health care. No doubt about it, health care makes up one of the bigger parts or portions of this Budget. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that we cannot sustain those levels of spending. We are not always getting the best outcomes for our dollar. We cannot just throw money at something and hope that it works out. If we are going to put money into something we need to make sure that the outcomes we are getting are the best, because as the years go by, the amount of money that we can invest in these areas is going to decrease but we need to maintain the level of service that we are accustomed to. That is the problem.

We have to figure out, how can we invest this money but get the best returns on that money? We take CYFS, we have put a lot of money into that. Actually there was an increase in that budget, and that is good. We need to make sure as time goes on we are getting the best outcomes of that money. We need to get rid of things like ALAs and to get more foster homes. I know that is the intention and that is the whole issue we have here. We have strategies and plans but we need to follow up on these strategies and plans to make sure that they actually work.

What I would say, Mr. Speaker, I will try to have a graceful segue way into my next section, but what I am going to do is I have plenty of time left to come back here in the future and continue. I have some comments on Muskrat Falls. What I would like to do at this point is to adjourn debate today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Seconded by your colleagues?

MR. A. PARSONS: Seconded by the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the debate does now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that this House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been now moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Monday, next week.

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