May 28, 2012                      HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                    Vol. XLVII No. 38


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start today, I would say to members, you have probably recognized that for the latter part of last week, and throughout the rest of this session, we will be having the service of three Pages. Our fourth Page, Andrew Furneaux, is not going to be with us for the next little while. I want you to have him in your prayers. Best wishes as he recovers from an illness. I will pass on our best wishes to him and do so on your behalf.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we are going to have members' statements from: the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South; the Member for the District of St. John's North; the Member for the District of Bonavista South; the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; and the Member for the District of Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

The Member for the District of Mount Pearl South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House to recognize the tremendous work of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary in the fight against drugs. The DARE program is a drug abuse prevention program designed to equip students with knowledge about drug abuse, the consequences of this abuse, and aims to equip these students with the skills to resist peer pressure when it comes to experimenting with drugs. This ten-week program is offered to all Grade 6 classes under the jurisdiction of the RNC and benefits approximately 1,950 students each school year.

Mr. Speaker, DARE is a co-operative effort by the police, schools, parents and community; all four working together to help our children make the right choices concerning drugs.

I would therefore ask all members of this hon. House to join me in commending the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and all of their community partners in the great work that they are doing in the protection of our greatest resource – our children.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to offer congratulations to an outstanding student at Prince of Wales Collegiate who has won a prestigious national award from Junior Achievement Canada.

Level III student Judy Ou received the Peter Mansbridge Positive Change Award at a Canadian Business Hall of Fame gala dinner in Toronto on May 8. This scholarship is given annually to one Canadian student who best personifies the values and attributes of a successful business or community leader.

Judy says she comes from a family of entrepreneurs. She has been part of Junior Achievement's company program since 2009. This year, she was Vice-President, Finance, part of JA Company called Swollip, producing eco-friendly pillows.

Anyone who knows Judy will tell you this prestigious award is well deserved. She is a student who enjoys challenge, expanding her horizons, and discovering new interests. In addition to a challenging academic program and her work with Junior Achievement, Judy volunteers with her school and the Janeway Children's Hospital.

I have no doubt that Judy Ou will continue to be a shining light in this Province, and I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bonavista South.

MR. LITTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, I would like to recognize and congratulate the members of Tourism Elliston on winning Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador's Tourism Excellence award for Innovator of the Year. This volunteer group was recognized for the unique and innovative vision they had and brought to life by implementing the Roots, Rants and Roars Festival, hosted by Elliston in September of 2011.

This one-of-a-kind event is the only culinary festival in the Province. It attracted hundreds of people with a large percentage of the participants being from outside the area. The festival was a three-day event that included the King of the Cod Competition, which saw five recognized chefs from across the Island compete. Next, there was a five-kilometre hike through the community, with stops to sample traditional foods along the way, followed by the evening gala event. Finally, there was a grand finale night, a house party at Nanny's Root Cellar Kitchen, a chance to stomp the night away.

Mr. Speaker, members of the House, please join me in congratulating Tourism Elliston's members: Myrtle Stagg, Betty Goodland, Colleen Duffett, Charlotte Ritman, John Grant, Gary Oldford, Gina Little, and Marilyn Coles-Hayley; and chef and consultant, Todd Perrin.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to recognize Atlantic Grocery Distributors, who recently was honoured for the promotion of environmental products by the Cascades Tissue Group. The award was presented in recognition of AGD's contribution in lowering Cascades' environmental footprint and informing buyers and users on the importance of sustainable development.

AGD started distributing Cascades Tissue Group's Away From Home products nearly a decade ago. These products are sold to both commercial and industrial customers made from 100 per cent recycled fibre, therefore avoiding the release of 74,333 kilograms of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of 23 car emissions in 2011.

AGD is a supplier of choice for nearly 200 franchise stores as well as independent grocers throughout the Province. The company also supplies and operates three corporately owned full-service supermarkets and two restaurants in Conception Bay North. The company is 100 per cent Newfoundland and Labrador privately owned, with reported sales in excess of $100 million annually, and has been in business for over sixty years, competing with all major retail operations.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Atlantic Grocery Distributors on their promotion of environmentally safe products.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Best Boy Entertainment Productions and owner-operator Ed Martin Senior on recently celebrating their grand opening in Mount Pearl. Best Boy Entertainment is a state-of-the-art production facility located on Park Avenue in the heart of Mount Pearl. They are already well established and produce several popular television shows.

Pet ER is in its second season and airs on The Pet Network in Canada. The show is a docudrama about family pets in medical crisis. Also underway for The Pet Network is season three of Mickey's Farm, a proven preschool success that blends colourful animation, live action, and original music. Mickey is a playful series that teaches children simple concepts in each episode.

Best Boy Entertainment has plans to expand into the feature film industry with two features currently in development: Gamblers Never Die and A Little Problem with Murder. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Martin and his team have all of the skills for success, and will continue to do well in the television production business.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Ed Martin Senior and his team on the grand opening of Best Boy Entertainment Productions, and wish them all the best as they pursue new projects for development.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to congratulate a one-of-a-kind organization in my district. The Crow's Nest is at once a private club and a museum. As of March 27, The Crow's Nest is also officially a National Historic Site. It opened as the Seagoing Officer's Club in 1942 and became famous around the North Atlantic as a place for naval men to relax. Many of these men left mementos of themselves before sailing out again. They wrote messages on the wall; eventually each ship got four square feet, which its crew could decorate in any way they wanted. These crests, drawings, and messages survive to this day. It is not a big space, Mr. Speaker, but one can spend hours looking at all the artifacts, including the famous operating periscope from a German submarine.

You do not have to be a naval officer anymore to go there, Mr. Speaker. Membership in the Crow's Nest is open to all persons who are interested in maintaining the Crow's Nest Club's character and purpose, and really, who would not be?

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the volunteer board of directors and all the members of the Crow's Nest for receiving the designation of National Historic Site.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to inform hon. members of how the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is demonstrating its ongoing commitment to post-secondary education.

To date, the provincial government investment in post-secondary education has grown from $228 million in 2003 to $528.4 million in 2012, an increase of 130.8 per cent. Through Budget 2012: People and Prosperity, this government continues to make strategic investments to support post-secondary infrastructure, including $40.8 million to Memorial University for the construction of new residences, creating at least 200 residence beds at Grenfell Campus and 500 residence beds in St. John's. In 2012, tuition fees at Memorial and the College of the North Atlantic are among the lowest in Canada, and since 2005, this government has invested $183 million for a tuition freeze to keep it that way.

The purpose of these and other investments is simple: to give people access to the best-possible education, an investment in their future and prosperity. On Friday, we had the great pleasure of seeing how ongoing investments in post-secondary education are enhancing students' educational experiences and helping to create opportunities to support long-term economic growth. I was joined by my provincial colleagues to take part in the official opening of Memorial University's Grenfell Campus Arts and Science building extension, which was funded by an investment of $19.2 million from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and $7.9 million by the federal government through its Knowledge Infrastructure Program.

Mr. Speaker, this facility is an impressive addition to the Grenfell Campus. The building provides research, computer and meeting spaces, a state-of-the-art telescope, laboratories and an auditorium. The extension will be used by a variety of academic disciplines including chemistry, physics, earth science and biology. The expansion also provides for faculty and staff offices, as well as dedicated study areas for students.

Mr. Speaker, just as Sir Wilfred Grenfell encouraged others to believe in themselves and strive for excellence, the Arts and Science Building extension will help foster incredible research opportunities, and enrich the education experience of students.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Memorial University on this outstanding addition to the Grenfell Campus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

Extending the Arts and Science Building at Grenfell is certainly a cause for celebration. Our leader was there at this event and remarked that the Grenfell Campus observatory now has the largest astronomical telescope in Atlantic Canada, which is certainly exciting news.

Also worth noting in regard to the extension at Grenfell, is the late John Ashton, former Principal of Grenfell. Dr. Ashton made significant progress in fostering international partnerships, developing undergraduate programming, building Grenfell's research agenda, and providing leadership and governance in the pursuit of greater autonomy and a new governance structure for Memorial's West Coast Campus. His wife, Sheila, also plays a key role in Memorial's development, as a member of the Board of Regents.

I would be remiss, as we are talking about funding announcements, if we did not recognize the $3.85 million in cuts to Memorial University this year as well. As our only university, making cuts to this critical institution gives a cause for concern. Corner Brook is promoting itself as a college community, and these investments will enhance its image.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KIRBY: I too would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

Congratulations to Grenfell Campus for the successful expansion of the Arts and Science Building. The increased teaching and research space and enhancements in technology are progressive and necessary steps as the college continues to evolve and to build capacity.

As the government moves forward with plans to improve the campus in the future, I encourage it to consider improving some important services that students need added to the college environment. For example, the need for child care spaces and the shortage of family physicians in the area, issues that Grenfell students have told me are of concerns to them, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, enjoyment of our natural environment is an important aspect of the cultural fabric of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is evident in the vast number of outdoor enthusiasts who access our provincial parks and ecological reserves every year.

The May 24 weekend traditionally signals the beginning of the camping season in our Province, with the opening of seven of our larger provincial parks: Barachois Pond, Butter Pot, Frenchman's Cove, J.T. Cheeseman, La Manche, Lockston Path and Notre Dame Provincial Parks. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report we experienced an occupancy rate of approximately 90 per cent for the holiday weekend this year. Sandbanks and Sir Richard Squires Memorial Parks also opened on May 25, while Blow Me Down, Dildo Run, Pinware River and Pistolet Bay are slated to open on June 1.

In 2007, our government increased its investment in provincial parks with a $4 million Parks Renewal Strategy aimed at improving amenities within the parks system. As a result, all parks in our Province now have comfort stations and dumping stations. This year, electrical services are available at a number of campsites in Lockston Path, La Manche, Frenchman's Cove, J.T. Cheeseman, Notre Dame and Dildo Run.

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the contributions of our seniors to our Province and the importance of their ability to access our natural heritage. That is why Budget 2012-13 People and Prosperity allocated $3.7 million to provide seniors aged sixty-five and over, a 35 per cent reduction on various fees in our Province, including those for hunting, fishing, and camping. This initiative complements the goals of the Provincial Healthy Aging Policy Framework which aims to recognize older persons, and encourage health and financial well-being.

Mr. Speaker, we also introduced a new campsite reservation system in 2007 to increase efficiencies in book campsites in our provincial parks. This system continues to increase in popularity each year, Mr. Speaker, with a 17 per cent increase during the first week of the reservation system launch this year. In 2011, approximately 11,500 reservations were made via this system. We encourage campers to continue to utilize this system by calling toll-free 1-877-214-CAMP or 1-877-214-2267 or online at www.NLCamping.ca.

The pristine beauty of Newfoundland and Labrador is second to none, and I encourage our camping public to get out and experience this beauty first-hand again this season.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Minister of Environment and Conservation for the advance notice of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador is the most beautiful place in the world, and we encourage all people to get out and enjoy the beauty of our people and our Province. Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned that the people will now be limited in what attractions they are able to see and when they are able to do it as a result of cuts from Parks Canada.

We believe that this will be most evident in the shoulder seasons as well as the impact the cuts will have on the ecological research that happens at the national parks in our Province. Mr. Speaker, the people of our Province have so much to offer and we encourage the government to try and offset the cuts by Parks Canada. We have a lot to offer as a Province and we need to support our regions in the already short tourism season that we have.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the value of getting out to the parks to enjoy them, but I am also beginning to see some success with parks so much that government needs to consider a new strategy and execute that strategy by creating more park areas for the enjoyment and education of the public.

No doubt, if their popularity is forecasting an increase in the coming years, according to the minister's statement, then government should consider allowing the creation of new park areas, be it through private businesses or government initiatives, while keeping the environment first and foremost in mind.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have just learned that Eastern Health will hold a press conference tomorrow and announce that there will be 552 positions cut to achieve $43 million in savings.

I ask the Premier: Can you confirm these cuts and tell us what health care services will be impacted?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there will indeed be a press conference tomorrow and until that time I will not release any details. That is for the press conference tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, on Thursday in the House of Assembly here, the minister basically made reference to a conversation that she had with the Premier during the Budget discussion and at that time, on Thursday, mentioned that because frontline health care is so important, they would not be impacted.

I ask the Premier: What has changed between now and Thursday and where will these millions of dollars in cuts in health care be?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our resolve has not changed. There will not be any cuts in programs and services. The announcement that you will hear tomorrow will lay out some particular initiatives that Eastern Health wishes to embark upon, but we have made our commitment firm to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; there will not be cuts in programs and services, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Forty-three million dollars and 554 jobs are going to be certainly felt by somebody, I am sure.

Can you please provide an outline if other health authorities have plans to cut services and jobs? Will we see similar cuts in Western, Central, and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, what bothers me most about this is that there is a bit of fear mongering that is happening now. What we have said is that we will provide all of the details with regard to this tomorrow.

You are asking questions about information that Eastern Health is releasing tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, and so therefore, we will respond to those questions in as much detail as you want tomorrow. For now, I do not think we need to be saying to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that there is a reason to be concerned or that there is a reason to be upset. I have said it here and I will continue to say it: programs and services will remain.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I will say we are not fear mongering; we are just trying to get the information, indeed, where these cuts will be.

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has stated that their internal review of the failed Makkovik search concludes that policies and procedures were followed and there is no need for changes. It is hard to believe, with so many things going back and forth, and people just trying to figure out where the blame lies, for the RCMP to say that there is no need for changes to policies and procedures.

I ask the Premier: Do you agree with the conclusions reached by the RCMP, and if so, will you table the internal review?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, today we finally get to the heart of what has been going on so sadly in this Province since the end of January. It is about blame, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition has worked hard and used this tragedy as a political football to try and lay that blame at the feet of government. It is extremely, extremely sad.

Mr. Speaker, the questions that have been raised publicly have been about the role of the federal government and JRCC in their response to the request for air support. The federal government has provided answers to those questions. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador does not find those answers satisfactory, Mr. Speaker, and have relayed that to the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: My question is indeed not about – this is not a political football at all. What we are trying to do is get to a public inquiry so this never happens again in our Province.

What I asked about was the internal review from the RCMP. In the search and rescue correspondence tabled by the Premier last week, the Minister Responsible for Fire and Emergency Services repeatedly states that protocols need to be revisited.

I ask the Premier: What protocols need to be changed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate fact of life that sometimes searches fail, despite people's best efforts. Mr. Speaker, this is not precise science, but people, based on their knowledge, their training, their experience and the information that they have access to, make the best decisions they can in trying to locate somebody when they are lost.

In terms of our protocols – because we are a service that we provide to searchers in a jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, such as aircraft to do aerial searches – the protocols that we have found that fail us in this instance are in terms of the federal government and their decision as to when to deploy their infrastructure that is available to assist in a humanitarian way, because they have no mandated role in ground search and rescue, Mr. Speaker.

We feel that they ought to do more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: We really have not identified what the solution is so this never happens again.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier tabled the correspondence with the federal government, but what she did not do was our own internal investigation – that report. It has been four months now. We have seen the investigation by the Canadian Forces; the RCMP investigation is now done.

I ask the Premier: Why was this left out last week and when can we expect to see it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition seems to be under the impression that everything that gets done in government has to be written down. That is not necessarily the way that things operate within government.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Municipal Affairs, in co-operation with Fire and Emergency Services, did a full review of their protocols after this incident. They made several adjustments, Mr. Speaker, but found that in terms of the support services that they provided for ground search and rescue, the protocols worked well. Where we find that there is a deficiency is in terms of callout for search and rescue in response from the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: I still believe it was the understanding of the people in this House that that investigation would be tabled when it was done.

Mr. Speaker, the Province's federal minister stated last week that there was a lot of tension with relations between the federal government and provincial government, but he felt that would improve if Muskrat Falls proceeds.

I ask the Premier: Do you agree with the Minister Penashue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, relations of the federal government with the provincial government should be good because that is their responsibility: to co-operate and to work with us. We have tried very hard in the last year to build our relationship to make sure that we are articulating clearly the needs and aspirations of the people of this Province to the federal government, and reminding them of their responsibility to respond. That can never be focused on one issue and one issue alone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Well, I do not know how clearly you can articulate it, because what we have seen in the last few weeks is certainly devastating to this Province. Mr. Speaker, the language from the federal minister, Penashue, suggests that the federal government is holding a lot of weight in the promise of this loan guarantee of Muskrat Falls.

So, my question is for the Premier: Minister Penashue said what everyone is thinking, that the feds are making deep cuts to our Province. We have said very little. Is this indeed to protect the promised loan guarantee?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is making deep cuts right across the country; it is not particular to Newfoundland and Labrador. They are feeling the pain particularly in Ontario to a greater degree than we are here, Mr. Speaker. So they should, because that is where the concentration of federal public service is.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are pushing as hard as we can. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who went to Ottawa, had one ministerial meeting, and decided not to show up for it. When one of them did get in, they did not ask that their leader be involved in the meeting, even though he was sitting outside the door, Mr. Speaker, and did not ask for an inquiry. When, in a scrum last week, pushed to ask what he would do, he said he would talk more –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has insinuated on several occasions that because I was part of the search in Makkovik that the Opposition has information being withheld.

Mr. Speaker, I was part of the search, and I will most likely be involved in future searches. I have no information that I am withholding, and like the Premier and the people of this Province, what I do have are questions.

I ask the Premier: What information are you suggesting that I am withholding from this House and do you have evidence that any other information is being withheld?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted that the MHA for the Torngat has put this on the table today because it is the members of his party who day after day after day in this House rise asking for an inquiry.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they are not saying that the answers that the federal government have provided are not satisfactory or satisfactory; they keep saying that there are other things that we should be investigating. That means something between the RCMP and the Canadian Rangers. I am saying that unless they know something that they have not disclosed, Mr. Speaker, we do not see any reason for an inquiry into the activities of the RCMP or the Canadian Rangers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier through her insinuations clearly admits that there is information we need to obtain with regard to this terrible tragedy. Instead of getting it through a public inquiry she would rather suggest I, as a member of a search team, am withholding information.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: If you are suggesting that there is still information being held, then why don't you call a public inquiry and get to the bottom of it? I do not have the information, Mr. Speaker, and like the federal government, I am willing to participate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not insinuating at all that there is information being withheld. That is the insinuation that is being made day by day by day by his own caucus in this House, Mr. Speaker, that there is information that we do not know about, that something happened on the ground.

Mr. Speaker, in the deployment of the provincial government's resources, protocols were followed and aircraft were in the air within two-and-a-half hours, three-and-a-half hours of the call. The first call came in at 8:19 o'clock, Mr. Speaker. By 10:45 o'clock, there was a helicopter in the air, our helicopter. At 1:00 o'clock there was another helicopter in the air. At 2:30 o'clock they were told to stand down. Mr. Speaker, the next time aircraft were called in the federal government was there with the Griffon, then joined by the Aurora, and we joined the search in the morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we understand that as of today the College of the North Atlantic's daycare centre is closed due to air quality problems. The closure of the site suggests a serious problem at the facility.

I ask the minister: Can you confirm that the daycare centre is indeed closed and what has been forced to close the site?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the daycare site at the College of the North Atlantic has been temporarily closed. Work is being done to remedy the situation and we expect that as soon as the work is done that the daycare centre will continue. In the meantime, alternate space has been found and the daycare will continue until they can move back into their original space.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, parents from the centre are concerned that air at the centre has been making their children sick. They have told us that children from the daycare centre have been admitted to hospital with life-threatening respiratory illnesses.

I ask the minister: When did you first become aware of the problem, and will you now initiate testing for these children to determine whether or not issues at the centre affected their health?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I recently became aware of the information. It was either on Friday or over the weekend. At that time, I was told the daycare centre would be temporarily relocated into a space that was able to meet the needs of the children. Mr. Speaker, we will make sure before we reopen the centre that all necessary testing is done and that it is a safe environment for the children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, the federal government took steps to make changes with regard to the EI program, announcements of deep and profound changes in the program that will impact 50,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador, including over 7,000 people who receive fisheries benefits.

I ask the Premier today: What steps is she taking to bring these concerns directly to the attention of the Prime Minister, or will this just be another letter-writing campaign by one of her ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this government is concerned about the EI reforms that were introduced last week by the federal government. The Premier has spoken about this through the media over the weekend. I also had the opportunity to speak about it, and I had a meeting over the telephone with Minister Finley.

Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the changes and about the effects it may have on the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador and some of our seasonal industries. We will continue to dialogue with the federal government to make sure the concerns of this Province are brought forward. Mr. Speaker, we will certainly advocate to ensure that the program meets the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is really a rural Canadian resettlement program that will have deep and extended results in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we need to have some evidence and information on who will be affected, what regions, and what industries.

I ask the Premier today: Will her government conduct a proper analysis of the impacts of these EI changes as soon as possible, and will the government commit to releasing that information in the public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear that the changes to the EI program are squarely with the federal government, not changes being brought about by this government.

Mr. Speaker, we continually and always work with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to determine the needs of our communities, whether it is in skills development or Income Support programs and, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to do that. We will not do it specifically through a study based on these EI reforms, but we need to make sure that we are responsive to the needs of people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have done that before; we will continue to do it, Mr. Speaker, with or without these particular changes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have also heard of other cuts that are occurring within the Province, and one of them is the cuts to the DFO offices. I am hearing that one of the fallouts will be the closure of six satellite offices in L'Anse-au-Loup, Rigolet, Roddickton, Burgeo, Arnold's Cove, and Trepassey.

I am asking the Premier if she is aware of these cuts; and, if she is, has she had any discussions with her federal counterparts on how they will affect the industry in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware, as I said in this House last week, of the proposed cuts. I do not have a lot of specific information, but I am advised that there will be about 111 positions changing in the Province, not necessarily 111 individuals affected. I am also told that the communications tenders in St. Anthony and St. John's will be affected. I am not aware of the information that the member opposite provided. That has not been given to us by DFO.

There are going to be some changes in the offshore surveillance, air surveillance, and conservation and enforcement offices. There will be some changes there, but I do not have all of the specific details. We are continuing to advocate; the Premier has been very clear she is looking for a meeting and I have a meeting scheduled with the federal minister myself to talk about this and other things like the EI reform as it affects the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The bottom is falling out of the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Cuts to EI and ACOA, and cuts to federal jobs and programs will devastate an already fragile rural economy.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: What message has she for the thousands of people affected by these cuts?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Third Party's story changes every Question Period. Last week she was telling us how we should backfill the funding for RED Boards because it was driving the economy in rural parts of the Province and doing a tremendous job for it. Now she stood in the House only four or five days later, telling us the bottom is falling out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, which is it?

You know, Mr. Speaker, we support our rural economies. Sometimes there is not an answer for every community, but where there is an answer, we work with our partners in community to find out what it is. I only point to Stephenville; I point to the whole Hermitage Bay, Fortune Bay, Connaigre Peninsula area, Mr. Speaker, Arnold's Cove, Grand Falls-Windsor. We work with our communities to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Rural Newfoundland and Labrador is facing continuous devastating economic blows. Fish plants are closing, the forestry industry is stagnating, the workforce is aging, and now economic safety nets that were there for workers are disappearing. The people that the Premier is speaking about, Mr. Speaker, need to see government has a solid plan to deal with these drastic changes to the economy.

So, I am asking her, in their name: What is her real plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no denying the fact that the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador is changing, Mr. Speaker. The development of the Department of Advanced Education and Skills was created by this Premier primarily to be able to address the changes in the economy.

Mr. Speaker, we understand that over the next ten years there will be 70,000 job openings in this Province, and as the Department of Advanced Education and Skills, we want to ensure that the people of this Province – who either have not yet had the opportunity to get an education, or who need to change, or need to commit and change their skills and take work in Newfoundland and Labrador – that we want this department to be there to be able to work with as many people as possible to ensure that they have an opportunity for skills development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

In the media this morning, the Premier said her government has not the capacity to step in and help the people of this Province when the federal government cuts programs and jobs; this from a Premier whose Budget, Mr. Speaker, has $664 million in it for a yet-unapproved project.

So I ask the Premier: Does her government have a plan to assist the many people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who suddenly face a future with no economic safety net?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for the information of the Leader of the Third Party, this government and the Provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was not created in order to pick up the slack from the federal government. We are not here because the federal government drops any particular program that we need to be there, but we will work with them in partnership, and we will work with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the key opportunities that we have in this Province right now is we have an economy that is changing and there will be opportunities for the people of this Province. Our challenge today, Mr. Speaker, is how do we best prepare the people so that they can have the opportunities to participate in the labour market?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

In addition to radical and brutal new EI regulations, the federal government has cut EI Appeal Board staff from 1,079 people across Canada to seventy-four.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Has government a plan in place to fight for people who have, in effect, lost their right to appeal federal decisions regarding their EI?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, anybody tuning in to the House of Assembly channel must think they have the wrong station. Day after day after day in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, we are asked questions that are all within the purview of the federal government who have responsibility here. To these people on the other side, the Liberals and the NDP have representatives in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker. Ottawa's representatives that they absolutely convinced the people of Newfoundland and Labrador could protect their interests and look after their interests, serve their interests better, Mr. Speaker, than Progressive Conservatives could; yet, they direct their questions to us every day. Our primary mandate is to fulfill our obligations to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we do it every…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services announced a supplement increase –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: – for Level II early childhood educators working as operators in child care centres. Level II ECEs who do not work as operators have been left wondering why they were left out in this announcement.

Can the minister explain why she chose to discriminate against some of the most skilled early childhood educators in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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, what this government did in this Budget was introduce a 10-Year, comprehensive, strategic Child Care Strategy. We have doubled our investment into child care within a ten-year time frame going from $26 million per year to $52 million per year, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that we were asked for along the way was to address the issue of entry level, Mr. Speaker. We have increased the standard for quality in child care centres by eliminating entry level. That is what we announced on Friday. We are very committed to child care in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, the minister should ask herself what this decision says to Level II early childhood educators who worked hard to achieve Level II certification. Her treatment of these Level II ECEs is nothing short of an insult at the beginning of Early Childhood Educator's Week.

I ask the minister: Why did she decide to treat one group of Level II early childhood educators as second-class citizens?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, what we did in this strategy is we deconstructed the entire system as it was. We looked at issues of sufficiency, affordability and quality and we are putting the system back together. Under that system, Mr. Speaker, entry-level was an issue and attracting operators for a centre is an issue. The reality is 55 per cent of the staff who work with our children do not have the educational requirements, so we wanted to raise the floor before we raised the ceiling. I also refer the member to our legislation. Our legislation requires that the lead staff in a home be a Level I, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Justice said in the media that they were monitoring other jurisdictions to see how whistle-blower legislation works out before they make any decisions. Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that five years of monitoring is long enough. This issue demands leadership and waiting on other jurisdictions is not a satisfactory answer.

I ask the minister: Why won't this government take action to craft their own piece of legislation and protect whistle-blowers? The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are waiting.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I said in this House on a number of occasions, that whistle-blower legislation is a very comprehensive, tedious, significant piece of legislation. We have certainly done a lot of jurisdictional scanning and continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out, as I pointed out to the media, we have whistle-blower protection in a number of pieces of legislation in this government. I outlined those acts to the media, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Environmental Protection Act. I cannot recall, Mr. Speaker, I remember giving at least half-a-dozen to the media at the time. Plus the fact, Mr. Speaker, in the Criminal Code of Canada there is provision that makes it a criminal offence to penalize an employee for retaliation or intimidation in the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, every bit of whistle-blower protection that our employers need is there. When we find something better in the way of whistle-blower piece of legislation then we will certainly look at it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, another tedious and complex one coming your way. The inclusion of gender identity in our Human Rights Act is yet another issue we have been told will take time as the government monitors the work, yet again, of other jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, the Northwest Territories has gender identity enshrined in their Human Rights Legislation, the Governments of Manitoba and Ontario is taking the necessary steps for theirs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What will it take for this government to lead on this issue and do what is necessary to extend protections to one of the most vulnerable groups in our society?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, as we found in the consultations for the Human Rights Act, the issue of gender identity is still evolving in this country and needs a lot of analysis before we can bring in anything specific in our piece of legislation. True, the Northwest Territories does have a provision that identifies gender identity. They do not define gender identity; neither does the Province of Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, in the consultations, the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights and gender identity working group pointed out to us how difficult it was to pin down gender identity. For example, gender identity and gender expression are not interchangeable. Transsexual and transgender are not interchangeable.

Mr. Speaker, we had eleven different definitions of gender identity. We have it all included under the prohibited grounds of sex. All of the complaints are received under that ground.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program is meant to modernize the fishery through new products and production methods; however, the maximum funding under this program is just $100,000 per project. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing successful fisheries innovations surging in other Atlantic Provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: How can he hope for similar success in growing the Province's $1 billion fishing industry with such restrictions on funding?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program has been very successful, I say to the member opposite. Over the last number of years we have made significant investments. Contrary to what the member is suggesting, we have yet to have industry come to us and suggest that they do not like the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, it is not only the $100,000 that you can avail of through the fisheries program. We have things like the RDC from Innovation, Business and Rural Development, Mr. Speaker, with close to $100 million in the Budget this year. We have a number of programs like that we use to stimulate and grow the industry. We use money from fisheries to leverage other money from other government departments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

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 that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 29, 2012.

Further, I give notice, under Standing Order 11, that I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 29, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BALL: WHEREAS the labour force of Newfoundland and Labrador has traditionally been one that is disproportionately based on seasonal employment compared with other provinces, given the large rural population and broad seasonal industries, including the fishery, tourism, forestry, roadwork, construction, cultural industries, and agriculture. Many of these industries depend upon seasonal labour for their continued existence and success; and

WHEREAS the Government of Canada has announced profound and substantial changes to the national Employment Insurance program; and

WHEREAS these changes will adversely affect more than 50,000 persons in Newfoundland and Labrador who are in receipt of Employment Insurance each year, including more than 7,000 recipients of fishery benefits; and

WHEREAS the changes, including the requirement for EI recipients who find a job paying at least 80 per cent of pay in a similar occupation within six weeks and the requirement that recipients be willing to work at a job that is within a one hour commute from their home, are aimed at urban populations and ignores the needs and realities of the rural economy; and

WHEREAS the changes made to the Employment Insurance appeals and review processes denies the right for a speedy, meaningful, and comprehensive appeal; and

WHEREAS the changes were conceived, announced, and will be implemented without consultations with the population of Canada, without advanced warning to governments of the provinces or territories, without a proper debate in the Parliament of Canada on the principles or implementation, and without the mandate to do so given that these changes were never proposed during the most recent federal election;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly condemns the substance and implementation of the changes to the Canadian Employment Insurance program;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House calls upon government to immediately conduct a detailed research program to examine the long-term effects of these changes on individuals, communities, and to the Province as a whole, with goals of gathering evidence to use in a campaign against these changes and also for the use in determining what provincial government programs may be required to mitigate the negative effects of these changes;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House calls upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to join forces with the Maritime provinces in order to better address the issue with one united, regional voice;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House call upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that this issue be placed on the agenda for discussion at the annual Council of the Federation meeting this summer, in order to initiate a national debate on the role and value of the Employment Insurance program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give notice that on Wednesday we will debate one of the motions on the Order Paper already put forward by myself, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, asking government to do a public inquiry, and we will be calling that for Private Members' Day on Wednesday.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, on March 21, the Member for St. Barbe tabled a question in the House of Assembly requesting any correspondence, reports, or other representation which the provincial government has made to the federal government in the last two years in relation to policies on owner-operator and fleet separation; I am more than pleased to provide information here today in response to this request.

On March 15, 2012, I wrote the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the hon. Keith Ashfield, in respect to DFO's fisheries modernization consultations. I have also met with Minister Ashfield in Boston at the seafood show and during a visit to Ottawa earlier this year for Seal Day on the Hill.

On behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I was pleased to provide our initial views on Fisheries and Oceans Canada's discussion document titled The Future of Canada's Commercial Fisheries at each opportunity I have had. Ensuring the sustainability of fisheries resources adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador while maximizing long-term economic benefits for our industry, for our people, and for our communities, is our Province's top priority. We welcome the opportunity to provide input into a process that will significantly impact our Province's fishing industry.

We look forward, Mr. Speaker, to working with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry on an inclusive and integrated approach to modernizing Canada's fishing industry. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agrees that a more modern approach to fisheries management is required to address the industry's challenges and opportunities. While we support the idea of a reformed fisheries management regime, our support for the proposed approach will be contingent on securing the Government of Canada's assurances on key issues of concern before we can fully endorse the process.

Mr. Speaker, maintaining access to our historical shares of adjacent fishery resource is of utmost importance to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people we represent. Stable access to these resources is essential to maintain the economic viability of our Province's fishing enterprises, our processing operations, and the hundreds of rural communities that depend on the fishing industry. The principles of adjacency and historical participation must be given priority in all future resource allocation processes. Should DFO's modernization approach compromise our access to historical shares of adjacent stocks, we will not support moving forward with their initiative.

Mr. Speaker, while moving towards a long-term approach is a step forward for the fishing industry, this process clearly requires a thorough review of all policies and regulations that govern fisheries management in Canada. For illustrative purposes, this includes important policies such as the combining policy, access and allocations policies, the fleet separation policy, and the owner-operator policy. To make this work, Mr. Speaker, will require more collaboration between provincial-territorial governments, the federal government, and the fishing industry stakeholders.

We therefore sought the commitment of DFO that it will employ a coordinated and collaborative approach as the modernization process moves forward. On this latter point, we also requested that the process take place over a reasonable time period. Important matters such as this, Mr. Speaker, cannot be rushed. The need for provincial representation is further illustrated by the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador's processing sector is regulated by our government and generates roughly half of the market value from our fishing industry.

Concerning the fleet separation policy and the owner-operator policy, the position of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has not changed. We continue to support these policies; however, it is appropriate that we discuss these policies in a collaborative way to ensure they meet the needs of the fishing industry in our Province.

It is also important to be clear on the definitions associated with these policies. For example, we should determine whether or not the owner-operator policy does or should require the license holder to be present on the vessel when it is engaged in fishing operations. DFO must also ensure that key industry stakeholders are well represented in this process and have adequate opportunity to provide their input.

At the meeting to discuss DFO's modernization approach on January 12, 2012 in St. John's, we felt, Mr. Speaker, that key industry sectors were not well represented. Appropriate industry representation is essential to enhance understanding of the modernization approach and co-operation among all parties as policies and regulations are rolled out to reform fisheries management. While securing our historical shares of adjacent fish stocks is paramount in considering the federal government's modernization initiative, we also require elaboration on several elements outlined in DFO's discussion paper.

Although some intentions put forth were quite clear, Mr. Speaker, such as the establishment of multi-year cycles of scientific advice and evergreen Integrated Fisheries Management Plans, many questions have not been addressed in this discussion paper. It is unclear, for example, what specific strategies are planned to move toward a market-based approach to fisheries management. Further discussion on the specific policies and strategies, as well as proposed timelines to achieve them, are required in order for the Province to fully engage with the federal government in this process.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome a collaborative, integrated, and inclusive approach to modernizing the fishing industry in Canada, one that respects our Province's interests and provides for informed and balanced policy development. We look forward to receiving a copy of the findings from the consultations with the fishing industry, and we can then engage with the federal government and the other provinces and territories on how we can collectively move forward with the industry stakeholders to ensure that our fishing industry brings maximum benefits to Canadians, and in particular, to us Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you.

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 April 3, the hon. Member for Burgeo – La Poile placed a question, Question 13 on the Order Paper, asking myself to lay on the Table of the House the following information: (a) the number of lockdowns at Her Majesty's Penitentiary in the last six years, (b) a list of any dangerous weapons confiscated from inmates, (c) a list of illegal substances confiscated from inmates, and (d) any notable incidents or altercations occurring either among inmates or between inmates and guards.

Mr. Speaker, I could make a comment initially that we would have to hire another workforce to get all this information together, if you want to go back six years, but I am pleased to stand here today to address question 13 regarding Her Majesty's Penitentiary. In answering these questions, Mr. Speaker, I have to be ever mindful of the safety and security of inmates and staff, and in fact the general public. As Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I have to be careful that I do not say or disclose anything that might pose security or safety risks to our inmates, to the staff or general public. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will have to address each particular question with general information. The important thing to remember, Mr. Speaker, is that unfortunately you cannot underestimate the determination and ingenuity of some inmates. This is something that all correctional facilities anywhere in the world have to deal with.

Mr. Speaker, lockdowns at correctional facilities are necessary in order to ensure the safety and security of inmates, safety and security as well of the staff and of the general public. Lockdowns are only put in place when necessary and may only result in a partial lockdown of certain areas of a correctional centre such as a cell block or a living unit, or even a part of the same. We do not always have to put in place a full lockdown and if it is not necessary then we will not.

Mr. Speaker, we have statistics on the types of lockdowns that we have had, everything from a small part of a unit to a full-scale lockdown. Because there are so many variations of lockdowns, it would be misleading, Mr. Speaker, to provide a statistic on the number. Lockdowns are usually the result, Mr. Speaker, of weapon and contraband seizures, and also the result maybe of incidents or altercations within the facility.

With respect to seizing weapons or contraband, again, Mr. Speaker, this is a reality for corrections in Canada and many other countries as well. We do our best to manage these concerns. You have to recognize that some of the items seized, especially weapons, are rather inventive and creative on the part of inmates. Most weapons seized are makeshift knives or shanks, but again, security reasons prevent me from discussing how they are made or how they are obtained. Basically, these comprise anecdotally about 99 per cent of seized weapons.

Now, I am not sure what the member meant by illegal substances. Contraband in a prison environment will go beyond narcotics because items which are readily available outside the institution and are considered legal are not necessarily legal substances within the prison. For example, cigarettes, lighters, matches are examples.

With respect to incidents and altercations, they are also a reality, Mr. Speaker, in our correctional environments. Our correctional officers are well trained to deal with these issues as they arise. Again, these could lead to lockdowns and necessary investigations are carried out. These investigations sometimes lead to charges which make their way to the court system. To speak to any particular incident would be inappropriate for privacy, safety and security reasons.

Mr. Speaker, our security, our policies, and our procedures are not static. We are always reviewing them to determine how they can best work out. We review them from the perspective of our own unique needs but also with a best practice lens of what is happening in other jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, in 2009 we released the independent report on adult corrections called Decades of Darkness. This report has now shaped how we move forward with corrections in the last three years and has been a strong foundation. I will get into more details of initiatives at a later date but I want to point out at this time that as a result of that report we have added numerous correctional officers, including eleven correctional officers for the HMP, one correctional officer for the Labrador correctional centre, three Lieutenants for Newfoundland and Labrador Correction Centre for Women. In 2010, six additional correctional officers were added to ensure the safer environment within our correctional facilities, as well as providing more stable work schedules for the officers.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that the ways to improve living and working at correctional facilities go beyond the bricks and mortar and the legislative framework. Many times programs and services delivered, especially for the betterment of communities, boost morale for both correctional officers and inmates alike. By creating a better environment we can also lower the number of incidents involving lockdowns, confiscation of weapons and contraband, and other altercations.

Thinking outside the box, Mr. Speaker, and recognizing that inmates have much to offer from within the correctional walls has helped us achieve many successes that have helped inmates deal with their own issues. I want to just list a couple, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of those watching who would not realize, as I mentioned, there is more to corrections than the bricks and mortar and legislation. For example, at the Bishop's Falls Correctional Centre, the inmates there produced and harvested 100 pound bags of potatoes. They were harvested to go to the Grand Falls-Windsor Food Bank. Also, a canine therapy program which started at Bishop's Falls Correctional Centre and the West Coast Correctional Centre proved so successful that similar programs have since started in the Labrador Correctional Centre and the Newfoundland and Labrador Correctional Centre for Women. Inmates learned important life skills by training dogs, donated through local SPCAs, so that the dogs can be adopted within the local communities.

Inmates at the Newfoundland and Labrador Correctional Centre for Women worked with correctional officers to raise approximately $1,000 for Canadian Cancer Society's Relay for Life in Clarenville. Inmates took responsibility for making banners, props, and signs for the fundraiser, which they call KISS Cancer Goodbye; kiss is in capital letters: KISS. They were dressed in the designs, facial paint, and whatnot of the KISS music group that appeared in Grand Falls last year.

Inmates at the Newfoundland and Labrador Correctional Centre for Women rose to the occasion again by making the visiting room more family friendly and personal by painting cartoon murals. Inmates have a more comfortable space to visit with their families.

Mr. Speaker, at the Labrador Correctional Centre, inmates and staff have been working together on the Let's Build a House project. As a group, they have been building a new house for a family who lost everything in a horrific fire, which took the life of a young child. So far, $35,000 has been donated to help build a house, with another $15,000 left to raise.

Consistently, Mr. Speaker, we hear these positive things about these initiatives from both correctional staff and inmates. All their lockdowns, altercations, and confiscations of weapons and contraband we hear about more often, and the reality of prison environment; the initiatives we have provided give inmates a sense of ownership and accomplishment that they are proud of. This certainly helps us, Mr. Speaker, in providing a more stable environment in adult corrections.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Kent): Petitions

Petitions

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition; to the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS hundreds of residents of the South Coast of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, including residents of the communities of Burgeo, Ramea, Grey River, and Francois, use Route 480 on a regular basis for work, medical, educational, and social reasons; and

WHEREAS there is no cellphone coverage on Route 480; and

WHEREAS residents and users of Route 480 require cellphone coverage to ensure their safety and communication abilities; and

WHEREAS the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development recently announced significant funding to improve broadband services in rural Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the residents and users of Route 480 feel that the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development should also invest in cellular phone coverage for rural Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support the users of Route 480 in their request to obtain cellphone coverage along Route 480.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to enter this petition again today, as I have done on many previous occasions before. This one, actually, I entered today because I had an opportunity to attend the Burgeo Firefighters' Ball on Saturday night. While I was in town I talked to a number of firefighters and residents of the community; they told me how this issue is one of the top issues with that community, along with the state of the Burgeo road in general. In fact, I heard of one occasion not that long ago where we had people driving along the road and came upon an accident where an elderly couple had gone out off the road and were actually in the water. In this case they had to perform a rescue attempt, and the rescue attempt was hindered by the fact that they had to drive seventy-five kilometres off the Burgeo highway in order for them to call the normal first responders to this situation.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, we all know this is an important issue; we all know the lack of cellphone coverage in many areas of this Province is proving detrimental to not only the safety of our citizens, but to the business and education of our citizens. I urge the minister to continue on in his efforts to get this done, to meet with private providers, and to meet with the CRTC; again, I would do anything in my power to assist in this process so that the people of this Province have this necessary technology in 2012.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of the people of the Burin Peninsula, and indeed, from all Newfoundland and Labrador. Cameras on the Burin Peninsula Highway – I will just read the prayer:

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 Burin Peninsula Highway is long and desolate, varying in elevation, with highway conditions that are often difficult; and

WHEREAS this stretch of highway does not have adequate cellphone coverage to allow for quick response times for people in distress who need help; and

WHEREAS the highway has innumerable hazards that have led to the death of travellers in this area; and

WHEREAS no highway cameras are currently operating to let travellers know about road conditions and warn of possible hazards;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to install cameras on the Burin Peninsula Highway that will allow travellers to check on road conditions in the area.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is from residents all over the island. St. John's, Paradise, and Mount Pearl are on this one, along with the people, of course, of varying communities down the Burin Peninsula: St. Bernard's, Jacques Fontaine, and such; Little Bay East is another one.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot escape the relevance of the purpose of cameras today and how much they are used and how much we have actually become dependent on these cameras to actually see what the road conditions are going to be like in the areas that we are going to be travelling on a day-today basis. This particular petition by these people is no different when it comes to stressing the need and the fact that we need cameras more and more in our everyday lives to carry on commerce, and indeed, for the travelling and motoring public out there.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your time with regard to expressing the views of these people. Hopefully, we will come to some sort of an agreement with government shortly on this one, and hopefully sooner rather than later.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you.

I rise to present a petition on needed changes to the Department of Education's school bus transportation policies.

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 school district restructuring has resulted in longer bus travel times and more hazardous winter travel for rural students of all ages; and

WHEREAS due to recent school closures, children living within 1.6 kilometres of school face increased barriers of congested streets and busy intersections in the walk to school, and parents without cars are having more difficulty getting children to different schools on foot; and

WHEREAS only those child care centres outside the 1.6 kilometre zone and directly on bus routes are included in the kindergarten noontime routes, causing hardship for working parents; and

WHEREAS the 1.6 kilometre policy has been in place since 1975 and student transportation policies have not been reviewed through public consultation since 1996; and

WHEREAS parents are expressing the need for more flexible policies for student transportation and school restructuring to meet current needs of school children;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to conduct a review of school bus transportation policies and school restructuring to ensure safe and quality education for all school children in the Province.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

We have petitioners from St. John's, Paradise, Mount Pearl, and St. Alban's. Mr. Speaker, I know it is difficult right now when I am talking about hazardous winter travel with all of the beautiful weather we have been having, although I do not know if the forecast is anything – we might have a bit of snow on the ground. As the weather improves, it is easy to forget about the treacherous and dangerous conditions under which some small school children have to walk to school.

I have received thousands of signatures on this petition over the course of this sitting of the Legislature. Members are probably becoming more familiar with this petition as time goes on as a result of the volume of signatures that I have been getting. I have been asking for a review and we are asking for solutions to be considered, maybe a graduated system that will provide for different busing regulations for children of different ages, or what have you.

We really need to have a review of these school bus transportation policies, and we urge the government to do that sooner than later.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this is a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain within the comfort and security of their own homes, home care also allows people to be discharged from hospital earlier; and

WHEREAS many families find it very difficult to recruit and retain home care workers for their loved ones; and

WHEREAS the PC Blue Book 2011, as well as the 2012 Speech from the Throne, committed that government would develop a new model of home care and give people the option of receiving that care from family members; and

WHEREAS government has given no time commitment for when the government plans to implement paying family caregivers;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to implement a new home care model to cover family caregivers.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a recurring theme and it is because it is a recurring problem with individuals who have to provide home care for loved ones. In fact, just on Friday, I had another telephone call from an individual who is caring for a family member who really, in this part of the Province, got the ball rolling on this issue to inquire what is happening. We are hearing there is supposed to be a home care proposal; but, my son, it looks almost as if he is going to be forced to go into some sort of a care facility.

Mr. Speaker, people are better cared for at home and generally at much less cost to the health care system. If not for any other reason, I would urge the government to move forward on implementing this particular piece of legislation as it would help a significant number of people and improve the quality of lives of people who receive home care.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. 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 the Regional Economic Development Boards diversify, grow, and strengthen economies throughout the Province by providing training opportunities, marketing advice, proposal writing, leveraging funds, collaboration, and other means; and

WHEREAS the federal government's decision to cut funding to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is resulting in the elimination of funding to the RED Boards and their termination in May 2013; and

WHEREAS 75 per cent of the operational funding for the RED Boards, roughly $3.6 million, is provided by ACOA with the additional 25 per cent from the provincial government; and

WHEREAS the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development has $200 million in their suite of programming, some of which has poor uptake; and

WHEREAS just 1.5 per cent of the Business Attraction Fund of the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development was used last year, $366,800 of a $25 million Budget;

We the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to commit bridge funding in its 2013 Budget, which may come from the Business Attraction Fund, to help preserve the RED Boards in Newfoundland and Labrador who provide support to municipalities, communities, organizations and businesses.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say the role of the RED Boards in the rural economy is quite significant at a time when there is quite a crisis situation happening throughout the rural areas of the Province. If I just look at the Nordic Economic Development Corporation in the District of The Straits – White Bay North, in 2004 they were able to lever $3.2 million. That is 70 per cent of the funding for thirty-six broadband communities to receive broadband Internet. The other amount came from Bell Aliant, and just $85,000 came from the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, the Nordic Economic Development Corporation also levered $1 million from the economic stimulus fund under Canada's Economic Action Plan, and $1 million from the provincial government to ensure that the forest industry was not stagnated last year. The role of these boards put millions of dollars back into local economies. I think it is time to look at, what are we doing to attract business in the Province? If we are not putting the atmosphere and the environment in place to attract business and putting in the basic infrastructure then we certainly are not doing our job, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development to look at allocating and bridging funding because we do not want to see these talents, resource and staff lose. They will quickly be eroded and look for other work, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

MS ROGERS: 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 as a result of a recommendation in the Green report about wrongdoing in the House of Assembly there is now legislation that protects anyone who speaks up with evidence of financial abuse or other impropriety in the legislative branch; and

WHEREAS it is unfair for one group of civil servants to be protected by whistle-blower legislation when another group is not; and

WHEREAS Justice Green stated that the financial wrongdoing in the House of Assembly might have been discovered sooner if whistle-blower legislation had been in place; and

WHEREAS the Cameron inquiry into ER-PR testing found that problems with tests would have come to light sooner therefore lessening the impacts on patients if whistle-blower legislation had been in place; and

WHEREAS the Task Force on Adverse Events recommended an amendment to the Regional Health Authorities Act to provide legal protection for employees reporting occurrences or adverse events; and

WHEREAS whistle-blower legislation is in place elsewhere in Canada and the provincial government promised similar legislation in the 2007 election but has not kept that promise;

We the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to enact whistle-blower legislation to protect public sector employees in provincial departments and agencies, including public corporations, regional health authorities and school boards.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, it has become clear in our Province's history and in the not so distant past through the Justice Green report, through the Cameron Inquiry, that had we had whistle-blower protection in place it would have far earlier mediated the damages of wrongdoing, mediated and reduced the harms that were experienced by many people of our Province. This became an issue in the 2007 election and this government had promised time and again, through the Premier of the time, through the Minister of Justice at the time that whistle-blower protection legislation would be drafted and would be presented in the House.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Justice today stated, I would like to challenge him that this is not tedious and complex, but that it is doable. The draft bill would establish a transparent system in which public servants can report wrongdoing. Five years ago the government and the Premier pledged that his government would implement whistle-blower laws in the first session of the Legislature after the election. I have every confidence that with the right leadership, the very capable staff in the Department of Justice will be able to draft legislation that will serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and protect our public interests.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, May 28, 2012, and I further move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Monday, May 28, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 28, and further that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, May 28.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, if any?

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are now in a position to call from the Order Paper, Order 3, Concurrence Motions. Mr. Speaker, we will be speaking in the order that they are on the paper, with the Government Services Committee, then Social Services Committee, then Resource Committee.

We would be in a position now to commence with the Government Services Committee; however, I do think that there is some issue as to the number of speakers and who gets to speak. I do not know if you are in a position to deal with this. I am just waiting for the Opposition House Leader to come in.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The motion is that the report of the Government Services Committee be concurred in. Pursuant to our Standing Orders, we have three hours for each of the Concurrence debates, and I will now call upon the first speaker on the government side of the House.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week I presented the report on behalf of the Estimates Committee of Government Services. Before I get into some of the information and some of the good things that we reviewed in the Estimates Committee regarding the departments that we reviewed, first of all I would like to thank the Committee, which I chaired, and thank the Committee members. It takes a lot of time and a lot of commitment, Mr. Speaker. I would first like to thank the members: the Member for Humber Valley, the Member for Kilbride, the Member for Torngat Mountains, the Member for St. John's East, the Member for Mount Pearl South, and the Member for Bellevue.

As part of the Government Services – and what this means, Mr. Speaker, the Government Services Committee, we reviewed different departments, the Estimates of different departments; the departments that we reviewed were the Department of Finance, the Department of Transportation and Works, Public Service Commission, the Department of Service NL, and the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I must say that it is a big undertaking for our members and the committee when meeting and reviewing the Estimates, but it is also important to recognize the ministers of these departments, Mr. Speaker, because when they come to these meetings, they are well-prepared to answer any type of question, and they do it very co-operatively, all the ministers from Government Services: the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transportation and Works, and the Minister of Service NL.

There are a number of things in the Budget that I would like to talk about today, Mr. Speaker, if time allows. Last week when I presented the report, we presented the report without amendment. I will be concurring with the report as well of the departments that we reviewed.

One of the departments that we did review, Mr. Speaker, was the Department of Finance. As you are aware, the Department of Finance is a huge, huge department. I recall back in 2006, actually my first Budget that I was involved in; that particular Budget was $4.9 billion, I say, Mr. Speaker. This year we are looking at expenditures of roughly $7.8 billion. That is a lot of money. That is a lot of money for this Province; increases have been up every year. We know the reasons for it, Mr. Speaker. We know that the oil revenues, royalties are great and have been increasing. Roughly one-third of our revenues come from the oil royalties. As a government, Mr. Speaker, we want to chart a course that is sustainable. Under our Premier and our ministers, especially our Minister of Finance, we are doing just that, Mr. Speaker.

We have invested a lot of money into infrastructure, badly-needed infrastructure, I say, Mr. Speaker. Back in 2003, when this government came into power, the aging infrastructure and services that were required was phenomenal. We have been doing that, Mr. Speaker, for the past six years and doing it very well. Like I said, it has to be good, wise fiscal management and it has to be sustainable.

That is why we were able to do this with the investments in infrastructure and the spending that we have done. We have been able to do it without actually getting the lend of any money, I say, Mr. Speaker. We have been very fortunate; we have been using our oil revenues and royalties to a very good benefit for the people of the Province, I say, Mr. Speaker; not only the investments that we have done in different programs and infrastructure, but also in the reduction of our debt.

It is amazing when you sit down in a committee meeting, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Finance is there, his staff is there with him, and our committee of members are there, and resource people, and you are reviewing the Estimates of the Department of Finance. To go through the expenditures and the revenues of the Department of Finance, it is certainly eye opening, I say, Mr. Speaker.

To be able to do this spending and keep the debt down, to be able to pay on the debt and right now to bring our debt down today to about $7 billion, Mr. Speaker, is a great accomplishment by this government. As our Premier has often said, she wants to continue vital services for the Province and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to do it in a sustainable way that we will not be back into the predicament that we were back in 2003. I have said it in the House in the many times I have spoken on the Budget this year, Mr. Speaker, and I always ask the question: Do we want to go back to that? No, I do not think we do, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, I did have a chance to speak on the Budget for awhile. I was talking about the consultations that the Minister of Finance participated in and actually led across the Province, Mr. Speaker. He has been doing it every year. We are always asked that question: Is it worth it? Personally, Mr. Speaker, I say it is. I believe that the minister believes it is. That is how we get some of the incentives that we make as a government, the initiatives that we come up with.

I have seen many programs brought in that have benefited the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker, especially in tax reductions. I recall when the minister was going around and I recall several people in the District of Exploits saying to me: We would like to see the sales tax on insurance eliminated. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is what we have done. We forget sometimes some of the things this government has brought in or what somebody else has done, Mr. Speaker. Basically, what I am saying is consultations work. When that initiative was brought in, Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of people in the Province appreciated that, certainly the people of the District of Exploits.

It was only this past year, Mr. Speaker, we eliminated the 8 per cent HST on home heating. Mr. Speaker, 8 per cent is a lot of money. It does not make any difference if you are burning oil, if you are burning wood, if you are using electricity, but that 8 per cent savings is passed on to everyone in the Province, Mr. Speaker. Everyone in the Province gets the benefit of that 8 per cent reduction. In most cases, Mr. Speaker, this comes right off the bill that you get every month either from Newfoundland Power or one of your oil companies. Most of the bills, when you get them, the 8 per cent is taken off the bill there automatically; however, if there is a case where it is not, you can apply to get a refund. You can apply once a month, Mr. Speaker. You can save your bills and you can apply twice a year or once a year. That is your choice, whatever you want to do. It is a great saving for the people of the Province. Most of the suppliers of heating, whether it is electricity or oil, it comes right off the invoice.

Another initiative that was brought in back a few years ago – actually, I believe it was in 2006, for the Seniors' Benefit. Now, today, that particular program is increased to $900 to the seniors. The Seniors' Benefit now is $900. They get that every fall, Mr. Speaker, usually around October. No doubt, our seniors need these breaks. These are incentives that this government has been bringing in and hopefully – and we know it is – making it sustainable. We are, right now, spending a lot of money that comes in from the oil revenues, but we know that oil is a non-renewable resource, Mr. Speaker. We know that one of these days the oil is going to be gone and when it is gone, that is it. That is why you will see this government now pursuing Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, and investing in new energy, because we need to.

I have heard people say: We do not need it. Well, Mr. Speaker, probably right now we do not need it, and I may never see the need for it but I figure I will. It is for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; we have to look at where we are going to be ten years or twenty years down the road, Mr. Speaker. Once the oil is gone, that is it. What are you going to do? You are going to need another source of energy. You can do it and make it worthwhile for the Province, Mr. Speaker. It can generate income, it is an economic generator, and it is going to be good for the Province. We can supply the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador. We can have the energy backup for industrial development in Labrador and we can also sell a portion of it on the open market, Mr. Speaker. So we benefit.

I have had a number of people in my district, Mr. Speaker, who talked to me about the Muskrat Falls deal for the past several months, since it has been on the go actually. Mr. Speaker, just about everybody out there is saying we have to do this. We have to do it, we have to do it. They support it. The majority of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador realize that we need to do this, Mr. Speaker, because we will need the energy. We will need it.

Mr. Speaker, in the Estimates of Government Services we also reviewed the Service NL. I may get back to the Department of Finance again, but the Department of Transportation and Works is part of this Committee as well, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to just touch on Service NL. The Minister of Service NL also made a ministerial statement, Mr. Speaker, a short while ago here in the House. His statement went on to say Budget 2012 People and Prosperity includes $3.7 million to provide seniors aged sixty-five and over with a 35 per cent reduction on driver's licence, on vehicle registration fees, other licences and fees, such as hunting, fishing, cutting wood, and camping, Mr. Speaker.

I had an opportunity to touch on this a little bit last week; however, I never had the time to actually delve into it a little bit or to get more detail, but it is part of the Provincial Healthy Aging Policy, Mr. Speaker, this particular initiative. I did recall last year when I was part of a committee of domestic woodcutting in Central Newfoundland, with my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor – Green Bay South and my colleague from Lewisporte - my colleague from Lewisporte actually chaired that particular committee - a number of things were discussed with regard to policy on domestic woodcutting out in Central Newfoundland. It was more so pertaining to the cutting districts of ten, eleven, twelve and thirteen because there was a new five-year management plan that was coming out on that, Mr. Speaker. One of the things they asked about was the cost of fees.

I guess us living in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, getting out in the woods, getting outdoors, out on the pond and stuff like that, that is what we do. It is good, it gets you out there, and it keeps you active. Our seniors are a big part of this, because a lot of seniors, Mr. Speaker, do still cut their own firewood for their personal use. They also get out there fishing and hunting. To get a 35 per cent reduction in fees, this was greatly appreciated by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, certainly in my district, and in the Central Newfoundland region; 35 per cent. Right now, a driver's licence, if they go online - I think with the online reduction, plus the 35 per cent, I think their driver's licence now costs them around $81, Mr. Speaker, down from $140. That is a huge saving, Mr. Speaker.

A lot of our incentives and initiatives that we have brought in as a government have benefited everybody in the Province, every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. We do place some emphasis on our aging population as well, and our seniors, Mr. Speaker, because they are a big part of this Province. They made this Province, Mr. Speaker. Any time we can bring in an incentive that is going to help them, they appreciate it. It gives them a little bit more security, financially. Also, it is healthy for them to be able to get out in the country and be able to cut their own wood, Mr. Speaker, and do their hunting and fishing as well. It was a great ministerial statement by the Minister of Service NL. I will say to the minister that it was well received in the District of Exploits.

Mr. Speaker, also, in the Government Services Estimates was Transportation and Works. Of course, Transportation and Works is actually a fairly huge department. The Minister and his staff were there for the three hours or so that we were in the meeting and a lot of questions were asked of our Minister of Transportation. Basically, what we have been spending in the past five years in infrastructure and programs is about a billion dollars a year, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Transportation and Works does not only encompass the operations of highways and transportation and roads, but it also takes in the public buildings, Mr. Speaker. All the public buildings across the Province come under the Department of Transportation, so it is a big responsibility and a big expenditure: all the schools, hospitals, the expansion to hospitals, the ferries, all the road programs. That is another thing; our government has already launched two ferries, Mr. Speaker, and now we are in the midst of designing one for – and I am sure the Minister of Tourism and the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame is really pleased that the ferry is in the Budget this year for his district, for New World Islands and Change Islands, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I have travelled many, many times to Fogo, many times. I know a lot of people over there. I have a lot of friends over there and it is badly needed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FORSEY: I travelled on the Beaumont, and I travelled on the Winsor, and I know that they need this service, Mr. Speaker, because they are isolated. Sometimes you run into some difficulty with regards to contracting and tendering and so on, and sometimes there are delays, but the commitment has been made by this government, Mr. Speaker; regardless of what happened in the past, the commitment is there, and we are on the way within the next couple of years to be able to launch a ferry that is going to be very beneficial to the communities of, at least, Fogo Island and New World Island.

The roads program itself – we all know what condition the roads were in when this government came into power, Mr. Speaker, in 2003. I recall, myself; I can recall driving along by Bellevue and that area many times, because I drove out here on a quarterly basis in my previous career for meetings. I recall myself and my wife, we would pass along by the district where the Member for Bellevue is to now, and I will tell you, you had to drive around some of the bad roads and stuff that was there. You had to watch where you were going.

Today, I say, Mr. Speaker, you do not have to do that in most places. We are not there, but we are getting there. There are still some needs; we know there are needs, but we have come a long way; the same thing as the tender that was awarded last week for Labrador, Mr. Speaker, –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FORSEY: – for the Trans-Labrador Highway, and that will be finished this year with an investment from this government of $65 million.

I see my time is winding down. I was pleased to be a part of the Estimates Committee and more so to actually chair the Committee. I found it really interesting and, Mr. Speaker, I will be of course supporting and concurring with these Estimates.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is good to hear the member opposite talk about the roads, Mr. Speaker. I was glad to hear of investments all over this Province and investments in Labrador regarding the road between Lab City and Goose Bay. It is good to see, but it still leaves a lot to be desired with respect to different areas around this Province.

The Bay d'Espoir Highway, Mr. Speaker, has been deemed the worst road in the Province. There is an old saying that if you build it they will come. We have a road that runs up from Southern Labrador to Goose Bay. The road is in place and has been there for a number of years. That road is well travelled, but it does have its faults. I think there is a major safety issue here with respect to the road from Blanc-Sablon that leads all the way up to Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker.

There is a tremendous potential for tourism with respect to the Southern Labrador Highway. It would be an investment to put work into this road and reap the benefits of tourism in our Province, especially in Southern Labrador, Mr. Speaker, where there is another fish plant that has been closed in Black Tickle. It allows for other avenues of investment and it allows for other avenues of return on that investment.

Two areas that I think would benefit Labrador and would benefit this Province as a whole, Mr. Speaker , is diversification, which is what this government has no choice but to look for now because of all the cutbacks from the federal government and how it affects the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. Once this loop is done, Mr. Speaker, hopefully in the near future we can see a road going from Goose Bay and North West River up to the Torngat Mountains, which would be another avenue of investment.

The road would probably be industry driven, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that it would certainly open up a new venture for tourism in this Province. The end of the road, Mr. Speaker, could be a major staging area for tourism into Northern Labrador, into the Torngat Mountains, and in the southern part of the North Coast of Labrador as well.

Some years ago Destination Labrador did come out with a report, and I think it was one of the first times that this report included Northern Labrador, Mr. Speaker. It also highlighted the fact that Northern Labrador is one of the few places where you do not have to build your resource. This is even in comparison, Mr. Speaker, to Western Labrador and Central Labrador especially.

When you look at the request for improvements to highways and to roads, Mr. Speaker, there is a silver lining there on that investment. I say again that it is an investment into other opportunities that could bring a return to this government, and the Province would benefit, I am sure, substantially. The biggest challenge that we have, especially in Northern Lab, is infrastructure. I have brought this to the attention of this government on several occasions. Infrastructure means relieving an area of a problem, and it also means a return on that investment, Mr. Speaker.

Another area that certainly could use improvements – and I speak to this on a safety level. We have had airstrips up and down Labrador's coast, I think, since 1981. I can remember the days of travelling on single-engine Otter aircraft, Mr. Speaker, without requirements for seatbelts and sitting on mailbags. So, it was good to see this work undertaken and to have airstrips – gravel airstrips, although they may be. This time of the year, Mr. Speaker, other than the normal aircraft, which would be a Twin Otter, other aircraft are unable to land due to the condition of the airstrips.

Mr. Speaker, I have travelled many, many times out of the Coast of Labrador, and there are some times that you certainly get white knuckles on your hands from holding on in fear of what you never know could happen. This is making reference to the shortness of the airstrips and the fact that they are not paved. If there were paved runways, as there is in Saglek, which was put there just after World War II – it is probably the best airstrip we have in Northern Labrador – this could invite the use of more modern, faster, more fuel efficient, and larger passenger carrying capacity aircraft. Certainly, that would address the issue of the wait-lists and the availability of aircraft.

In my time spent on airplanes, Mr. Speaker, I tend to talk to the pilots a lot; I know most of them. The one thing that they continue to mention, with respect to the state of the airstrips we have now, is the need for an instrument landing system. In many cases, low ceiling and reduced visibility compromise the effectiveness of these aircraft. Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I think it is the sheer training and the sheer experience of the pilots on these Twin Otters that fly up and down the coast, Mr. Speaker, is probably the only reason why we do not have many more accidents than what we have had.

Mr. Speaker, an instrument landing system has been put in place in Voisey's Bay – probably due to the fact that they do have larger aircraft such as the Dash 8 going in there. Mr. Speaker, I am sure, for safety reasons, that an instrument landing system should probably be put in place in every community in Labrador where there are gravel airstrips. Because, once you get into commercial service and air scheduling, I think the safety of the passengers – and I am one of them, Mr. Speaker, very often. I would like to have that comfort level when you are making an approach under borderline conditions. When an aircraft pilot identifies the need for this, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be taken seriously. It would make these pilots – it would make their job much, much easier. I am sure it would again be a benefit to the Province to have a safer service and an ability to increase that service, Mr. Speaker, that is very well lacking. We still go through periods where we have days, days, and days without an aircraft, when that could be remedied.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a bit about our freight system, summer shipping season, and our ferries. It is a well-known fact that our ferries are getting older. It is good to see in this Budget provisions made to correct this problem by engaging builders, and hopefully, in our Province, producing new ferries, ferries that have a larger capacity, ferries that are obviously more up-to-date and less breakdowns.

When you go through the expenses, Mr. Speaker, where there has not been time to put out tenders, I have gone through them and I have seen many, many, many, many purchases for some of these older vessels. I am sure that if you add up the number of parts that have been ordered for these vessels, that price would be substantial; more than likely it would cover the cost of a new ferry. These orders are for boats that need to be ongoing; they cannot afford the breakdowns.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the service to Northern Labrador. Two years ago, this government deemed that the Astron, the freighter that was in place, was not adequate to supply the needs of the people in Northern Labrador and in Black Tickle as well. They put out tenders and we ended up with the Dutch Runner. I do not hold this against this government, Mr. Speaker; it was an error and everybody thought that this new vessel, given its size, would take care of the needs. It did not work out, Mr. Speaker, and we are all fortunate that this vessel is no longer in service. It leaves us with the same problem we had last year and the year before, and that is an inadequate vessel for the amount and the volume of freight that it has to move.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we were lucky last year in terms of freight movement with the moratorium in place on mining in Labrador, because it certainly cut down on the amount of freight that would be transported, especially by exploration companies and by exploration support companies that would have sent up freight to cut down on their transportation costs, Mr. Speaker. Some of these companies were small fly-by-night companies. I certainly hope that the new policy put forward by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will address this portion of the needs with the people in Northern Labrador when it comes to exploration and the concerns brought forward by the membership in Northern Labrador. I certainly look forward to seeing how this works.

I will just go back to airstrips again, Mr. Speaker. It has been identified by this government and by the federal government, by the Minister Responsible for Labrador, that the airstrip in Nain is not in an ideal location. It is just as well to say that the airstrip in Nain is downtown. It is in a highly populated area. I have witnessed three airplane accidents on this runway alone. I think maybe there have been eleven to date. Mr. Speaker, this is going to get worse. This chance for accidents is going to increase as the volume of air traffic increases. I have seen planes land there just short of the runway and crash. I have seen airplanes that have taken off from the airstrip in Nain and crashed in the harbour, Mr. Speaker. I have seen an airplane come in there and hit the snow bank on one end of the airstrip, lost his landing gear, and had to make a belly landing.

As I said, this airstrip is right downtown. It is in the community. It runs adjacent along the shoreline. I guess the other area of concern, Mr. Speaker, it is under a large mountain and what it does is give terrible crosswinds. I have gone in on final approach, Mr. Speaker, where you are looking out the side window of the airplane at the runway as the pilot is trying to make corrections for the wind. It is not a comfortable feeling when it looks like you are making a sideways landing on a runway. Again, the skill of the pilots is why we do not have more accidents than we do. I have to commend the pilots with Provincial Airlines and with Air Labrador for the skill and the experience that they - I think, Mr. Speaker, they have to learn in a very short time. I think it is only through their ability to manoeuvre an aircraft under so many of these conditions so often that they are as good as they are.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the impacts that we are going to feel with the changes in the Employment Insurance programs put forward by the federal government. I think it is hard enough now in our Province with the – I call it the turning in the economy, Mr. Speaker, that we are not ready for. We have a major number of fish plants closed in the last two months. All of this affects the ability for the people in our Province to access EI benefits, and these new regulations will only make it harder. What I do not want to see, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think anybody in this House would like to see more people being dependent on what assistance is offered by social services when they have a chance to ensure their own earnings and benefit from it during periods of no work.

Mr. Speaker, this government has time and time again come forward and expressed the fact that they deem there is no need for an inquiry into search and rescue in our Province, but, Mr. Speaker, every time we turn our heads there is another closure. We have seen the closure of the marine rescue sub-centre in St. John's.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that we are currently debating the Concurrence report of the Government Services Committee which deals with the Department of Finance, the Department of Transportation and Works, Public Service Commission, the Department of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Office of the Chief Information Officer. I ask the member to restrict his comments and relate them to one of the appropriate departments.

MR. EDMUNDS: I ask, Mr. Speaker, would it fall under the Department of Finance?

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the hon. member that his comments need to relate somehow to one of those departments.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for your correction.

When we look at the need for improvements in foster care in our Province, Mr. Speaker – and there are needs for foster care, and I know the department is undertaking a new program. I would like to see where the expenses are going here, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to talk about the number of reports that have come out in our Province, Mr. Speaker, and across the north with respect to the foster care of Aboriginals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his comments need to relate to one of the departments that falls under the Government Services Committee.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, Mr. Speaker. I am a little bit confused as to why these issues are not relative to Finance.

Mr. Speaker, my time is nearly up so rather than be more confused, I will end my comments there.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I call on the next speaker, I just remind hon. members that we are not in a portion of the Budget debate that is as free flowing as some portions. It is important that members confine their comments to relate to one of the departments in question that relate to the Committee that we are in fact debating. I remind members that that is the Government Services Committee.

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are doing what is called Concurrence debate here in the House of Assembly. One of the departments that falls under Concurrence debate is the Department of Finance. I am just seeking some response from the Chair as to why, when we are dealing with the budgetary items of Finance which encloses all expenditure of government, why we are restricted in terms of what we can speak to under that particular heading.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader, responding to the point of order.

MR. KING: We would like clarification too, Mr. Speaker, but it is my understanding that the member was out of order because he was talking about foster children and reports on foster children, which do not relate to the budgetary process of the Department of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. I will provide some clarification, as requested by members. Provided that the comments relate to expenditures of the Department of Finance, the Chair will rule that those comments are indeed in order as part of the Concurrence debate, but the comments –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The comments must indeed tie back to one of the departments in question that relate to the Government Services Committee.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure for me to stand in this hon. House once again to speak to the Budget and, in particular, to speak to the Estimates Committee, of which I participated – those being the Department of Finance, Service Newfoundland and Labrador, and Transportation and Works.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just the opportunity very quickly, before I get into my comments, to thank the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Service NL, and certainly the Minister of Transportation and Works for their time and for their forthright ability when it came to answering questions. There were certainly a number of questions posed, and I thought they were forthright in their answers, very co-operative, and I certainly want to commend them on that, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to just thank the hon. Member for Baie Verte – Springdale. I never had the opportunity to sit in on Finance; I was ill at the time and he sat in for me. I certainly want to thank him for that.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into some of the specific points as it relates to these departments, I just want to touch on a couple of overarching issues that do tie to those departments but certainly ties to the Budget in general as well. Mr. Speaker, when you look at the expenditures that have occurred this year, certainly over the last number of years, I think it is important that we need to note that these numbers did not happen by accident. The fact that we actually have the ability to be able to invest in all these crucial services certainly ties back to the fact that as a government we have invested wisely, we have done good deals when it comes to our natural resources, and we have a vision that has taken us to a point where we actually have the money to be able to invest in all departments, including the three departments which I already mentioned, Mr. Speaker, and I will be speaking to.

I think it is also important to realize that when we are doing spending, we have to do so within our means. That has certainly been something that this government has taken into account year over year as we go through our budgetary process. Even into these three particular departments, Mr. Speaker, there has to be a balance between what the needs are, what the wants are, and what we can reasonably afford. I think that is something that the Third Party, for sure, needs to take into account. I can see the Leader of the Third Party over there, and I hope that she is listening because we have managed to come up with what I consider to be a very good Budget, a Budget which sees spending in a number of key areas, including these three departments, but we have done so within our means, we have done so without money trees, we have done so without waving any magic wands, and we have certainly done it without breaching oil contracts. I think that says a lot for this government to be able to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we have three departments which fall under Government Services from the perspective of Estimates. The Member for St. John's Centre, the member of the Third Party, has mentioned many, many times in this House of Assembly that, as a government, we are not investing enough in housing, that we should have a department or division that deals with housing.

Mr. Speaker, the last time I looked – unless I am missing something – we have such a division; it falls under our Department of Transportation and Works. It was certainly discussed, I know, in the Estimates Committee that I attended, Mr. Speaker. They are doing great work, and it is actually Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. Can you imagine that? NLHC some people call it. I am not sure about the researchers for the Third Party. Obviously, in their research, they never realized that we actually have a department that they were actually asking for, a division that actually looks after housing. We do, Mr. Speaker. It is called Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I can see now that the –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

While the member is correct that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing falls under the Department of Transportation and Works, I remind the hon. member that Estimates related to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation were addressed during the Social Services Committee, which we will be debating later today. So, I ask the member to restrict his comments to the departments that relate specifically to the Government Services Committee.

MR. LANE: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that because it actually does fall under the Department of Transportation and Works and certainly was referenced. I know when I attended the Estimates Committee, NLHC was referenced as it relates to housing and so on. It did come up for discussion, so therefore I felt it was relevant. I will just end off by saying that there are numerous investments which have been made through NLHC. I am sure when members of the other committee get up, the Social Services Committee, they will address that and all of the positive things that are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

Moving on, Mr. Speaker, another thing that does fall under the Department of Transportation and Works that we have seen tremendous investment in is roads and bridges, and other infrastructure. We have seen an investment this year, Mr. Speaker – I made note here at the Budget – $165.1 million in provincial investment this year in roads and bridges. In addition to this $165.1 million that we are investing, we are also able as a government to leverage an additional $60 million in federal funds, for a total of $225.1 million that we will be able to invest this year in roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. That is right, Mr. Speaker, $225.1 million. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is a very, very significant investment on our part.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that back in 2003 we realized the deplorable state that was left by the Opposition as it relates to roads and infrastructure, bridges and so on. Whether it was a case of they did not have money or whether it was a case of mismanagement, probably a little of both, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is she was in shambles. We did not have potholes; we had craters in the roads. I know driving over the highway, and I did a lot of highway driving through the course of my career, I can certainly attest to the terrible conditions the roads were in and bridges were in and other infrastructure. Nobody can deny that there has been a significant improvement as it relates to the Trans-Canada Highway and as it relates to a lot of the other main arteries.

I see some members opposite shaking their head there, Mr. Speaker. Certainly from the perspective of the Third Party, we can never do anything right. It does not matter how much we invest, it is never enough. They think there is an endless supply of money, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we all realize that there are lots of things we would like to do, there is a lot of good stuff that has been done, and there is a lot of stuff that needs to be done. We recognize that. We have members here, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House – the vast majority of the members on this side of the House and the vast majority of them represent rural districts. If anybody thinks for any reason that we are saying everything is perfect, or that we want to have roads that are in bad condition, or have challenges and we just want to leave it there, that we do not care, that is total insanity, Mr. Speaker. That is total insanity. Not to mention from the perspective of even from pure politics, Mr. Speaker, why would you want to have roads if you had the money to do it.

We have to stand on principle, Mr. Speaker. Unlike the Third Party, we stand on principle, Mr. Speaker. We invest wisely in Newfoundland and Labrador, both the urban parts and the rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. Yes, there is no doubt, there are some roads in some communities where there are challenges, little side roads and whatever, Mr. Speaker. Every road is not perfect, but year over year over year we continue to invest. We continue to invest in roads and bridges and infrastructure in municipalities, Mr. Speaker. We continue to do that for the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a government, Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to make those investments, I say. We are going to continue to make them and eventually we will get there. You cannot fix the mess that was created - this was years and years of neglect that was left to this government, and that cannot be fixed in a few short years. We have made tremendous improvements. We will continue to make more, but you cannot do it all - Rome was not built in a day, Mr. Speaker. I say that to the members opposite, particularly the members of the Third Party, Mr. Speaker, because these are the people who I continually hear doom and gloom all the time.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the roads and infrastructure, another investment which is being made and has been made under the Department of Transportation and Works are ferries, our ferry system. Again, we have to recognize, Mr. Speaker, Rome was not built in a day. Everything cannot be done at once. If you look at last year, Mr. Speaker, we put two brand new ferries in service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Two brand new ferries, Mr. Speaker, at $27.5 million a piece. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? That was the first investment in new ferries we have seen in this Province in, does anybody know? Twenty years, Mr. Speaker, twenty years. We never saw a new ferry until last year when this government invested in two brand new ferries. Now, Mr. Speaker, they are for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are also, as we speak, in negotiations with Kiewit on a third ferry. We know that there have been challenges there in negotiations and thankfully it seems like we have reached a point now, Mr. Speaker, where we are going to be able to negotiate that third ferry. We are very optimistic that is going to happen. I see the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, she is nodding her head in approval; I know that she is very pleased with the work that is being done, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, we are going to be replacing the Fogo ferry. That is another key investment that is going to be happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, a new ferry for Fogo Island. I understand that there is going to be a request for proposals going out some time this summer, and hopefully by year's end we are going to have a tender in place for another new ferry for Fogo Island. Those people deserve it. The people of Fogo Island deserve no less.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: And Change Islands.

MR. LANE: And Change Islands.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, we have a number of smaller ferries. It is my understanding that there is work ongoing to get those newer ferries in place as well, a number of smaller ferries, and we are going to try and work with the local businesses to create opportunities to have those smaller ferries built in Newfoundland and Labrador also. Now, Mr. Speaker, are they all built? No. Can we wave a magic wand? As I have said in this hon. House before, this is Newfoundland, it is not Disneyland. We cannot wave a magic wand and say ‘bibbidi-bobbidi-boo' and we have new ferries. It does not work that way, Mr. Speaker. We have to invest wisely. We have to do it properly and we have to do it in a way in which the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can afford it. I think there has been tremendous progress made as it relates to the ferry service, and there is going to be more progress made as time goes on. Eventually we are going to bring our ferry fleet up to a standard right across the board that will be the envy of the nation, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced of it.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to make mention of a couple of other issues. This one here relates to persons with disabilities. During the provincial election campaign, I had the opportunity to meet with a gentleman from my district. This was a gentleman who had a disability and he had grave concerns over his ability, and other people like him, Mr. Speaker, their ability to access proper parking spaces and so on, to be able to access businesses and whatever the case might be.

Now, Mr. Speaker, certainly I took those issues very seriously. I actually went out with the gentleman and we drove around the City of Mount Pearl, went to some private parking lots. I can remember going to one – just to show the difference, we went to a parking lot in the City of Mount Pearl, a box store area, we will say that, okay; they had it done, what I would consider, had it done properly. They had a sign in the centre of each disabled parking spot. They had proper markings on the ground as well, proper space to be able to open the door and get out for somebody who had a wheel chair, and so on. It was a really good job, but that was an initiative that that particular business had taken on its own.

Mr. Speaker, I went to some other businesses that had temporary signage in place that he showed me, signs were moved around; it just was not working, Mr. Speaker – whether it be for snow clearing purposes and they would take it and move it, somebody bumped into it, it got twisted backwards. Whatever the case might be, it was an absolutely mess. Certainly, come the winter time, if that person had to try to find a place to park, they would never figure out where to park. Access was certainly denied to those people, Mr. Speaker, which was totally unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I took the opportunity after I got elected, I sat down with the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador and also the MHA for Topsail, and my colleague in the City of Mount Pearl –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANE: And, my buddy, that is right.

We sat down, Mr. Speaker and we had a discussion on it. I can tell you what, within no time, within no time – and I am not suggesting that it was just because I spoke to the minister, but maybe the timing all aligned - within no time, Mr. Speaker, we had new legislation in place that changes that, so that any new business opening up in the Province must have proper signage and access for people with disabilities. Certainly, any existing businesses have until sometime this fall – I am not sure if it is September, October, or whatever it is, but there is a period this fall where existing businesses must also have this in place. Now, that is a very, very positive thing that was done for our disabled community, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Proactive government.

MR. LANE: Very proactive government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in addition to that – I am looking for the amount here, if I can find it - in addition to those changes – getting old – in addition to those significant changes which are going to have a profound impact on people, in this year's Budget, Mr. Speaker, this government is investing an additional $6.5 million to help build an inclusive Newfoundland and Labrador. We are going to be looking at all of our own facilities, and so on, and upgrading them so that they are totally accessible - over time, again, as we can afford. That is not to say the $6.5 million is going to do it for every single building, I say to the Third Party. It might take two, three, or four years. That is how we budget, as we can afford. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you it will be done. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people in the disabled community who are very, very pleased with the work that this government and this minister has done in addressing a very significant issue.

Mr. Speaker, the final point I am going to address, I believe it may have been referenced by my colleague from Exploits, is the 35 per cent decrease. This falls under the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador. Another very positive initiative, Mr. Speaker, a 35 per cent decrease for senior citizens in terms of their driver's licences, the registration of their vehicles, woodcutting permits, I think moose licences and so on. There is a list of them. I think if people have mobile homes and trailers and things, those are all covered as well.

I know, Mr. Speaker, just looking at my own personal circumstance, my in-laws, my mother-in-law and father-in-law both were able to avail of that with two driver's licences, vehicle registration, and my father-in-law is an avid moose hunter as well. I know that meant a lot to them. As seniors on a fixed income, that was a great help.

When you combine that, Mr. Speaker, with the program this government already put in place whereby you can get an additional 10 per cent discount by registering online, that is like a 45 per cent – actually, it is probably more than that. When you compound it, it is probably closer to 50 per cent or 47 per cent, 48 per cent, whatever it is. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that it is a significant investment for the seniors of Newfoundland and Labrador. It shows the fact that this government is concerned for our seniors; we are concerned for our citizens in general, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can see that I am timing out here, so that will be it for now. I hope there will be further opportunities. I know we are starting to get towards the end of the Budget process. Hopefully there will be an opportunity maybe even to speak again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the departments, the Department of Finance, the Department of Transportation and Works, Public Service Commission, the Department of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, and Office of the Chief Information Officer.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I know the Chair of the Committee for one of the ones I was sitting on was the Member for Exploits. He was very gracious and ran the meetings very well. It was information sessions that went well. I thank the Chairperson and all of the members. I also would have to thank all of the ministers and their staff because they were very forthright. They were very upfront in discussions about the issues that we brought to their attention.

Mr. Speaker, as we can see, in one of the departments under this Government Services Committee – and I know people here do not expect me to bring it up, is the hospital in Corner Brook. Why I bring that up is the hospital in Corner Brook is under the Department of Transportation and Works. Again, the minister was very forthright and very frank.

I saw a letter from the Member for Humber West in the Western Star today talking about all the good things that were happening in Corner Brook. There is no doubt there are good things that did happen in Corner Brook. This government did put some money in Corner Brook, I must say. I would not deny some of the positive things. I am not here just to say everything is bad because it is not. There were some good things.

The big commitment that was made was the hospital in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the final sentence here is we remain committed to the hospital in Corner Brook. There is no doubt that this hospital is going to built in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the hospital is going to be built. The big concern - and I asked this on many occasions - is when? When will it be built? What type of facility and structure will we have in place? I asked it in this House on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, on many occasions, at least ten to fifteen. The $1 million that was allotted to finish the design, will it complete the design? Of course, all the people in Corner Brook were assured that yes, it is ready to go. It is at the construction stage, it is ready to start.

What I found out after the Transportation and Works Estimates, we found out it is still in the pre-design stage. I asked the Minister of Health a question then: Will the money complete the design? We are not sure. The Minister of Finance said whatever money they need to complete it. There is no doubt it is going to be completed, but the Minister of Transportation and Works was very upfront. He was very honest and he was very straightforward. I told him that I would be using this information; I will be making it public. It is public anyway, but I will be doing it in a shorter fashion than when Hansard would be ready. He assured me – and it is in Hansard – that this hospital is in the pre-design stage. The question that I asked all the members opposite and I asked the Minister of Health, I asked the Premier and I asked the Minister of Finance: When can we expect the construction of the hospital to start? The second thing, Mr. Speaker, is: What type of facility will we have? Will there be public consultations? Will there be public consultations all throughout the regions so people could have their input? As we know, there are some people who work in the system who can give you some valuable information. They can definitely help you out with some of the concerns that you have.

Mr. Speaker, I am going on now – since March, April, May – almost three months and I still cannot get answers to the major construction of the hospital in Corner Brook. I cannot get answers. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Transportation and Works because now the people of Corner Brook are aware – even Leo Bruce, the city councillor in Corner Brook, who Minister Marshall knows very well, is very upset about the million dollars; because during the last election, the commitment was made for the construction of the new hospital. I know the Minister of Finance is over there looking at me. At no time did anybody in Corner Brook think that this hospital – it is not even finished the pre-design stage. Now, rightly or wrongly, I can tell you that, Mr. Speaker, no one in Corner Brook thought that – absolutely no one. Because when you see during the election oh, we are going to start the construction of the new hospital, we are going to go out and get the new hospital started. Mr. Speaker, we all assumed tractors would be going. They have the roadways done up there, they have the site levelled off, they have the big sign up: the site of the new Corner Brook hospital. Now we find out it is going to be – I cannot even guess because I assume once we get to the design stage, I would say it is going to take them long enough that the Minister of Finance is going to have a run again in 2015 before the construction starts.

MR. MARSHALL: We will have two hospitals by then.

MR. JOYCE: The Minister of Finance just sang out: We will have two hospitals by then. I will say to the minister we will not have one completed in Corner Brook though, I can guarantee you that right now. You will not have two hospitals, I can guarantee you that.

Mr. Speaker, I am just passing on the information to the people of Corner Brook. The more they want to sing out that they are going to have two hospitals built, let's get one built first. Let's get the one in Corner Brook that was committed back in 2007, Mr. Speaker – back in 2007. The long-term care facility that was announced back in 2006, I think, there is still a wing not even open yet. It opened three-and-a-half years ago. There is a wing not even open.

Excuse me for asking questions, Mr. Speaker, when I get it from the Minister of Transportation and Works that the design is not done. Excuse me for asking questions when there is a wing from the long-term care facility not open. I still have it right here, the tender documents, Mr. Speaker, all ready to go. This year again there is $3 million announced to complete the wing of the long-term care facility that was opened three years ago, and still not gone to tender. The funding is there, the tender is ready, but it is still not gone to tender. It opened three years ago and announced eight or nine years ago. If anybody opposite wants to ask me what I am doing asking questions about the hospital in Corner Brook, after listening to the Minister of Transportation and Works who said: No, no, that is not in the design stage –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: That is not in the design stage; that is in the pre-design. Once you get that information, which I was under the understanding that, yes, construction is going to start, then you find out it has gone back two steps. It would be remiss of me if I did not bring up the hospital in Corner Brook because it is a major issue.

There are other major issues. I know the Minister of Natural Resources is working hard on some issues in Corner Brook. I acknowledge that, Minister. You and the Minister of Finance are working on some major files in Corner Brook, and a lot of people recognize that also. This is not to just totally criticize the government. This is bringing out concerns that have been expressed to me in the Corner Brook area.

On Transportation and Works, I know when I spoke to the minister that there has been a decrease in funding this year. There are budgetary concerns and budget is taken back – I think there has been about $26 million taken from the budget this year of Transportation and Works. There is less spending this year is what the minister told us in Estimates. There is about $22 million in carry-over. When you see that amount this year, Mr. Speaker, it is a decrease from the year before by about $48 million. That is significant for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I understand the budgetary concerns and all, but we have to look at the priorities throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We have to make some major concerns and we have to put our priorities forth. So, when you hear that there is going to be a decrease, $22 million from carryover, $26 million, that is $48 million that is out of the Budget the year before. That is a net loss of about $48 million, so it is a significant amount of money for the roads in Newfoundland and Labrador through the Budget. I mentioned to the minister that there are some major concerns out on the West Coast. There is some work being done, there is absolutely no doubt about that. I know some of the highway work is being done, and I heard the member just spoke from Mount Pearl North, I think, talking about the –

AN HON. MEMBER: Mount Pearl South.

MR. JOYCE: Mount Pearl South, I am sorry, Mount Pearl South – talking about the ferries. There is absolutely no doubt – back when I was part of the government, we were trying to get ferries built. We developed and put in place Hibernia, we put in Voisey's Bay; there are a lot of initiatives that we put in place that we can go now and say, yes, here are the funds that we have, here are the funds that we have, but we just took it and we just moved it on, and a lot of the Province – the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador now is reaping a lot of those benefits, Mr. Speaker. One of the commitments that was made then was build the ferries in Newfoundland and Labrador, and they gave us a time commitment when they were going to be built, a time commitment.

Now, I know the Minister of Transportation and Works is working hard to try get that straightened up down in Marystown. I know they are, but their schedule, again, is pushed back; every year it is pushed back. First, they were going to have them built in the first eight years. Now that is pushed back. Now, all of a sudden, they had to go outside the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for them. I say to the member, Marystown is one area that we need to help out. That is one place that we definitely need to go down and say, let us work out a deal down in Kiewit. I do not mean sell the shop; we cannot sell the shop, but let me tell you, if the minister and other people – if the Premier can solve, Mr. Speaker, a doctor's dispute in one day, I am sure she can go down and meet with Kiewit and solve that issue somehow. So we need the Premier's intervention with the Department of Transportation and Works. That is what we need.

AN HON. MEMBER: She caved in there.

MR. JOYCE: I am not sure if she caved in or not. I am not sure if she caved in. Some people are singing out: she caved in. I am not, but I am saying we need the Premier to intervene personally. That is one of the areas, Mr. Speaker.

The ferry down in La Poile, they went down and met with residents and said, okay, we are going to have some consultations now for the Department of Transportation and Works, Mr. Speaker – I think that is the Government Services Committee – and they went in and they had some consultation; never heard a word since, have not heard a word since. Everybody down there was under the assumption, okay, we are starting to get something moving here, we started to get the design of the ferry; never heard a word since, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing I have to mention to the Minister of Transportation and Works is twenty-four hour snow clearing. That is something that I brought up on numerous occasions. That is one concern that I have, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a major concern. It is not just the Bay of Islands; it is for a lot of rural Newfoundland and Labrador that would be able to call people in if there is going to be snow and ice coming down. Instead of taking the plows and equipment off at 9:30 at night and putting them back on 6:00 o'clock in the morning – 5:00 o'clock, I think, in the morning, they go to the depots and go out from there.

I really feel that there have been accidents. I really feel that because of that. I know a lot of people who contacted me who went off the road 6:00 o'clock in the morning; the road is not plowed, icy. I know it is a policy that I would love to see changed in Newfoundland, especially for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is all right around Corner Brook, because most of the roads now are being plowed. It is all right in around St. John's, most of the roads. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a major concern.

I am not asking, Mr. Speaker, to have staff on twenty-four hours a day. That is not my intention. My intention is to give the foreman the ability. If he knows through the weather forecast that there is going to be a lot of snow coming, or if there is going to be a lot of heavy rain, then frost, he can get the salt and sand trucks in overnight, so when people are going to work 5:00 o'clock, or 6:00 o'clock, or 7:00 o'clock in the morning or coming home 5:00 o'clock, or 6:00 o'clock, or 7:00 o'clock in the morning, the roads are safe. That is what I am asking, Mr. Speaker.

I really feel that one of these days there is going to be major, major accidents on the highway. There have been accidents, but I know there is going to be something major. I am just trying to head it off, Mr. Speaker, and I urge the minister to reconsider that.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other departments under the Government Services is the Office of the Chief Information Officer. We all know that he was put in to supply information to people for access to information, if I am correct, and other things in the government when you ask for information. I just find it ironic that as an Opposition, when you apply for information – and we hear this government on a regular basis saying, oh, we are so open, we are the most open government ever. I would say to the Minister of Service Newfoundland –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Whatever you want to call yourself, you go ahead.

Here are some of the quotes we have for information that we put in, Mr. Speaker. I will just go for a few because it would take too long to read them all off, all the information we put in. Here is what it is going to cost, $4,570, $7,875 to get information that we are requesting the government as an Opposition. That is just two. I say there are about thirty-five to forty here. Here is another one, $13,580 that we have to pay this government to get information. There is a list of them here. If the minister wants them I can give him the list. There is a list, and you can go on and on. Oh, there is a cheap one here, $280. There is another one here, $31,000.

Mr. Speaker, this is some of the information, when you talk about some of the departments in government. When you are seeking information about some companies in Newfoundland and Labrador, some of the funds that have been given out and when you look for it under the Freedom of Information through this government and through the Opposition, because you are looking for information, that is the kind of information you get back. That is the kind of information you get back, Mr. Speaker.

It is kind of difficult when you are sitting here as the Opposition, you apply for information under the Freedom of Information and you expect to get the information because according to the government opposite they are the most open government, but when you apply under it, Mr. Speaker, you end up having to pay up to $30,000 to get some information. Up to $30,000 you have to pay to get some information.

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of thing that I have been saying all along. It is almost like the hospital. Just because someone says it is so easy to get information, just because there are some members opposite saying: Oh, the hospital is being built, construction is starting. Mr. Speaker, that does not mean it is happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Bell Island ferry.

MR. JOYCE: Which one?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Bell Island ferry. What is going on with the Bell Island ferry?

MR. JOYCE: The Bell Island ferry. Yes, what is going on with the Bell Island ferry? We asked the minister about that, what is going on with the Bell Island ferry. We were told that the Bell Island is in the hopper like the rest of them. It is in the hopper like the rest of them. We may even have to go outside of Newfoundland and Labrador to get it built.

Every time I bring up the ferries, the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island brings a smile upon his face: That's it Eddie, keep asking questions for me, keep asking questions for me. I will, I will. I guarantee you. As long as you keep smiling and you keep asking me to bring up the issue, I will. I guarantee you. One of these days when you get out of the doghouse from the Premier you may be able to start asking a few questions also, I say to the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Meanwhile, is there a ferry out to Bell Island?

MR. JOYCE: There is a ferry, I think, and it is operating.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak about Service Newfoundland and Labrador. There are some good things happening. People with disabilities, it is close to my heart. Anything that we can do for people with disabilities, anything we can work to do collectively – I know the Minister of Transportation and Works, when the design for buildings for social housing, when we become the first one to have a design put in place, Mr. Speaker, all across the Province - I have been fighting for years in an organization that I have been involved with, and to have Newfoundland be the first. I know in Service Newfoundland and Labrador there are a lot of positive things happening for people with disabilities. We need to keep that going, I say to the minister, anything we can do.

There is one concern, the residential tenancies board, I say to the minister, we need to find some way to strengthen that and see if we can flow that through a bit easier. The minister said he is going to work on it and that is good. We need to do that. We also need to make sure that people who have concerns in that area know they have a place to turn to and they have a place where they know they have easier access.

One other concern I have to bring up, Mr. Speaker, and it is under the heading the Department of Finance, that gives the analysis for some departments. It is the amount of temporary employees in the government these days. I say to the Minister of Finance, we know a lot about that in Corner Brook, don't we? We can name a lot of temporary employees in Corner Brook.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

I remind the member his time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: By leave to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has leave.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you.

Who was saying no leave? The Minister of Service Newfoundland, that is good. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that there is always an opportunity to bring up issues facing Newfoundland and Labrador. I say to the government again, I say to all government members, at times you have to give praise; at times you have to bring up concerns that are raised from the constituents who elected you and the people you represent.

Mr. Speaker, I just thank you for this opportunity again and I am sure I will have another opportunity to raise another few concerns. I can say I cannot wait for the hospital to open. I cannot wait to get the design work so we can get this moving forward for all of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have an opportunity to get up and speak on Concurrence. I have been listening pretty intently for the last month or two, or ever how long we have been talking about Budgets, and before I get started, I first want to echo what was said earlier about our Chairperson of the Government Services Committee. I even know where he is from now. I want to say to our Chairman, the Member for Exploits, you did a very good job. I have been on these Estimates Committees since I came here; I think for the last three years, this member has been the Chairperson and has always done a good job.

Also, I want to congratulate the Premier and our Finance Minister for the sound fiscal path they have put this Province on. We all know that the Budget of this Province is now over $7 billion. That is a lot of money. That is a lot of responsibility when you are talking about that kind of money and that kind of expenditure. So, I want to say, a very good job done.

It was interesting; I kept the criticism that I read in the fall about our Finance Minister. The Finance Minister gave an update last fall on our financial situation. Instead of reporting a surplus of $59 million, he had the gall to say that we had a $758.8 million surplus. Can you imagine? I think I heard statements like, it was obscene, that it was not a very good job at budgeting.

Now, I will draw an analogy, a personal analogy. Imagine any of us, after doing our income tax returns for 2011, expecting to get $59 back in tax refund. You go to the post office, you pick up a piece of mail from Revenue Canada, and you know it is a cheque because you can see the colour and everything else; you open the cheque and instead of getting $59, there is a cheque there for $7,558. Along with it there is an explanation of why there is a change. Now, I am sure you would not scold yourself or whoever did your income tax return, saying, boy, you made a mistake, what did you make such a mess for. I am sure you would take the explanation that CRA has attached to the cheque and say, boy, I will accept that. I am sure the cheque would not go back to Revenue Canada. So, that is the analogy that I would make.

I can also imagine what would have been said and reported if instead of having a surplus of $59 million, the Minister of Finance had said we have a deficit of $755.8 billion for the year 2012. I am sure all hell would have broken loose if that had to be the news.

One thing I have to say about what is going on in this Province over the last number of years fiscally is that we are on a very sound fiscal path. We are paying down our debt; we are trying the best we can to balance Budgets in the economic climate that we are in. By economic climate, I mean what is going on in the rest of the world.

You have to remember that what goes on in Newfoundland is greatly influenced by the world markets and by what else goes on in other parts of the world. We all know, and I think I spoke a week or so ago about what is going on in places like Greece and the United States. These countries do not have balanced budgets; they have been spending in deficits for years and they are accumulating debt at a very great rate. I think I told you about the States. The States are now up to almost $16 trillion in debt. Granted, they are a much larger country, but they are going in debt $4 billion a day. The bottom is going to come out of their system, I would say, not too long more. We are not doing that. We recognized in 2003-2004 that you cannot sustain what is going on in your country or your province financially if you have great debt. You have to deal with debt and try to pay it down. We have done that.

Back in 2003, before this government took over, the operating deficit of this Province was close to $1 billion. The debt was about $12 trillion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twelve billion.

MR. DINN: Twelve billion, I should say. That would be kind of high, but $12 billion is still a lot of money for this small Province. This government recognized the problems that we were in, the financial mess, and they took measures to correct it. Today, we are down now to under $8 billion in debt, which is a great achievement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: There is other debt, too, that we recognized in 2003-2004, and that was infrastructure debt. We had a tremendous deficit in our infrastructure. Our roads were falling to pieces; we had our buildings, our hospitals, schools, all these were having problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were deplorable.

MR. DINN: They were deplorable, yes. I have relatives and friends who teach and who are nurses, and they were constantly talking about the problems they were having.

I had some interesting conversations at a garage one day with a guy who came in to get a vehicle fixed. He worked with the Department of Natural Resources. It was not natural resources at the time, but he did work with what would be that problem – forestry it was at the time. He told me that every two or three months he had to bring this vehicle that he was using into this garage in the Goulds to get it repaired. The cost to repairing a vehicle, this particular time that I was talking to him, was more than the book value of the vehicle that he was getting fixed. So, all of these were problems at the time. I spoke at the time to police people. I was on city council at the time dealing with the police over problems with neighbourhoods having all kinds of break-ins and that – and I am getting off the topic. I know that, so I will come back to it.

Anyway, we recognized the problem and started to do something about it. We have spent millions of dollars on roads, millions of dollars on public buildings, schools, hospitals, homes, long-term care facilities. We have built new schools. We have built hospitals and long-term care facilities. We have done tremendous amounts of work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Without getting the lend of money.

MR. DINN: Without getting a loan of money, that is right. We did it on our own dollar, which is great. Because I am sure if we had to borrow the money, if a project was $20 million, then you could add another $5 million or $10 million to it because of the borrowing. We have been doing good on that facet.

Another thing we are doing here as a Province in our fiscal plan is we are looking to the future. We are preparing for the future. We are not just going along spending and spending and spending for today. We are looking at what we are going to have in sources of revenue in the future when the oil is gone. Oil is not going to last forever; oil, actually, is running out in parts of the world already. I think Egypt, for example, is nearly out of oil. The day is coming when this Province will not have oil revenues. One-third or 30-odd per cent of the revenues that we now have as a part of our $7.8 billion Budget will not be there any more. So we have to find some way to replace that revenue, because people are certainly not going to accept cuts. We cannot cut $2 billion or $3 billion from our programs. We are going to need in excess of $8 billion in the future in order to sustain the programs that we have. We have to come up with some source of revenue, some other sources of revenue.

Our Budget this year contains $650 million approximately for Muskrat Falls. That is criticized, but that is the reserve put aside as our share – or, what would you call it, our investment into that. I recall a few years ago, I was only here a couple of years, when we were criticized very heavily for investing in oil projects and taking equity shares. These equity shares and these investments are paying off tremendously for us and will so in the future with the other new projects that we will be starting.

We are going to need Muskrat Falls in the future as a source of revenue. This project is going to be a good source of revenue. I just read the paper today with a story on the front page and on the second page about Holyrood. Today, the cost of oil, to run Holyrood for 2011, was $120 million. Let's look at this being a good project, this Muskrat Falls Project. There was $120 million spent this year alone – or 2011, that was last year, at $120 per barrel of oil. In thirty years, you are talking about $3.6 billion just on oil alone for Holyrood. Factor in the refurbishing costs of $600 million to $800 million and you are over $4 billion just on oil in Holyrood alone. Put in the $1.6 billion that Emera is talking about putting in and you are well over $5 billion, which starts to make this project look good at today's price of oil. If oil goes up $30 a barrel, the cost of oil is going to be not $3.6 billion, but $4.5 billion for Holyrood. Nalcor has forecast that oil could go to $270 million for the year 2017. If that trend continues, then the oil prices for Holyrood would be about $7 billion alone, not counting what Emera was giving and not counting the refurbishing costs for Holyrood.

So, looking at Muskrat Falls as a revenue source, as an investment for the future, you are looking at something that is almost – it is hardly worth talking about. It is not just a big debt. You are taking from one hand and putting it into the other, that is basically what you are doing. I think to be criticizing the government for that type of stuff, going ahead with Muskrat Falls, is crazy. We are going to need the revenue in the future. If you do not have the revenue sources in the future, you are going to have to cut programs.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are going to need the energy.

MR. DINN: You are going to need the energy. Not even talking about needing the energy, Labrador needing it, or anything else; you are talking about just maintaining what you now have. If you do not have the money, you cannot maintain. If you do not have the money, you have to cut. Cutting programs that you set up is not a good idea.

As a government, we have been very, very conscious of being sustainable. We are very conscious of being sustainable in the programs that we bring in. It is nice to have universal home care or universal child care. It is nice to be able to help people build houses and all of that. Remember, you have to have the money. You cannot have a program for a year or two, have no money in two or three years time, and have to cut these programs. You will look worse than you ever did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DINN: Yes.

Anyway, what is going on is something we should be proud of. As a government member, I am proud to be a part of this government and realize that we have put us on a good path. When I was teaching school back a number of years ago, it used to bother me to no end to look at what was going on in the Province and what was going on in our schools. Today, we have turned the course and we are doing very well.

Now, just to look at the different departments we looked at in our Estimates, Transportation and Works is not just responsible, like was mentioned earlier, for roads. Transportation and Works has to deal with getting ready for any kind of contracts that might be put out for schools, hospitals, or almost any kind of public tender. They have to get all of these public tenders ready. One that I am very happy with is that they are getting ready to start the west end high school, which is a project in my district that I am very glad to see is going to take place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: I mentioned before that we spent many, many millions of dollars on roads and bridges. I do a lot of hunting, as I told you before, and it is not uncommon for me to go to Central Newfoundland or up the Northern Peninsula to go partridge hunting.

AN HON. MEMBER: You get 35 per cent.

MR. DINN: I will get 35 per cent this year. That is right. I am almost fifty years old now.

Anyway, back when we started going up to the Northern Peninsula, Central Newfoundland, and other places hunting, I used to be amazed at the shape of the roads and the condition of the roads. Today, when you drive up the Northern Peninsula or you go to Central Newfoundland, it is a very good drive, mainly because of the investments we have made.

We have spent a lot of money on the Trans-Labrador Highway. To hear people complain and talk about what we are doing in Labrador, my God, we have spent many, many millions of dollars in Labrador, more than any other government before, much more than anyone else before. Actually, I would say that this government is probably one of the first governments to really recognize Labrador and give it the footing that it has now, right?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Years ago, you would hear people from Labrador saying: I do not know what we are part of Newfoundland for; all they are doing is draining our resources. A lot of the resource money today, Mr. Speaker, is going back to Labrador. Labrador is going to be a big part of the future of this Province for many years to come, and Quebec: you are not getting Labrador. Do not even think of it.

We have spent a lot of money on marine services, ferries, ferry terminals. I do not think we are going to have porta-potties too long more, either, okay. Air Services, a part of Transportation and Works – when you talk about it, Transportation and Works is a very, very big department of this government. I am not sure how many employees they have, but I am sure they have a good few. I do not know, but they could be around a thousand. They have a lot of responsibilities, and part of their responsibility is all public buildings; the people you see on security and people who look after the buildings are the responsibility of Transportation and Works.

Anyway, I do not have too much more to say than to say that our government is doing a very good job with us financially; fiscally, we are getting ready for the future, and we are going to carry on that good work.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me pleasure to rise and talk about the Budget in Concurrence, and talk about the various departments. First off, this is the first time I have ever done the Concurrence end of Budget things, let alone to even sit in to them last year. I want to thank all the people who welcomed us at the committee level, as it was our first time. I must say, we have a great bunch of dedicated departmental officials and employees that are giving their best under the circumstances that we are being put under, we could say, at this particular point. I also want to thank the ministers involved for being pretty co-operative when it came to getting information and having questions answered. At times when we digressed from talking about numbers to talking about government policy, it was a real eye-opener for anybody who ever had the chance to do it. I must say, I was fortunate enough to be able to do it.

I want to first of all address, when it comes to the Department of Finance, some of the issues that were brought up by the Member for Kilbride. I wanted to say the quick comment about Muskrat Falls, because he did talk about Muskrat Falls as being an important source of revenue in the future for the Department of Finance and for the provincial government to carry on ongoing programs.

I keep asking myself: when it comes to the exploration of the other options out there, why are we not thinking about the possibility of generating two forms of revenue from one source, rather than the one source of revenue that would be from Muskrat? I am talking about the simple fact of the need to explore natural gas and the cogeneration of natural gas as an option besides – or the burning of natural gas, if you will, for the generating of electricity – and at the same time making natural gas an available second source of revenue from that one source.

We could be generating electricity from natural gas and we could be selling natural gas at the same time to outside suppliers and improving the revenue stream that would be coming in from the Department of Finance's Treasury. It does not have to be all Muskrat all the time with government. It is okay for government to be looking at options, but it is even more important that government, when it sees that second viability of an option, for it to change its mind and to change course, Mr. Speaker. That to me would be a real sign that there is good leadership in the Province, if they would be able to look at all options at the same time and change their mind on that. I would like to remind government again just on that quick note that we could be doing a whole lot more with the other resources that we have rather than just setting up a dam and damming that river for all time, if we would. I ask them to consider that.

I wanted to crawl through some of the departments that are covered under the Government Services Committee. I would like to thank the members of the Government Services Committee for their co-operation as well, for the chairmanship under the Member for Exploits and the other people who are on it, and the various departments concerned.

Having touched on the Department of Finance already, I would like to carry on with the Department of Finance for a couple of minutes, if I could. I touch on the points that came up in Estimates in that regard. The first point that I would like to talk about is the price of oil and how this Budget has been geared around $124 for a barrel of oil. That number is the Brent figure that they were using to figure out the numbers.

There is a lot of volatility, Mr. Speaker, in those numbers, and this is what is going to throw off this Budget this year. We have several conditions that are out there that are throwing a wrench into the Department of Finance's mix when it comes to the numbers. Right now, if you look at the number that they are using, $124 a barrel for oil, we have a lot of uncertainty out there in Europe right now; the simple fact is that we have to question as to regards to worldwide economic recovery. Therefore, the price of a barrel of Brent oil has dropped in recent weeks down to, I think it is today somewhere around $105 to $106 a barrel.

Where does oil go? Where do the Province's finances go if we are going to be talking about the volatility of oil over the coming few months in that regard? The simple fact is, if we are going to end up seeing a few months of a downturn in the price of oil, we know that the Province's finances are going to end up taking a kicking as a result of that and we know that it is going to have to go to an awful high price, well up past $124, $125 a barrel in order to pick up the shortfall in the Province's treasury that it is going to see at the end of the year. I would like to remind the department of that.

Last year in comparison, we saw a $776 million surplus in those numbers, so it kind of makes you wonder exactly how they get the numbers. I think we have to question ourselves as a Province, if we have to see them – and no doubt we have to see some sort of a projection when it comes to the price of a barrel of oil, but do we have too high of expectations would be the question here.

The other thing I would like to bring up is with regards to the Department of Finance. A couple of things that I have here, we have an awful lot of commitment made when it comes to the Muskrat Falls project already on the part of the Department of Finance. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I feel, our Party feels, are being asked to make an awful big commitment. It looks like other departments are having to make that sacrifice as a result. The Newfoundland and Labrador people are being made to suffer here, and if government is looking at it on the short-term thing, until we actually get the money to go alone on it, the people are being made to pay. Necessary programming, I feel, is being made to wait as a result of that.

It begs the question the priority of government here in this particular case. We are dealing with something in the order of a $270 million deficit, when it comes to this year alone, because of declining oil revenues, because some platforms are going to be coming off for maintenance; but we know that $664 million of our money is being rolled over into a project that has yet to be proven.

For that amount of money to be taken out of the Treasury and to have 514,000 people in the Province carry on as a result of not having that money there is a bit much to ask. You have to question the ethics of the numbers that this Budget is being made to come up with.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to some various programs that the Department of Finance is undertaking, I would like to see a further reduction in the amount of VLTs in this Province. It is a little bit disturbing to know that in some cases, while the Department of Finance needs revenue, it is disturbing to know that we need to see more money go into addiction programming when it comes to VLTs. We know there is a five-year strategy that was developed in House to deal with that and to deal with the shortfall of monies. We know the Department of Finance, over the last couple of years, has reduced somewhat a mediocre drop in the number of VLTs that are out there but we would certainly like to see government less dependent on VLTs as a source of revenue. I will leave that note with the Department of Finance as well.

To carry on to other departments that the Government Services Committee looked after, another one, of course, was the Department of Transportation and Works. I would like to thank the minister for his co-operation at the Estimates, as well as all of the staff who were there. We kept them there for the full three hours asking questions. In particular, these are some of the things that came out and some of the questions that we have to ask of the Department of Transportation and Works, but again, a great bunch there.

We know about the twenty-four-hour snow clearing but it is no good having guys out there snow clearing if they are only going to be beating up the equipment on some pretty sad roads that are out there. We all know, of course, the road down Bay d'Espoir way, Route 360 happened to become one of five roads in Newfoundland and Labrador that were put on the worst roads in Atlantic Canada on the top ten list. We managed to get five roads onto that list. It is kind of sad to know. It is a shame to realize that while government is undertaking some work in the area of the refit and retrofit of roads, the reconditioning of roads, we have so many roads in the Province that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can see fit to put some of the worst roads in Canada on this list. We need more investment in roads. It is as plain and simple as that.

We have people out there who give their monies, if you will, from gas tax, from fuel tax consumption, directly to the government. Last year, that number was in the area of $168 million. It was up slightly from the year previous. The expectation is for the provincial government to be raising even more revenue from that one particular source. There is more work that government can be doing for roads than what they are right now. God only knows, the people in Newfoundland and Labrador have the right to a good road to drive on because some of their money that comes from gas tax should be dedicated for that particular source.

Coming back to the Auditor General's Report, we got a good report out of the minister when it comes to bridge inspections but we need to make sure that we are going to hold government's feet to account on bridge inspections, particularly as they pertain to the Trans-Labrador Highway. We know the Auditor General in his 2010 Report noticed that there was a bit of a shortfall here. We have some explanations as regards to government, but again, when it comes to road maintenance, that sort of thing, bridges and bridge inspections and road inspections are an integral part of that, so we need to see more of it.

As regards to the Ferry Replacement Strategy, I still feel that this strategy is a couple of years behind. There are a lot of boats that should have been in the water by now, or at least probably a good distance through their replacement. At the same time, we are not seeing them come off the racks as fast as what they should be. We are still talking about a couple of boats that were supposed to be in the water a couple of years ago. Again, hopeful to see that government is going to be ever vigilant when it comes to having these boats built in Newfoundland and Labrador, if they are going to be built in the various smaller yards in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is great, and if they get that final agreement with Kiewit so that Kiewit will start construction on that third replacement ferry.

Again, it is disturbing to know that for so long we did not see new boats in the water. Congratulations to the government for at least putting two of the smaller ones into the water. Government should be looking at making itself become part of other places that need to see good ferries in operation for consumers and for business here. One of those ferries, of course, would be the ferry between Labrador and the Northern Peninsula; between Blanc Sablon and the Northern Peninsula. This would be a perfect opportunity for government to put a larger ferry in place, to have it become part of the provincial inter-ferry service, and put a good piece of dependable equipment out there, rather than what we have been seeing right now. The problems with the last boat were only too paramount. We saw people hung up on both sides of the coast trying to carry on their everyday living. In some cases, a lot of people were stuck on both shores and had to spend an immense sum of money just to get back to their own homes again.

That would be it, I guess. A quick couple of notes when it comes to the ferry schedule and the ferry replacement schedule, but some other questions that came up, of course, in Estimates, we also found out that government has at hand right now an extra plane that can be used in times of an emergency. At the same time as that, we also have the people of St. Anthony looking at getting an air ambulance put in there. We have a situation here now where government has that extra plane there. We are told in Estimates by some of the staff that the plane may not last long, it will probably last about 2,000 or 3,000 hours before it has to be replaced.

Still, we have that extra plane in the fleet, Mr. Speaker. As far as I am concerned, as far as our party is concerned, the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, that plane should be used and it should be used up in Labrador and put to good use. At the same time, a plane replacement strategy should also be put in place to replace the older planes in the fleet. It is a good idea to use it while you have it and at the same time put in a maintenance schedule to the point where you can replace these planes on an as-needed basis.

There are a couple of other issues as regards to the Department of Transportation and Works. I got into the water bomber strategy too at the same time. I do not know if it is just me, it could be members of the general public who are out there thinking about it at the same time. I think that there is going to be a bigger turnover when it comes to water bomber usage. It seems like we are only into the start of the season already, Mr. Speaker, and we are dealing with a number of fires. We had a few forest fires already in April and May and we are dealing with a big one up in Labrador. My congrats, by the way at the same time, to all the firefighting crews that are out there. They are out there risking their lives for the betterment of this Province, Mr. Speaker, but at the same time we have that new water bomber –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have that new water bomber now that was brought into service, but, at the same time as that, that money came from the ferry that was not constructed last year. That money went directly into a water bomber. At least while the money stayed in the department and it was spent in the department, it did not go for the cause that it was initially scheduled to go for.

I would like to touch on the Government Services department very quickly because I see I only have five minutes left here. When it came to the Government Services and Service NL, there were a number of issues that came up. I asked the minister at the time about stolen licence plates. I thought that it was a fair question to be asking, considering that it is part of government policy right now to be asking $20 of consumers every time the driver out there gets a licence plate ripped off his vehicle. It happens out here in this parking lot. As a matter of fact, it happened to one of our staff just last week. The licence plate was removed right off the car and is probably gone forever. The inconvenience to him was that while it was not his fault and the plate was his property, he had to go into Motor Vehicle Registration and pay an additional $20 which, as far as I am concerned, is a victim service charge of a different kind. He had to pay $20 in order to get a replacement plate and a replacement sticker to go on the vehicle.

There is something offensive about that, and I think that government can address that quite readily simply by taking that policy and turning it back the other way, and at least giving the driver out there who is doing his best to keep his vehicle maintained and everything, and saving him the inconvenience of that $20 bill. There is no harm in saying: All right, we understand it is ripped off. We will keep an eye out for the other plate that has been ripped off, that sort of thing, and slapping an additional charge on whoever is doing the offending. Do not take that $20 out of the pocket of the person who was robbed in the first place. I am asking government to address that one. It is only a $20 bill, but there are a lot of people who are missing their plates lately. It is a problem that is going to be ongoing.

The other thing in regard to that department we did not hear is the simple fact that when it came to Motor Vehicle Registration and that sort of thing is putting an antitheft device in place of that, whether it is a larger sticker of some kind, to make it easily identifiable that these stickers are being used in a different way. There also needs to be some collaboration between the insurance companies out there that are selling insurance and Motor Vehicle Registration. We find that is not happening right now. I think it is pretty easy to do. If you have an insurance company out there that has somebody owing them money, they would be able to go ahead, notify the people at Motor Vehicle Registration, and simply get the safety officers out there at Motor Vehicle Registration or the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to go seize the plate off the vehicle.

If somebody is going out and getting an insurance policy, and using that sticker, if you will, that little insurance certificate, in a fraudulent way, then they should see the hammer of the law put down on them. I think there should be a mechanism developed for the government, for the department of Motor Vehicle Registration, and the insurance companies to get together and work out something. The people, who are driving right and are paying for their insurance, for full coverage insurance or whatever, are not going to be victimized in the process because somebody decided to steal a sticker or did not bother to pay on their insurance.

The other thing we did not see from Government Services and Service NL, we believe there should be legislation passed when it comes to payday loan companies. We believe there are a lot of consumers out there who are being victimized by payday loan companies, merely to have coverage under the Criminal Code. We heard in the Committee that it was only governed by the Criminal Code of Canada. It sounds funny to say it, but a 60 per cent per year interest rate, anything over that they could probably do something about. Somebody who is being charged 59 per cent or having to go and get their fees charged on them all over again is not being addressed. We really need to see government move on legislation when it comes to payday loan companies. There are a lot of problems with that when it comes to just that one small particular issue.

The other thing I would like to get into in the last minute that I have left, unfortunately, is when it comes to Occupational Health and Safety and Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. I understand that the committee has established an office and is taking submissions. That committee, I think, is going to be starting work in June. It is going to be an important exercise, because the Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation system is an essential component of Newfoundland and Labrador's social safety net. In some cases, we have a lot of workers that are hurt out there that sometimes just do not get due course. I am thinking about one person right now who was hurt on an acting set. He is still running around trying to find help and he finds more aggravation dealing with that particular branch of government than anything else. I think that there has to be some justice done on the part of the people out there.

There are four key areas where we would like to see some movement when it comes to this, to the ongoing review. The maximum ceiling right now for worker's compensation benefits is $52,888 –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member his time has expired.

MR. MURPHY: Leave to clue up? I will touch off on one more issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Sir.

When it comes to one more issue, I guess, when it comes to the identification of some industrial diseases out there, we are thankful in some ways that government has finally come out with a registry when it comes to the Baie Verte miners, but we also need to see legislation brought in when it comes to the rights of firefighters out there. We thank you in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, for being able to just touch on a few of these things. I wish I had more time, and perhaps later on we will be able to deal with a few more issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There will be no further speakers.

The motion is that the report of the Government Service Committee be concurred in.

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.

On motion, Report of Government Services Estimates Committee, carried.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 3 from the Order Paper, Concurrence Motion, Report of the Social Services Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the Report of the Social Services Committee be concurred in.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to stand and speak in this Concurrence debate. Being a rookie MHA and going through Estimates for the first time, it has been a very interesting experience for most of us rookies, I would suggest. It has been informative, sometimes it has been enlightening, and sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it has been fairly intense. All the same, I think the whole idea of Estimates is a worthwhile project. It is something that we need to do. It answers many questions. It gives all members of government the opportunity to understand the Budget in a better way.

Budget 2012: People and Prosperity, Mr. Speaker, is a very good Budget. Through our Estimates – and we did Estimates, Mr. Speaker, for five departments, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. We did the Department of Health and Community Services; Child, Youth and Family Services; the Department of Education; Justice; and Municipal Affairs. These five departments take up 57 per cent of the total Budget of $7.4 billion. These departments spend in excess of $4 billion, Mr. Speaker. A very, very significant investment in this Province comes from the Social Services Committee Estimates.

When you look at that, Mr. Speaker, that means we have a great responsibility. We have a responsibility to many people, because the work that is done in these departments most of all, I think, affects more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians than any other departments in government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Committee members for their support: the Member for Port au Port, the Member for St. John's West, the Member for Bonavista South, the Member for the Bay of Islands, the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, and the Member for St. John's Centre. I would really like to thank them for their support and their co-operation throughout the last two weeks. It has made our time here at Estimates – Mr. Speaker, we were here late some nights, other mornings here at 8:00 o'clock. People were very co-operative; members were very co-operative so we could get our work done. I want to thank all our members for doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the various ministers from all the departments and their staffs for their co-operation. You cannot do this without their co-operation, Mr. Speaker. Every minister who was here, every minister who came before the Estimates Committee for Social Services was open, frank, and forthright with their answers. There was no misinformation, Mr. Speaker. They were very forthright and willing to answer all questions, and in actual fact, anxious to answer the questions that were put forward by our Committee.

I want to thank them as well. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to put out a special thanks to the Minister of Education and his staff, because to accommodate some of us, they came here at 8:00 o'clock in the morning and we met for over an hour. I want to thank the minister and his staff for doing that for us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, this whole idea of going through the Estimates, you basically sit there and you go line by line. Some departments are fairly intense, Mr. Speaker. You look at the actuals, what was spent last year in 2011-2012. You look at the Estimates coming forward this year, and you wonder: okay, why is there a difference? Why is there a difference from the actuals last year to this year?

Mr. Speaker, there were many questions asked in relation to government spending and what lies ahead for this coming fiscal year. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in some areas there needed to be reductions, but the reductions were straightforward answers. They were answers based on the request that all departments save 3 per cent; or, Mr. Speaker, prudence. In some cases, I remember in many, travel. I remember many questions came up about travel, ministerial travel, staff travel. There were instances where many departments had some cutbacks because they felt they could do the job in a different way and save money for government. Good fiscal management, Mr. Speaker, good departmental management, I would argue.

Mr. Speaker, most of all, budgets in a lot of cases outline what governments have done, is going to do, what lies ahead in the future. It is about choices, Mr. Speaker. It is about choices and decisions. The decisions we make today, Mr. Speaker, obviously will have an effect into the future. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we have to make sure that the choices government makes today are going to be good for the future, are going to be good for our children and our grandchildren, and the people who follow us.

We do not want to burden, Mr. Speaker. This government over here does not want to burden our future generations with our burdens of bad fiscal management. We have been very, very prudent on this side. Yes, Mr. Speaker, one could argue also that we have had some good times as well. We have had some extra dollars and we have been able to do it, but, Mr. Speaker, we have invested those dollars wisely. During the Estimates I think that is one thing that I learned, Mr. Speaker. I learned that we did make wise investments, and we continue to make wise investments.

Mr. Speaker, social programming and the social agenda is very difficult because there are many needs and wants by all people. There are people who need our services. There is a very delicate balance, Mr. Speaker, between the wants and needs of people on the street and the individual Newfoundlander and Labradorian and fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, as much as I am sure the Minister of Finance, the Premier, and all of us on this side would like to be able to do everything for everyone that is not good fiscal management. We cannot do that. That is something you cannot do because it is not sustainable. It is not viable. It is not sustainable and you cannot carry it into the future.

I refer to the comment of my colleague from Kilbride earlier. He talked about other world economies and the trouble they are having in other parts of the world, in Greece, in the European countries, in the United States. You cannot continue to spend, spend, spend, Mr. Speaker, because at some time in the future someone has to pay the piper. Someone is going to pay the piper.

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, we have to do the best we can. Do you know what? I believe we are doing the best we can to help every Newfoundlander and Labradorian in their daily lives. Is it enough, Mr. Speaker? I do not think it will ever be enough. I do not think we can ever do enough to help every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian. Mr. Speaker, we have and we are doing many good things. I will talk about those in a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize as well that there are many needs, as I have already said, many, many needs out there. This government has done a good job in investing in the needs of our people and improving the social net. Yes we have. We have done a good job of investing in the needs of our people and improving the social net for those who need our support, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, even though in this Budget we are projecting a deficit, this document is a very good document. It projects a return to surplus in another year or two. Mr. Speaker, you have to consider what we have faced this year. Yes, we have a deficit this year, Mr. Speaker, but we lost $400 million through our Atlantic Accord Agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five hundred million.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Five hundred million, I am sorry. I am to be corrected; $500 million through our Atlantic Accord Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, we also had to take our two FPSOs off the Grand Banks for maintenance. Those things happen, Mr. Speaker. We have roughly lost $1.1 billion in revenue this year. I think to only have a deficit of a little over $200 million is a tribute to the good financial management of our government and this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, the other thing that always comes out and it kind of hits me, I was reading some of the economic activity, Mr. Speaker, and we continue to expect population growth. We continue to see growth in retail sales, Mr. Speaker. We continue to see capital investments. I read somewhere that capital investments this year will increase by something like 30 per cent to over $4 billion – $4 billion in capital investments.

We are expecting our employment to continue to grow, Mr. Speaker. We are expecting employment to grow by another 1.8 per cent this year. We have more people in the workforce today than any time in our history in Newfoundland and Labrador, so we have to be doing something right, I argue. As well, personal and disposable income is growing. The average Newfoundlander and Labradorian does have more disposable income to put back into the economy. Things are not all doom and gloom, Mr. Speaker. No matter what is said on the other side sometimes, I do not think it is all doom and gloom. In fairness, there are some good things going on.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health alone spends $3 billion. We have invested $3 million this year in health and community services – $3 billion. Did I say million? Billion, with a B – $3 billion in health care, Mr. Speaker. We have more doctors, nurses, and health care professionals today, Mr. Speaker, than ever before in the history of this Province. We are attracting our own. We are doing things. We are making attractions through Memorial University to make sure that local doctors stay in this Province. We are giving them incentives to stay. I think that is a good thing. I know in my district, Mr. Speaker, we have young physicians training. They want to come back and they want to set up practice in their hometown or in their home district. Mr. Speaker, if we can make that happen, we are going to be better off for it. I want to congratulate the initiatives by the Department of Health to do just that.

We are also – and the Minister of Health has said this many, many times – leaders in cardiac care. We have one of the best cardiac care units in the country and they do wonderful, wonderful work. I know, Mr. Speaker, because I can speak to it personally. My uncle, only a few years ago, had six bypasses – six bypasses and a valve replacement – and it was through good care. My mother-in-law, Mr. Speaker, is a cardiac care patient. She heaps praises on our cardiac care and our cardiac care specialists for the work they do. I think we should be very proud of the work we do in that area.

Do we have some challenges in other areas, Mr. Speaker? I am not going to stand here and deny that. I think we should laud the things we do well and we should praise it. Our cardiac care people do wonderful, wonderful work day in and day out in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the fact of dialysis because dialysis is something that, during my time as a volunteer and before I came to this House, I was a volunteer with the Trinity Conception Placentia Health Foundation. One of our major projects, Mr. Speaker, was to work in partnership with government to make sure we had dialysis in our area for the people of our area. A good personal friend of mine, his wife needed dialysis and they had to drive to St. John's and drive to the Waterford three times a week. If you are sick and you need dialysis, that is not an easy thing to do. Driving an hour every day in rain, in winter, in snow and all the rest, and sleet, that is not easy to do. Particularly, Mr. Speaker, they needed to be there very early in the morning. I am proud to say that we have a unit at the Carbonear General that services the needs of many of the people who need dialysis in our district and I thank them for that because that is very good. We have put more money into this year to enhance it so more people can do it in our local area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Across the Province.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: That is across the Province as well, yes.

The other good thing – and I know this is dear to the heart of the member opposite for Cartwright –L'Anse au Clair – the fact that we lowered the age for breast screening from forty-nine to forty. That is a good thing – prevention, Mr. Speaker, being proactive, and I think that is great.

I could go on and talk about other things. Mr. Speaker, I need to move on. Municipalities: We continue to support municipalities in this Province and we continue to work with municipalities. We committed $130 million over the next two years for capital works and capital improvement, which will go long way in helping municipalities in their water and sewer and infrastructure needs. I commend the minister for that. I think the best part about this is that we continue to work with our municipalities, and this government is committed to working with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador on a new sustainable funding formula.

Mr. Speaker, being a former mayor, we need a new funding formula, but it has to be the right formula. I have heard the minister say this many times and we have had many conversations about it; it has to be the right formula that is sustainable, that will sustain in the long term; because, if we do not do that, Mr. Speaker, our municipalities are not going to survive. The minister gets it, we get it, and we will get it done, Mr. Speaker, and we will get it done before this term is out.

Mr. Speaker, in the area of education, we continue to invest in Safe and Caring Schools. Not only do we need money to build new schools, Mr. Speaker, we are in a crunch, particularly in the Northeast Avalon. We are in a population crunch. It is reflected in my district as well.

We have a growing population; we have a growing demand on the school systems. We have some old schools and we need to replace them. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in this Budget into improving schools: roofs, windows, new electrical systems, heating. All those things, Mr. Speaker, we are doing in this Budget for education so our schools are safe for our children and the children who will follow our children. I think that is really good.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, Child, Youth and Family Services, one of the things that hit me with that one – what a major task that was for the minister. That is a brand-new department. There was a transition of nearly 700 new employees. I cannot imagine trying to transition 700 employees from all across this Province into one department. It was done, and it was done efficiently and effectively, Mr. Speaker. I think we should commend the minister for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, in this Budget we are going to see significant changes within various programs within Child, Youth and Family Services. There are going to be improvements in home care support. There are going to be improvements for foster families.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to develop a new long-term continuum care strategy and we are trying to attract new foster families into the program. We are trying to eliminate ALAs, and that is alternate living arrangements. I have heard the Opposition talk to that, Mr. Speaker. We agree; we have to eliminate ALAs. It is for a lot of reasons. Our young people need to be in family environments. They need the guidance of an adult, they need to have better nutrition, and they need to have somebody to look up to. If we can do it and we can do it right – and I know we will do it right – we will eliminate ALAs. That will be for the betterment of all.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; we continue to invest and expand social housing within this Province. I know we have a long way to go, and we admit that, but we have done some great work in NLHC. The corporation will invest $29.8 million into programs like the Home Repair Program. There is barely a day goes by in my district that we do not have someone come in to look for an application for the Home Repair Program. These people want to stay – they are mostly seniors who want to stay in their own home; by a Home Repair Program, we are allowing seniors to live in their homes longer. The Home Modification Program, Mr. Speaker, is allowing persons with disabilities to live in their homes longer. They can be adaptable, and these people can stay, and they are very appreciative.

Mr. Speaker, because I am running out of time, I just want to touch on the area of Justice. We had a good session in Justice. Justice is a very expansive, comprehensive department covering a lot of areas, but we invested $7 million in investments to improve our correctional facilities. Mr. Speaker, in the conversation in Justice, we talked about reviewing, making sure that we get the best use of our facilities and are maximizing our facilities. So, we need to do that. That is ongoing.

Mr. Speaker, because I am running out of time, I want to thank you for the time to speak, and I hope I get another opportunity to speak to the Budget at a later date.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, it being 5:17 in the afternoon, and we are coming back tonight, I would suggest at this point in time that we break until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The House now stands recessed until 7:00 o'clock this evening.


May 28, 2012                     HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                  Vol. XLVII No. 38A


The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Kent): Order, please!

We will now resume the Concurrence debate.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise to speak to the Estimates of the Social Services Committee in Concurrence debate. This Committee looks at a number of departments. It includes: Health and Community Services; Child, Youth and Family Services; the Department of Education; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing; the Department of Justice; and the Department of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Speaker, there is definitely a lot of issues that can be covered, I guess, under the auspices of these particular departments that are very critical out there in the public, none any more pressing than the news we got today with regard to the Eastern Health Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, in the House of Assembly we were told by both the Premier and the minister on various occasions, by the Premier on March 7 when she was questioned in the House of Assembly, that front line health and education services would be exempt from any cuts in her budget. She also went on to say, Mr. Speaker, that policing services would be exempt, Child, Youth and Family Services would be exempt, and Income Support will be exempt. In addition to that, on Thursday of last week, Mr. Speaker, the minister stood in the House and said they would not be making cuts to front line health care. In fact, her line was that health care is important. That was what she said in Hansard on May 24.

Mr. Speaker, we all know what happened today. We learned of this a couple of weeks ago that there could potentially be some changes within Eastern Health. We know there were meetings that had been previously established or set up, that ended up getting cancelled. I can only look at it now and think that it was because we were in a polling period, because the polling period just finished so this is the operative time to drop a bomb. Mr. Speaker, I guess that was the reason it was postponed. We learned today again, that the meetings were on for tomorrow with MHAs and they would all be briefed, and the government caucus would be briefed on changes or whatever was happening in Eastern Health. From there we received a number of other pieces of information.

Mr. Speaker, what we have learned, and although the minister is not confirming any of it – I know she was probably pretty rushed through her dinner meal because I saw the CEO of Eastern Health coming in during our supper break, so I am sure they were paying tremendous attention to what is happening within Eastern Health currently. Mr. Speaker, what we have learned is that there will be hundreds of jobs that will be lost in Eastern Health. I would say they do affect front line services because we also understand and have learned that some of these will affect nursing staff as well. There are no more front lines in health care than nursing, and the very people who are at your bedside.

Mr. Speaker, we will see tomorrow what all of these details will entail, but there is absolutely no way, in my mind, that you can take $43 million out of health care in one corporation and not impact in any way any of the services that are currently being offered to people in the Province. That was what I heard the minister say today. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think she went out on a huge limb today in making that statement because I have no idea how you could take $43 million and over 500 bodies out of a health care corporation and look up and say this will not affect any services.

If that was the case, Mr. Speaker, that tells me this $43 million is wastage in Eastern Health that has been going on for the last eight years since they have been in government. Is that what she is telling me? Is she telling me, Mr. Speaker, that there were over 500 people housed on the payroll of Eastern Health who had no purpose in our health care system? Is that what the minister is saying? Because, Mr. Speaker, if that was the case they have been in power, this is nine years. They have been in power allowing this to happen. It is either going to compromise services, Mr. Speaker, or there are a lot of people floating around the payroll of Eastern Health who are absolutely doing no service to our health care. I would say to the government opposite, you cannot have it both ways. It is either going to be one way or the other. My guess is what we are going to see is front line health care impacted and we are going to see health care services impacted as a result of that. Mr. Speaker, we will wait until tomorrow after the caucus is briefed and we will see what is going to be released to the public after that particular time.

The other thing is, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if we are going to see similar cuts taking place inside of the other health care corporations because if 3 per cent of the budget of Eastern Health has to be trimmed, my guess is that the government is asking for 3 per cent of all the health corporations. Perhaps the minister will stand up shortly and explain to us if that is the case. If that is the case, we are going to be awful interested in knowing how that is going to play out in Central Newfoundland, in Western Newfoundland, and in Labrador as well, and how it is going to impact those services. Notwithstanding that anything that happens with regard to services within Eastern Health affects everyone in the Province because this is the place where we are all referred for all kinds of diagnostic testing, diagnosis and treatments, Mr. Speaker. It does not only just affect one small group of people; it affects everyone in the Province. We will have to wait until tomorrow to find out exactly what is happening with all of that.

Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, I did want to talk about another health care issue, and that is the issue around providing benefits for people who provide care to family members. We have always called it the family caregiver program because that was how the government kind of referred to it when they made the announcement in the middle of the election last year in October. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was a great strategy on their part. What a wonderful strategy to go out there in the middle of an election, in a Province where elderly people are being cared for by family members right from one end of Newfoundland and Labrador to the other, where we have people who are adult children with disabilities, multiple disabilities and illnesses who are being cared for by parents, where we have cases of hundreds of families in this Province where people have had to give up their work, give up their job, stay at home and care for sick loved ones. What a brilliant strategy on behalf of the government to go out in the middle of an election campaign, when they are looking for people to vote for them, and say to people, listen, we are going to bring in a family caregiver program. We are going to pay people for the services that you provide. If you are providing care to loved ones, we are going to make sure that you are paid.

Mr. Speaker, I had people calling me before the ballots were even destroyed asking me when they could expect to get their cheques, when they were going to get their cheques. That was the information that was communicated to people. Nobody ever once on the government side, in the middle of that election, ever stood up and said, what we are going to do is broaden the definition of what already exists. Not one person said that. Not one person ever stood up, Mr. Speaker, and said they were not going to provide this benefit to any family member unless it was approved, unless it went through some kind of a regulation or regulatory system, or whatever the case may be.

Mr. Speaker, what got even more confusing, is that after the election and we came into the House of Assembly and we started asking the government what they were going to do with this family caregiver, on Budget Day we had the minister out saying there is no model for it anywhere in the country, so it is going to take us time to develop this. We are leading this. We do not have anything that we can follow, although it has been done in a lot of other countries around the world. Then, we get into the House and we ask the Premier, she stands up and says, oh, we have already done that. We have broadened the definition; that is already done.

Right away, there was a disconnect in terms of where this program was and how it was going to be delivered. The sad part about it is that still today there are people in this Province sitting at home thinking that this government promised them something and they are wondering when they are going to get it. That is the sad part of it, Mr. Speaker, because these are people in many cases who are struggling. They are struggling financially, they are struggling emotionally because of the care they have to give to their loved one and how difficult it is. Mr. Speaker, they were led to believe, and I think wrongly led to believe, during an election they were going to be taken care of, and that did not happen.

Mr. Speaker, there are lots of things I could talk about in health, but I only have a limited time so I am going to move on to a couple of other things. Mr. Speaker, one of the other things I do want to talk about is with regard to the inquiry into the Burton Winters tragedy. We have a Department of Child, Youth and Family Services in this Province. We do not have any legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador that triggers a child death review. We do not have any legislation. We are one of few provinces in the entire country that does not have it.

Every time there is a death, where a child is related to that death, we have to come here to the House of Assembly and try to get an inquiry to get answers. That is what we are doing with regard to the tragedy of Burton Winters in Makkovik. It is no different than what we had to do in Goose Bay, when there was a fire in Goose Bay and there was no child death review triggered. We had to come in here – I spent two years raising that issue in the House of Assembly. Finally, now there is an investigation into that particular death of that fire in Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we do not have to wait two years to get the answers to what went wrong in the Burton Winters tragedy. I hope we do not, Mr. Speaker. The more I read around this event, the more I look at, the more I listen to the Premier speak, Mr. Speaker, the more it does not make sense and things do not add up. I have been looking at the letters from Minister MacKay's office and, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you right now that when the Minister of Municipal Affairs –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with Estimates of Municipal Affairs in which this entire issue falls under. We are also dealing with Child, Youth and Family Services. We are dealing with those departments and this particular issue falls under those departments, the last time I checked.

Mr. Speaker, as it is, the Minister of Municipal Affairs wrote a number of letters to Peter MacKay, the national Defence Minister. I have to admit, he asked some good questions in the letters. I will commend him for that. There were good questions in those letters, questions that need to be answered; however, Mr. Speaker, we did not get a lot of answers. We got some information, most of the information was out there in the public already, but we also got some recommendations.

We received some other information, Mr. Speaker, information in which they outlined there were calls that did not come in from FES-NL until fifty-one hours after Burton Winters was last seen. That was outlined in the letters from Peter MacKay to JRCC. He also outlined a number of things with regard to ground search and rescue, which I found really interesting as well. He said the mandate of the ground search and rescue, which we all agree, Mr. Speaker, is the responsibility of the Province, but he also encouraged the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to build its own capacity to fulfill its legal mandate to provide ground search and rescue services, including the provisions of air assets.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was surprised that I have not seen anything going back to MacKay on this other than to say they did not think his comments were in line. Mr. Speaker, they also suggested that if the Province increased the capacity of its air emergency services program it would improve its ability to deliver both ground search and rescue and medevac services. He also suggested that the Province form a partnership with CASARA. Mr. Speaker, this is the information they came back with. They did not necessarily answer the questions. They came back and outlined where they thought the Province had deficiencies and where they could improve things.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I do not understand about the call for an inquiry is that both the Province and the federal government, they disagree on the timelines of all the events that are currently out there around this particular horrific incident, neither will agree to a public inquiry but they disagree on the timelines. They will not agree on who is responsible for the shortfalls in the search. They do not want to talk about those things. They disagree on that. Mr. Speaker, they agree on ground search and rescue, whose responsibility that is, that is about it. They do not even agree on the weather, Mr. Speaker, the weather reports from that day, and the reasons they could not operate was due to weather.

Mr. Speaker, because of all these factors, why wouldn't you call an inquiry? Why wouldn't you? If you do not agree with the timelines, if you do not agree with the arguments that are being provided, you have the federal government saying they would co-operate in an inquiry, why wouldn't you just do the inquiry? I hope we are not going to have to wait a couple of years to find out what has happened here or until there is another tragedy in this Province. That would be my fear.

With the house fire in Goose Bay, we waited over two years for the government to finally say they were going to do an investigation into the death of that child. On the Cameron inquiry, Mr. Speaker, we spent months standing in this House of Assembly asking the government to do an inquiry. Finally, they came out and did one. What did we get? Sixty-odd recommendations that have served to improve the health care system in this Province, which hopefully will save many lives in the future; that was the benefit that came out of that inquiry. So, what is there to be afraid of? What is there to hide from? What is there that you do not want to have to deal with, Mr. Speaker? Because I think that it needs to be done and it should be done.

We will not give up asking for this inquiry. If government members think that this is going to go away, that the Opposition will get tired of talking about it – I will never get tired of talking about this, because it is about justice for me. It is about justice for a family. You talk about the mother of Burton Winters – I sat in her living room in Goose Bay. I had conversations with this woman; I have met with her. I can tell you that she would like nothing more than to have an inquiry into what happened. She says that there should be answers, and the other family members say it. There is not a person who you will talk to out there in the street, no matter where you go, who will not say the same thing. I think, Mr. Speaker, the government has a responsibility – they have a responsibility and they need to be accountable to people for the services that are being provided, and that means finding the answers when things do not go the way that they should go.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are lots of issues that I could talk about – and I am running out of time, but I do want to talk very quickly about some of the things that are happening in our Province with regard to people in seasonally employed positions. We all know in Newfoundland and Labrador that financial stress is probably one of the greatest stresses that you can have. We also know, Mr. Speaker, we have been constantly trying to improve mental health services in this Province. We know that all of that is linked in many ways to poverty. It is linked in many ways to financial stress. When I hear what the government is talking about doing to the EI program, I think, Mr. Speaker, it is going to cause tremendous, tremendous impacts –

AN HON. MEMBER: The federal government.

MS JONES: The federal government, what the federal government is looking to do to the EI program – and I am happy to clarify that, because I know it is not the government opposite, Mr. Speaker.

What they are planning to do with that program will bring tremendous hardship to many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. You only need to look at the nature of the industry that we work in, in this Province, and people do not have the options in many cases for full-time, year-round employment. Many of them work in seasonal industries and the stress that is causing them today – I went into a fish plant last weekend where I went into a lunchroom, there were probably fifty workers there and that was all they talked about. They were worried sick. So you talk about the health of people in our Province, these things do not serve to improve the health of people. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they serve to do the very opposite. These people are very stressed. People in those seasonal industries today are wondering: What is going to happen to me? How am I going to be affected? While we work hard to build healthy communities in this Province and healthy families, there are things like this that tear that down in a moment's notice and have a tremendous impact on people and their families.

Mr. Speaker, my time is almost up and I wish I had more, but I am sure that my colleagues will have an opportunity to speak and address a number of these issues. Absolutely, no doubt, people in this Province depend on some very critical services and some of those services are in Health and Community Services and Child, Youth and Family Services, along with departments like Municipal Affairs which services to look after and protect the interests of our municipalities around the Province. All of these things are important and government's administration of them does affect the lives of people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

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 had not intended to speak tonight; however, having listened to the member opposite come on to the floor of the House of Assembly tonight and start talking without any information, without any briefing, without any knowledge, to talk only based on speculation, I felt I had to rise this evening and say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are hearing from members opposite some very uninformed and misinformed information that they need not fear. This government has committed to health care in Newfoundland and Labrador; we have committed $3 billion to health care in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to see that health care is delivered in a sustainable a manner as we possibly can deliver that health care. When the 13,000 employees of Eastern Health have to sit home tonight and listen to the member opposite fearmonger about jobs being gone before Eastern Health has had a chance to get out there with their announcement, is totally irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot sit here this evening and not stand and respond to that.

I am not going to jump ahead of Eastern Health's announcement; that is their announcement. This is a piece of work that they have been doing for a substantial period of time, Mr. Speaker. I commend Eastern Health. I think when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have opportunity tomorrow to hear and see what it is that Eastern Health is doing, as opposed to sitting home tonight and having to listen to the other side say to them that all of these jobs are going to be gone, that people are going to be put out on the street, Mr. Speaker, then that is absolutely shocking. I need to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that, in fact, that is not the case. They can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that there will be no reduction in programs, that there will be no reduction in services put out by Eastern Health.

What Eastern Health is doing, rather, is taking a responsible approach to sustainable health care, Mr. Speaker. Eastern Health has a budget of $1.2 billion. They are responsible to the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that money is spent wisely, Mr. Speaker. To ensure that the services provided through the expenditure of that money are the best possible services that can be provided. To ensure, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are receiving the best health care that they possibly can. That is precisely what Eastern Health has told us that they will be doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador there will be announcements tomorrow; I ask you to wait until those announcements are made by the president and CEO tomorrow. Today, she has taken a very deliberate day of informing various people within the health care authorities. This evening she did brief us, tomorrow she will brief the members opposite. Later, she will brief the media and then there will be a news conference, Mr. Speaker.

We are doing this in a responsible way. Again, I have to say that I am so disappointed in the irresponsible manner in which the Opposition has gone after this and tried to put out information based on speculation or based on a phone call from a few people. Mr. Speaker, totally irresponsible and I am really disappointed, really surprised that they would do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS SULLIVAN: No, I will not correct anything here this evening. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is we are doing this in the responsible way. We are allowing Eastern Health to do their work. We are allowing Eastern Health to take the time, after the month that they have spent in doing this, to inform their staff and put out the correct information. That is what we are doing here tonight. We are giving Eastern Health the latitude to work as they ought to work in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I have to question the motives of the persons opposite. From what I can tell, their only motive in all of this is for political gain. They like to do this. They like to get out there. They like to get everybody all riled up and say we would not have done this. Mr. Speaker, I invite them to stand and tell us what you would have done, because all during the election what did we hear? Health care has to be sustainable, you have to do something about health care; you have to do something about sustainability. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is what Eastern Health is doing, and tomorrow we will see that we are able to stand and applaud what it is that Eastern Health is doing in terms of the sustainability of our health care in Newfoundland and Labrador, for at least a good portion of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Then, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite stood – again, I had no intention of standing here tonight – and suggested that we are going to break an election promise, that we are not committed to doing anything in terms of paid family caregiving. Mr. Speaker, that is not true. We have committed to doing this, and just as we committed to other initiatives throughout our platform, we will see this one through as well.

Mr. Speaker, we committed to reducing wait times in Newfoundland and Labrador for hip and joint replacement. Within 120 days of being elected, we committed to doing that. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? We did it, and we did it with an investment of $3.4 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we committed as well to being able to reduce wait times in our emergency departments. We said we would do that within 120 days of being elected. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? We did that within 120 days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: A total, Mr. Speaker, of $5 million was committed.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the election platform, we committed to looking at the reduction of the age for women in Newfoundland and Labrador who wanted to avail of the breast screening program. We committed to doing that within ninety days. We did that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: We did the review, Mr. Speaker. We consulted, Mr. Speaker. I had conversations time and time again with various people within the department, with various people around this Province, with the Cancer Control Advisory Committee, Mr. Speaker, that advises me on a regular basis. Mr. Speaker, in Budget 2012, we delivered on that and we reduced the age down to forty to forty-nine for women in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when people on the opposite side of this House stand and for political reasons say that we do not keep our promises, I think they ought to stop and take a second look because we certainly have, and on paid family caregivers we are going to do the same thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, it is time that we take on these sorts of issues here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not good enough to simply stand and say you are not going to do it. Mr. Speaker, we have been in office six months, six, seven months since the election that has been it, but look at the promises that we have been able to follow through on. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that people in my department are working day and night at seeing that the health care we provide in Newfoundland and Labrador is the best that we can possibly provide. I want to tell you that the staff in our health care departments and in our regional health authorities are doing the best thing they can do to see that the services provided are the best that we can provide in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it is really disheartening when we have people on the other side who stand immediately and take apart everything they do and pretend that nothing is happening out there, absolutely nothing is happening out there in health care, we are not following through on our commitments, we are not doing anything to improve health care in Newfoundland and Labrador. At the same time, throughout the election, talk about sustainability and say to us: You can't continue to spend like that. It makes no sense to me, Mr. Speaker. It makes absolutely no sense to me. I know the people of Newfoundland and Labrador feel the same way.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about what we do, do in health care, apart from the $3 billion that we have spent, apart from the fact that we spend more on health care than any other jurisdiction in Canada. We are spending $4,752 per capita, per person in Newfoundland and Labrador on health care. So we must be doing something. We are not just spending the money. We are doing something with that money.

Mr. Speaker, in the last three or four days the Minister of Transportation and Works and I have been out making some announcements around Newfoundland and Labrador. Have we heard members opposite talk about those? Have any of you heard anything about that? Absolutely nothing! Mr. Speaker, the minister and I were in Grand Falls-Windsor on Friday and we broke ground on a $12 million facility over on the (inaudible) of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, it is a facility that will see to it that youth with addictions in Newfoundland and Labrador will have a place to go in this Province to receive the treatment that they need. It is a state-of-the-art facility that is going to be built, but I heard nothing from the other side about that.

Let's talk about what this facility looks like. It is 2,065 square metres. It will be built in the sense of pods, so that we have three, four pod quarters there. In each of those quarters, the residents who come there for the treatment they need will have their own private room, they will have private washrooms in those areas. There will be a common area in that treatment facility as well, Mr. Speaker, where we will have recreational activities, where there will be a physical education room, where there will be a classroom, where there will be a kitchen and a lounge and so on, and where there will be rooms for counselling as well.

Mr. Speaker, as part of our commitment, there will also be another pod area that will be put there for families, because we all know the importance of family in the direction of providing help to young people with addictions and so on. Mr. Speaker, a $12 million facility announced and the ground broken on that, and the contractor has assured me he will start working on that within the next two weeks, but not a word from the other side on that. No, we are not doing anything it seems.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transportation and Works and I were out again this morning and we did another announcement. That was in Paradise, again, on another $12 million residential treatment centre for young people with mental health, severe and complex mental health issues, Mr. Speaker. Again, another tremendous facility will be built in the same fashion as the one I just described in Grand Falls-Windsor and, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, the people of Newfoundland who are going to be served by that facility are going to be very well served but once again, we heard nothing from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, at 8:30 this morning I was at the Sheraton Hotel where I had the privilege of speaking to CIHI. CIHI is a group known as the Canadian Institute for Health Information. We had people there from all over the Province, but, Mr. Speaker, not only did we have people there from all over this Province, we had people there from many of our European countries, several of the European countries. Why did they come and why were the national people from CIHI here in Newfoundland and Labrador? Because they see the work that we are doing in mental health and addictions in this Province and they are very, very much interested in understanding what else it is that we are doing here in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. That is why they came to Newfoundland and Labrador this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, in the brief time that I was able to spend with them this morning, they talked to me about some of the assessment tools we are using, that they have been promoting, some of the interRAI particularly with regard to assessment of seniors in our Province, of people in our long-term care facilities and so on. They are very impressed. Mr. Speaker, do you know that in Central Newfoundland, right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have implemented some of the tools and we are leaders in North America in terms of being able to provide assessments of people in long-term care facilities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, people are coming here to learn from us what we are doing, to applaud the work that we are doing here in Newfoundland and Labrador. If you listen to the other side, Mr. Speaker, the sky has fallen. We are not doing anything, and tomorrow is going to be a horrible day and we are not doing anything.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of mental health and addictions, we have spent in the last two-and-a-half to three years $29 million. We have not heard a sound about that $29 million from the other side of the House. Mr. Speaker, people in Canada are noticing. Our former Minister of Health and Community Services was presented with a national award for the work that this Province is doing in mental health and addictions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, once again if we were to listen, there is nothing at all happening out here in Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of health and community services. As of tomorrow, I guess it will be all over if we were to listen to what is happening on the other side. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. What we are doing is continuing to lead the way in Canada. What we are going to see tomorrow in terms of Eastern Health's responsibility and sense of understanding sustainable health care, will be another item that will show how Newfoundland and Labrador will be leading the way in terms of health care in this country. No doubt about that.

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about the Budget that we just brought down and in terms of the Estimates and Concurrence that we are doing here tonight, and I can go on and on with all of the expenditures we are doing. I only have five minutes to do that, so I am going to have to be really selective about what it is that I am able to talk about here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take leave for another twenty minutes.

MS SULLIVAN: No, I am not going to ask for leave this evening, Mr. Speaker, because I am hoping that there will be opportunities and more opportunities for me to be able to speak to this.

Let us talk about dialysis, Mr. Speaker. When we came to government here in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2003, there were just barely seven sites where dialysis was available in Newfoundland and Labrador – just seven sites. Mr. Speaker, dialysis is not an option. If a person needs to be dialyzed they have to be dialyzed. Mr. Speaker, this government stepped up and we now have fourteen sites in Newfoundland and Labrador where persons can receive dialysis in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, that is double what was here when we first arrived on the scene.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS SULLIVAN: That is an example once again of the fact that we are committed to health care in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we have sites right across Newfoundland and Labrador. The Opposition does not know where those sites are. We have sites in Corner Brook, Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, Burin, Carbonear, Clarenville, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, St. Anthony –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: – Stephenville, St. John's at the Health Sciences, St. Clare's and at the Waterford, Labrador City and Port aux Basques.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: In case they did not know. Because it seems that a lot of pertinent information they do not know. Mr. Speaker, at one time when we first came, it was travel that needed to happen because we just did not have those sites. Mr. Speaker, in 2004, we had capacity for only 340 patients in Newfoundland and Labrador to receive hemodialysis and only seven sites as I mentioned. Right now, 531 patients are receiving dialysis, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: I saw a report on my desk this morning and the Member for The Straits – White Bay North would be interested in knowing this: There is no waiting list at St. Anthony any more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Nobody in that area is travelling at all in order to be able to access dialysis.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in terms of investments in cancer care: $140 million since we have come to government in 2004. I know that I have stood and I have talked about those investments before, but they are important investments, Mr. Speaker. Quite often the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are working during the day do not get opportunity to hear this, so in the evenings when they are watching, it is important that they are given the information as well. Mr. Speaker, $140 million, and in this year's Budget – just if I were to cherry-pick a few of the things because I cannot get through them all – an extra $4.4 million in terms of new drugs on the formulary; $1.6 million for cancer drugs. Why are we doing that? We are doing that because we listen to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, because they told us that was what it was they wanted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the cost of drugs in Newfoundland and Labrador went on late into the night, in terms of generics in this Province. Wherever I go, people are saying to me: I cannot believe the differences that I am seeing. I cannot believe the differences that I am experiencing when I am at the counter, in terms of generic drugs. Mr. Speaker, we invested $29 million to reduce the cost for seniors in our Province – a very tangible investment in the seniors of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we are going to invest another – and we have committed to doing that, and have started the process of investing $37 million into rural Newfoundland and Labrador, where people tell us on the other side all the time we pay no attention – $37 million into rural Newfoundland, in terms of what we are doing in investing in pharmacies.

Mr. Speaker, long-term care and home care and home support and so on – $155 million. Does that sound like nothing? To me, that sounds like a lot of money. Since 2006, Mr. Speaker, we have invested a half a billion dollars in long-term care and home supports in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

MR. O'BRIEN: Significant investments, I say to the hon. member.

MS SULLIVAN: I agree that those are significant investments, Mr. Speaker. Since 2006, that was – I do not know if I said 2006 or 2007, but I just want to correct the record; it is 2006. That includes the $101 million that we are investing in Budget 2012; $316 million in new and existing long-term care facilities; $123 million for home support, in terms of rate increases and growth, Mr. Speaker, in home support; $21 million in personal care homes; $18 million to access those new tools that I referred to this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I just glanced up and I am disappointed to see that my time is gone again. Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to being able to address the concerns tomorrow that the Opposition has raised here tonight, again without giving Eastern Health the opportunity to even put out a new release or to explain some of what it is they doing. Again, I have to point out that I think that is so irresponsible. I am looking forward tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, to being able to address those questions, to be able to explain to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador just exactly what it is we are doing to continue to invest in health care in Newfoundland and Labrador but, more than that, to ensure that the health care of Newfoundland and Labrador is in a sustainable position, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

It is an honour to stand here today and speak to this motion here this evening. It is always nice to come back for a late session; again, more time to speak here is always a pleasure and I appreciate that.

What I would say again is that being the Social Services Committee there was a number of the portfolios for which I am responsible that I get to talk about, whether that be the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, the Department of Education, or the Department of Justice. There are also some other very large portfolios under there: the Department of Heath and Community Services and the Department of Municipal Affairs.

I think I should first start off by thanking the Chair, the Member for Port de Grave, for taking the time to sit with us. He was very fair and very equal and it was a great opportunity going through this first round of Estimates. I certainly enjoyed it, like I have said many times, getting to sit there and ask the questions and look at the line by line and see what our money is getting spent on. I would also thank the Minister of Education. We had three hours to do the education Estimates and we did not finish and he took the time, brought his department and himself back and we sat here for a second session to sit down. He made sure that all of our questions were answered, so I appreciate that. I guess I should also thank the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island for his work as the Chair of the other committee for which I sat in. He was a bit more prompt. It seemed like he might have been forcing us through a bit more, but I will wait until the next opportunity I get to speak to that, but thank you for sitting in and for doing a great job running those committees.

What I would say is that – I just have to look at the portfolios for which I had the opportunity to ask the questions and I will start off with Justice, which is obviously a very large department, a lot of expenditures there and it is necessary. It was great to sit down with the minister and ask the questions on why this is spent, and how is this being spent, and have the staff there. My biggest concern with it was that I did not see a lot of money put aside for certain projects, one of them obviously being something I have spoken about many a time, that being Her Majesty's Penitentiary, that wonderful building that we have down there.

The problem we have is that we all know how old that building is and we all know that there is only so much money to go around. We have to spend it; you have to figure out where you can afford to spend the money here and there. Sometimes allocating money to spend on a penitentiary is not at the top of priorities. The problem I have is that there does not seem to be any money going towards even the consultant's report on how we are going to replace this penitentiary. We know that it has to be replaced. We know that it has to be done; it has been admitted.

It is one thing to say we are going to set aside X number of dollars to replace the penitentiary, but I do not know how much money was actually put aside to hire the consultants to come and do the updated report. We all know the trouble we have dealt with this year from the federal government; it is coming at us from all angles here lately. That was one of the ones we dealt with earlier when we talked about the Harper crime bill and the fact that we are likely going to see an influx of new prisoners, especially considering they have closed down two penitentiaries on the mainland. We have to put these people somewhere; I just do not know where we are going to put them. They are certainly not going to fit into HMP.

The other side is that it is not just talking about how much we are going to invest in HMP, because we do not have the money, but we are investing a significant amount in the day-to-day upkeep of that decrepit facility. The building is just absolutely outdated. It is not very often I am going to agree with what Vic Toews has to say, but like he said, a nineteenth-century facility is in no way suitable to house a twenty-first-century population. He said it best and that is exactly what we have going on here.

We have no idea where this is going in the future, we are just going to hope that the federal government tosses us some dollars, because they do have a responsibility here, no doubt about that. If we are going to wait for them on that, there are a lot of other fronts that we are waiting on them for these days. Whether they are cutting DFO, or whether they are cutting the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre, or whether they are going to cut EI, they just do not seem to care; they keep piling it on us. It is downloaded on us and we have to deal with that, Mr. Speaker.

That is just one thing that I did not see much mention of. While we are talking about the Department of Justice and the Estimates, and we talk about the money that we spend on professional services, one of the things covered by professional services are consultants' reports or reports done by outside individuals. One of those relates to the report that was undertaken by Dr. Craig down in the HMP, which popped up again last week when we had defence councils in this Province that are worried about their clients, especially clients with mental health issues who have previous doctors putting them on prescription regimes. They have to worry about going in and being taken off those regimes. I am not sure if there is even any consultation done.

I know the report was commissioned. I know the person apparently did the work, but I do not know when and if we are going to see this report. I am hoping that it is sooner rather than later. I guess the answer I seem to get is: a timely fashion. I do not know, I guess we all have definitions for a timely fashion.

That is another thing; we need to start taking control here and putting definite timelines on something like that. I would put that out there that I have a concern about that. We are spending money on this. It would be nice to see this person come up with a report that was either paid for or going to pay for. It is important. It is out there. Let us get this done and addressed.

What I am going to do is move forward. Other than that, Justice was very interesting, but the next department that I had an opportunity to speak to was the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. Luckily, this is one of the departments that actually had an increase in funding, too. I have said this in this House before, that we are appreciative of that fact, and we are appreciative of the work that has been undertaken in that department, the absorption of the workers from the regional health authorities all under the department; that was a very big undertaking and to have that done early shows that things were done right. That is a step in the right direction.

It is on that note that I hope that we go in the right direction on two other issues that are of great concern to me, the first one being ALAs. We all know that it is not ideal. That is accepted by everyone, but I have grave concerns. We have people, we have constituents, we have parents and grandparents calling us and saying that we have these youth, these sixteen-year-olds who cannot go out and buy alcohol, cannot drive, cannot vote, yet they are being allowed to be placed in these accommodations, some of which are substandard. They are substandard and we cannot accept that.

Even though they have been emancipated, the fact is we still have a responsibility to these individuals. We have to make sure that these situations do not happen again. We have had a couple; we had that tragedy back on Springdale Street, we have had that one in the care of the Child and Youth Advocate, so we are looking forward to getting that report. We saw the same thing up in Labrador, I believe, not long before that, if I am correct there, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. We had the matter up in Labrador that is also under investigation. We need to move forward and make sure that the investment we are making in this department is going somewhere in terms of eradicating the need and necessity of ALAs. We cannot have them. We cannot stop until they have been eliminated. It is just not acceptable, and part of that –

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not regulated.

MR. A. PARSONS: They are not regulated, and again, I have asked questions too as to how residential tenancies take that, how they are monitored there. We have had allegations – and that is what they are right now, allegations – of whether they were even insurable homes that these children were being placed in, and if that is the case that needs to be investigated.

One side of that is it goes towards the foster homes. Now I know that this is a big thing that the department is working towards. We all know there is a shortage of foster homes; there is a shortage of foster homes up in Labrador and a shortage of foster homes over on the West Coast. There is money invested in that sector, but we need to continue on with that, especially the marketing and making sure that we get more. We need more foster homes. Steps taken in the right direction, but I guess that comes back to one of my thoughts on this; there is no doubt there has been money invested by this government. There is no doubt about that, there has been money invested in any number of departments or areas but –

MS JONES: You do not have enough time to talk about it all.

MR. A. PARSONS: Not enough time to talk about it all, definitely.

The concern is: are we getting the best bang for our buck? Are we getting the positive outcomes for the investment that we have made? Unless we can be sure that is the case, then we cannot stop. I would certainly disagree there; I do not think we are getting the best outcomes in many of the places where we are placing our investments. I am going to segue into that now.

One of the areas which I got to take in was education. We all talk about our greatest resource is our youth, our children. The fact is that education, these teachers, these educators play the main role in these children's lives; besides their parents, the fact is they see them the greater part of Monday to Friday. They can play a huge role for these youth.

One of the things that came out of this – it has been touted and put out in ministerial statements – is the inclusion policy that is out there, which is a great thing. It is a great thing. Everybody likes the inclusion policy; there has been money allocated towards that, but the concern I am getting is that for all the positive things that are going into inclusion, there are not enough resources going into providing the supports for children in the system. That is the problem. We have teachers, the ratios are staying the same; we are putting in children, in some cases, with special needs, but we have to make sure that we give these children and their educators all the supports that we need.

I have talked in this House before about children with autism and children with Asperger's. There are student assistants there now, but they are only there for basically oversight, portering and hygiene. They are not there to help with the education. We take something like the ABA which is a great thing, but these students are then, through the inclusion policy, going into the system, we have to make sure that we maintain those supports. We have to make sure that it is there.

When we take something like autism where the best way to help these children is by treating them when they are young – diagnosing it first when they are young and then treating it and helping them. Especially if you take the services of people like occupational therapists for which we all know the wait-list for occupational therapists is not good enough. I know there has been investment there, but we are not seeing the results there; it is just not happening. I have had the opportunity to speak to some parents there and this is of great concern. These OTs do a lot to help these children and help them integrate into the classroom and provide them with these basic supports. That is a serious concern for me.

Along those lines we all know about the fact that with the allocation formula, we know that there are fewer teachers next year than this year due to a declining population. I guess that comes with it, but I think we still need to maintain to ensure that the needs-based assessment is still looked at. You look at these rural communities and we have to make sure that the needs of those children are met as well. We need to look sometimes not so much at the black and white; we need to look at the grey areas to make sure that we are taking care of these students as well and these communities.

We have heard about how good things are in this Province, and this Province is great. The fact is the population, when we look at the rural areas, is on the decline. We need to make sure that the rural areas have the same services. I think I heard this definition the other day that rural was classified as anything twenty kilometres outside the metro area. I think that is the definition that I heard. If that is the case – and I guess this sort of applies when we talk about health care – are we classifying Corner Brook as a rural area when we compare that to Ramea? Are we talking about our rural recruitment and retention and how good it is in Corner Brook or, say, Grand Falls-Windsor, or Gander, bigger centres in this Province. That is not the same as when we talk about the Codroy Valley, when we talk about Ramea, when we talk about Burnt Islands. Especially places like Burgeo, we cannot say that is the same and say that things are great there.

We look at recruitment – and I have had the opportunity as I believe some of the members on the other side did as well. We had some MUN med students that as part of their lobbying day, they came to the House and they talked to us and they presented us with their list of things we can do to help make things better. It is stuff that we have been talking about and actually we were lucky to have a meeting with the minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to discuss these as it relates to places like Ramea. The fact is that recruitment is not working in Ramea because if you are going to treat Ramea the same as Corner Brook, it is going to be harder to recruit. We have to recognize the fact that we need to do more to ensure that rural Newfoundland and Labrador gets what they are entitled to. We need to get them treated as well.

Again, I heard the topic, the Corner Brook hospital, which again is also of importance to me because that is the main hub that services my entire district. If you want to have a baby on the Southwest Coast, you have to go to Corner Brook. If you want to have just any major treatment – we are getting away from that. Thankfully now, dialysis, through the work of the department but also through the hard work of the LeGrow Health Care Foundation raised over $100,000 to go towards that unit.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. A. PARSONS: One hundred thousand dollars that these volunteers raised to go towards it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: I am not going to go that far.

What I would say is the Corner Brook hospital is near and dear to us as well. It treats the entire West Coast. When I heard, out of these Estimate meetings, it came out that the Corner Brook hospital was not in the design phase but I believe it is the pre-design phase, that concerns me because I am wondering when this hospital is going to be in use for the people.

I would love to have more services available in the LeGrow Health Centre in Port aux Basques. I would love to have more services available in the Calder Health Centre. We are working on other services down in Ramea as well. We have trouble down there with our nurse practitioners. This is something that the minister is well aware of. We cannot get nurse practitioners down there. Again, when it comes to our recruitment, we are treating Ramea the same as any other part of the Province, twenty kilometres outside, and that is not good enough.

When we are talking about health care, as we heard here today in the House, we have some other big issues that the Province is waiting to see unfold tomorrow. We are wondering what is going to happen and we are wondering what the results of this is going to be. Certainly, we were shocked, shocked when we heard this, the cuts that seem to be coming, the cuts in the money, the cuts in jobs. I am hoping that it is not as bad as it appears to be. I am hoping that when this press conference happens tomorrow that things are not so bad.

Again, it is not looking good right now. That goes back to what I have talked about, this Budget – we prepare you for the worst; we give you a Budget that is not too bad on space, but we will give you those details over time. There are a number of departments that we are hoping are not going to get this bad news as time goes on, after the Budget has been discussed and voted on. That is too late. We need to know these things now. We need to know them now.

Actually, we have the Departmental Salaries there; I believe we got them last week. Again, that is something that we had to ask for. It is the first time since the Frank Moores Administration that the Departmental Salaries were not released.

MR. JOYCE: You have not even got it broken down.

MR. A. PARSONS: We had to ask for it and it is still not broken down, but we got it. These are important, because we need to see what is going on. Again, we heard numbers like hundreds of jobs going to get cut before the Budget, and actually I believe there has been a net increase in jobs. So there are two different messages going out to the people there. So, this is all very interesting.

Now, I would continue on. If I look at, Mr. Speaker, the following heads of expenditure, again, one of them applies to us all – it is not my portfolio, but that is the Department of Municipal Affairs. What I would say there is that after having been at the firemen's ball in Burgeo on Saturday night they have some concerns, too, because last year there was an increase – an increase in the funding going to fire and emergency services.

MR. JOYCE: Twenty-two trucks last year.

MR. A. PARSONS: Twenty-two trucks went out last year, but this year –

MS JONES: Seven.

MR. A. PARSONS: – there is going to be seven trucks this year. There was a cut in fire and emergency services. So, people were wondering what is going on there, and it is not hard to put that together – twenty-two trucks in 2011, seven trucks in 2012. If I were a betting man, I am betting in 2015 we are going to see that go right up again. So let us hope that those trucks hold on until 2015, where we are going to see some more. The only thing I was not sure – I am not sure if this is true, that these new trucks showing up, I do not know if they were painted blue. That is the only thing I am not sure about, I have to check that out and see – blue.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that it is a pleasure and opportunity to stand up and speak to this. Yes, we have acknowledged some of the good things that are going on and have been done, but when we talk about these issues we know what we are talking about. We hear these things coming from our people. One of them – and I am going to end off on this note, and this is the number one issue that has been e-mailed to me, I have gotten phone calls on, got a few at my office, seen on the news – family home care, family care. I had a lot people come up to me in the months after the election.

Down around the town hall in Burnt Islands I had a gentleman come up: When is this home care coming in that I heard about in the election? When is it? He said: I am relying on that. I was hoping for that. That was promised to me. I went down to Burgeo, and I have family members down there doing home care somewhere, have their family home and cannot take care of them. There is no more seniors' room for them. There is no other housing available for them, no homecare available for them. They should be doing it; they cannot do it. The problem I have with that is that it was promised to them. It was promised to the people by this Administration in the 2011 Blue Book. It was promised to them during the campaign. It was promised to them out in the streets, and on the TV, and out and about, and it is not there. It is not there, and there are no signs of it coming, Mr. Speaker. So, I must put that out there that I am looking forward to seeing that come out. I hope I see it.

Again, my time has run out. I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today and speak on the Concurrence debate. On April 24, the hon. Minister of Finance introduced Budget 2012: People and Prosperity – Responsible Investments for a Secure Future. Our Premier was recently quoted, "Instead of wasting our time lamenting opportunities missed in generations past, we have set our gaze firmly on the opportunities before us now, determined to capture them to build a sustainable future."

Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Finance said in his Budget speech: The plan I lay before you today follows through on three principle objectives – of this year's Speech from the Throne: It improves the delivery of services to the people who need them, it empowers businesses and communities to grow, and it positions Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to seize career opportunities opening up all around their future.

Mr. Speaker, today my focus will be on the first of these objectives, the delivery of services. Before I do that I would just like to thank all the members in the Social Services Committee, in particular our Chair, the Member for Port de Grave. I would like to thank the Members for Bonavista South, Port au Port, the minister and their staff who took the preparation and time to be very professional in their delivery of answers to the members opposite. I would also like to thank the members opposite, because they were interchangeable through the Committee, so I do not really want to call anybody out in particular.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CRUMMELL: I am not going there. Mr. Speaker, this government's commitment to the social sector is something we are very, very proud of. It represents over 57 per cent of our $7.4 billion Budget. It is being spent on health, education, social welfare, justice, and housing, including initiatives in our Poverty Reduction Strategy.

Mr. Speaker, investing in strong social programs is something this government embraces. Last Friday, May 25, I was pleased to emcee a launch for a play-based learning campaign at St. Matthew's Elementary School in my District of St. John's West. I would like to touch on that a little bit, just a little something that we are doing. It is something I think is important in Child, Youth and Family Services, and it is indicative of what this government is all about and how we see the future going for our children and our grandchildren.

The Minister of Education and the hon. Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services announced the launch of this multimedia promotional campaign designed to highlight and encouraged play-based learning in multiple settings called the Power of Play. Mr. Speaker, those in attendance had an opportunity to preview print, radio, and television advertisements, which will be run over the course of the year. Mr. Speaker, our government will spend $100,000 on this campaign to promote and encourage play-based learning for parents and caregivers of children zero to eight years old.

Mr. Speaker, parents and caregivers are their children's first teachers, and it is through everyday activities and opportunities to play alone or with others that children learn valuable skills that will help them to be successful in life and in school. Nurturing the imagination and developing skills is what unstructured play does. Also, play teaches children good interpersonal skills and teaches them how to problem solve, negotiate conflicts, and think for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, Budget 2012: People and Prosperity provided $1.7 million for the second year of implementation of the Province's Early Childhood Strategy, totalling $4.8 million over three years. Mr. Speaker, while the Power of Play campaign is a relatively small-cost initiative, it is an important initiative that reminds everyone how important play is in the development of our children.

Mr. Speaker, research has shown that play is important. The teachers and child educators in attendance at the campaign launch understood how important play is. The parents and caregivers at the launch understood how important play is, and the dozens of children who were in the gym while the playing was going on during the launch seemed to understand how important play is themselves.

Mr. Speaker, here is where I have to digress a little bit. I became aware shortly after the launch that one person totally missed the point and actually made a mockery of this campaign by publicly putting his own spin on it for pure political gain. I refer to the hon. Member for St. John's North. At 1:00 p.m., Friday, May 25, shortly after the press release went out on the launch of the Power of Play, the Member for St. John's North tweeted, and I quote: the Dunderdale Conservatives' response to the crisis in childcare is to remember to play with your children.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Power of Play campaign has nothing to do with childcare; it has everything to do with early childhood education. Mr. Speaker, I take great exception when anyone takes an announcement completely out of context for political gain. I really do. When members do this and misrepresent the facts and do it so blatantly, they do themselves great disservice. They do this hon. House a great disservice, and they do a great disservice to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Member for St. John's North and anyone else who would like to find out more about this initiative go to www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/earlychildhood/power.html. You will be able to view the TV ads, the print advertisements, and the concepts behind the Power of Play.

Mr. Speaker, everything visual in front of us was very, very moving. Everybody in that gym at the time embraced what was going on there. It brought tears to some people's eyes. It really was a wonderful campaign that hit on the right tones and the right messages for early childhood development. Everybody in that room got it, but somebody outside the room jumped the gun, was quick on the draw, pulled out the Twitter box, and went to work.

The local advertising agency WaterWerks Communications really captured the essence of this campaign. There were local actors there, children who were there who actually were used in the campaign for the posters and for television. They were just beaming, Mr. Speaker, they were absolutely beaming while we were being taken down outside that building. It was a huge crowd there, a massive crowd, and everybody loved what we were communicating, what we were trying to do, and what we want to do in the future.

One final comment, Mr. Speaker, on this particular issue is that when I decided to run for politics, I told the constituents of St. John's West that if elected I would be a politician who performed his duties with honesty, integrity, and respect for others. I have spoken on Open Line shows. I have spoken in the House of Assembly. I have criticized members opposite for misrepresenting facts or exaggerating but, Mr. Speaker, I will never intentionally misrepresent the facts either in this House or in a public domain for political gain, or for any other reason for that matter.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get into a little bit more about what the power of play is, but I really do want to encourage people to check it out on the Web site. It is easily accessible and it is a fabulous, fabulous program. We can all remember when we were kids growing up, and your mother or father said – you said to them: I am bored, and they said: well, get out the door. That is what you did; you found your crowd in the neighbourhood and you found things to do. That is what the power of play is. Sometimes when you are in the back garden with your father or your mother, you would have a bit of fun with them too, and it would be totally unstructured.

This is what we are missing today. Everything is so structured today; everything is so laid out for our kids. Mr. Speaker, I have three kids that are now teenagers, two in university, and we have made sure that there was time for unstructured play. I have to tell you, we sort of overcooked them, too; they were in probably a bit too much, whether it was dance, music, skating, hockey, and softball. We had them in everything. It kept them out of trouble, Mr. Speaker. That was one of the goals of why we did that; it developed skills for them. One of the things, for sure, I think that we probably should have done more of was to make sure that they were out there just enjoying themselves with the other kids in the neighbourhood, learning interpersonal skills, learning how to problem solve, and learning how to resolve conflicts.

This is what the Power of Play is all about. The research has proven over, and over, and over again that this works and that we are forgetting this as a society. As we get into our media play and we get into the other things that the kids today are interested in and the parents are interested in, we are losing touch with one of our fundamental teaching skills. This is what this campaign is all about. It is just a $100,000 campaign that is a wonderful message to parents and caregivers: do not forget how important play is in your life.

Mr. Speaker, I will leave that one alone for now. I am going to switch gears a little bit here. I am going to talk a bit about education in the K to 12; this was from zero to eight. Mr. Speaker, our investments in education in Budget 2012 are over $866 million. That will be spent on the K to 12 education system, an increase of $18.2 million over last year. That is significant, Mr. Speaker. That is a significant increase; it is over a 10 per cent increase.

On top of that, $150 million for new and ongoing infrastructure programs, including $12 million for a new west end high school here in the City of St. John's. Mr. Speaker, this is what makes me really, really happy. We have been talking about the west end high school for years, and years, and years. When my kids were in elementary school, my kids in junior high in St. John's west growing up, Beaconsfield High School was closed down and the students were shipped in Bishops and Booth Memorial High in the centre of the city. The parents were not all that happy, Mr. Speaker, and I was one of those parents. I would have loved to have seen my kids grow up in a neighbourhood school.

Mr. Speaker, it took us a few years to get it right. It was the Liberals – or, sorry, the Official Opposition – that actually shut down the school to begin with, Beaconsfield. We are getting it right. After a few years of planning and making sure we had the resources and the money available, we are moving ahead with the project, Mr. Speaker.

I am very proud to stand here today and say the last hurdles have been overcome. As a matter of fact, on April 16, the City of St. John's Council cleared the final municipal road block to the construction of the new school in the west end by approving and rezoning the land that the school is designated to go on. Mr. Speaker, that was a fundamental gate that we had to jump over. The next thing, Mr. Speaker, is this government allocated $12 million for site preparation to be undertaken this year and the school is going to be ready by 2014.

Mr. Speaker, once completed, the new school will serve more than 800 students and replace Bishops College and Booth Memorial High. One three-storey building will house all of the classrooms, administration buildings, and workshops, and a second section would house a gym, cafeteria, theatre, music rooms, and the library. It is a state-of-the-art school – laboratories – they have everything that we need. The citizens of St. John's west and everybody in that region, the Member for Kilbride and his district will benefit from this as well. There are other districts that will benefit vastly from this new development.

There is a going to be a regulation-sized soccer field as well, Mr. Speaker, adjacent to the school. There are going to be some changes in the traffic flow on Topsail Road, because it is going to be located right across from the Village Mall, just at the end of Hamlyn Road, a very busy area of town. I have seen the designs to put fencing up, to put proper crosswalks up to make it a very, very safe place to go back and forth for the students. It is going to be absolutely a state-of-the-art facility.

The design of the new school was unveiled last week by the school board to all of the parents from the school councils in the area and everybody seems to be very pleased with what they see. We are very, very happy about that.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to touch briefly – I have a few more minutes left here – on something that is dear to my heart. I spoke on it once, or maybe twice during the Budget Debate and also in the private member's bill, and that is housing, Mr. Speaker.

Again, we have heard on more than one occasion from members opposite that there is a housing crisis. Well, there are issues and challenges in housing, of that there is no doubt. In a boom economy, you cannot avoid that. That is something that goes with that, but, Mr. Speaker, we are doing so many things to move the ball. We are moving ahead in the right way and we do have a plan. When I hear members opposite say that we have no plan, nothing is further from the truth.

Mr. Speaker, while there are serious housing challenges, the fact is that we do have a plan and it is called strategic action priorities. That was introduced in 2009; it is called Secure Foundations. I spoke on this probably twice now; this is probably the third time I have spoken on this one. I just want to remind the members opposite that this social housing plan came from the grassroots up. The people in the organizations right across Newfoundland and Labrador are the ones that put this plan together. It was not government that put this plan together, Mr. Speaker. It was the people on the ground and organizations; eighty-seven organizations participated in these meetings: tenant associations, community centres, non-profit community-based housing providers, government departments, municipalities, housing developers, and private sector landlords. The list goes on and on – community-based social service delivery groups; a vast array of different people from different backgrounds.

These stakeholders came together and put together a plan that was meant to be a living, breathing plan to go over for the next ten years. They focused on four broad themes: renewing social housing policy and programs and the existing housing stock; the roles of private rental market in the delivery of social housing assistance; the housing needs of specific populations; and the need for supportive living options that mix housing and support services. Mr. Speaker, they gave us a direction to go. It was these organizations, community groups, and individuals who told us this is what they wanted to see.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened. The actual priorities that came out of that social housing plan included preserving privately-owned homes by assisting with the cost of repairs. Mr. Speaker, we have a multitude of programs that support that. Providing quality, affordable rental accommodation through direct delivery programs and partnerships with non-profit and private sector housing providers – there are numerous programs I could get into that we have been involved in to provide that. Promoting the development of more affordable housing – again, Mr. Speaker, the litany goes on. Supporting home modifications – we have home modification programs. Promoting renovations for lower-income homeowners to improve energy efficiency – we have an energy efficiency program, Mr. Speaker. Preserving Newfoundland and Labrador Housing homes to ensure they meet the current and future needs is a critical piece as well.

Mr. Speaker, as we look at what is going on here in the future and what is happening with Budget 2012 with regard to housing, here is what we did in Budget 2012 for housing, considering the restraint. Here we go. Here is what we did. Let me have a little drink of water here now and I will tell you – lots of good news.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue a sustained investment of $29.8 million in 2012 – $29.8 million. One million dollars in additional funding to expand the Rent Supplement Program to a total investment of $8 million is a big wow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Mr. Speaker, $1.8 million for the Rent-Geared-to-Income Adjustment Program, which helps keep more disposable income in the hands of low-income earners. Mr. Speaker, $892,000 in eight Newfoundland and Labrador Housing community centres and eleven neighbourhood centres. I have one of those centres in my district and I work very closely with them. They are thrilled that more funding is coming and they are thrilled to be able to do different things in their community.

Mr. Speaker, another $1 million investment into the Provincial Homelessness Fund and a $4 million investment for the Residential Energy Efficiency Program, which provides an average household energy savings of 35 per cent a year and a cash savings of almost $800 a year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: We have $8 million to the Provincial Home Repair Program. This program provides approximately 2,500 low-income homeowners with home upgrades, and $5.4 million investment in the Affordable Housing Initiative to enable approximately 245 additional affordable housing units to be constructed. This is a three-year investment for a total of $16.2 million. This is not the crumbs, and I have heard that word used before, this is real money. This is money well spent and we are socially responsible in how we are going about this, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this, there are still challenges before us. We must acknowledge that this government is serious in providing safe and affordable housing for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the greatest need.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance on a Budget well planned, a Budget well done, and I look forward to a Budget well executed in a fiscally responsible way that is socially progressive.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am honoured once again to rise in this House to speak to the Budget. I was happy to be part of the Social Services Estimate Committee. It was great to hear from the respective ministers and their dedicated departmental teams. I would like to commend them for their hard work and commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would like to take a moment to refer to the message from the hon. Minister of Finance in the Budget 2012 People and Prosperity - Responsible Investments for a Secure Future document. In it he states, "This year's Budget is about moving boldly forward, raising the pillars of new growth on that solid foundation, making responsible investments to deliver more fully the dividends of growth to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

"Where once we dared only to dream, we now dare to believe. We have ditched once and for all the old defeatist stereotypes, the old self-deprecation, the old self-doubts that held us back from becoming all we were capable of being.

"The plan I lay before you today follows through on the three principal objectives of this year's Speech from the Throne. It improves the delivery of services to the people who need them. It empowers businesses and communities to grow. It positions Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to seize career opportunities opening up all around them.

"Our plan is fiscally responsible. It is socially progressive. It is carefully crafted to sustain the momentum that has made Newfoundland and Labrador an inspiration and an example to all Canadians of how it is done."

A wonderful promise to our future, certainly some ongoing support for good programs and some growth; however, I am dismayed that once again this government has chosen to not capitalize on our prosperity and provide the very basic supports our citizens need in order to be able to participate fully in building the economy of our great Province, Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a progressive, modern society we must ensure our elderly are safe and their basic needs are taken care of. We must ensure our young children are properly cared for in safe, affordable programs, and that our young working families are not drowning –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: – in debt trying to provide the basic needs for their families. That we have excellent health care that enables us to live as fully as each can and participating in the building of our economy; that our justice system can operate in a way to make our communities safe for everyone and ensure that all citizens have both physical and economic access to justice in a timely manner; that our cities and towns are able to provide the necessary services and infrastructure to citizens; that we take advantage of all the opportunities our natural resources can provide through smart stewardship, and in doing so, we protect our environment for ourselves and our future generations.

This government states in its Budget that as a Province we have enjoyed surpluses for six of the last seven years. If that is the case, how is it then that we still do not have a universal publicly-funded and administered child care program? That young working families pay upwards of $800 to $1,000 per month or more per child for child care, and have to wait for spaces to become available and therefore have to scramble and at times desperately come up with piecemeal child care solutions. The initiative proposed in the Budget does not move us toward a comprehensive early childhood education program. It too is piecemeal at best. Surely, we should be way beyond pilot projects. After six years of surplus, we should be beyond pilot projects.

Child, Youth and Family Services' commitment to add more frontline workers to the very complex work of child protection is a necessary step. Paying social work students for their work placements with the department is also to be applauded. Increasing funding for foster homes and allowing foster parents more economic autonomy is a step in the right direction. However, we are told by workers in the field that there is a need for more resources for supports for families at risk or in crisis, especially in the area of respite care, parenting support, and additional economic support.

Our Women's Policy Office has done incredible work in the area of education around violence against women, encouraging women's participation in all aspects for public and civic life. We still have too many women and children living below or at the poverty line, using food banks, scrambling to get by. Accessible, affordable child care and affordable housing, being one of the main hurdles for women trying to enter the paid workforce.

How is it, in all these years of surplus that we still do not have a publicly funded and publicly administered home care program that enables seniors to age in place, to stay in their homes and communities if they choose? A move that certainly, Mr. Speaker, would improve their quality of life and be more economically sustainable in the long run for our health care system, and a move that would improve the quality of life of their families who can be assured their loved ones are being well cared for while they get on with their lives and in their workplaces. Instead, once again, we have families scrambling trying to come up with solutions for home care for their loved ones.

The long-term care and community support services strategy is still not out. When will we see that? There is no committed timeline. How will government decease wait times for long-term care beds by 2014 when the new Hoyles-Escasoni Home cannot even go anywhere near eliminating the wait-list that exists now? How is it that we still do not have a universal pharmacare program for all seniors? Seniors on the edge of eligibility for the access program are particularly hard hit. It is time to stop tying eligibility for the 65 Plus program to the federal GIS. The ceiling and income level is way too low. We have way too many seniors living in or on the brink of poverty. One of the things that saves many is the fact that a lot of seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador are homeowners; however, that poses a whole other problem, inaffordability to keep their homes going.

The Home Heating Rebate Program gives some relief, but we still have many seniors sighing in relief once the weather warms up and they do not have to pay their huge heating bills. Too many of our seniors are living in fear of not being able to afford their very basics of daily living. Seniors living in fear – this is not a sign of prosperity.

How is it then that we still have people with mental health issues and addictions issues waiting months for treatment and services, thereby their families scrambling again, trying to find support and help for them? This sector of our population is so vulnerable; when they reach out for help and have to wait for months to receive it, it is devastating, not only to themselves, but to their families who also live with the stress and the pain.

We need a more thorough medical detox program and the elimination – not only the reduction, but the elimination – of wait times. Longer, more comprehensive treatment programs, and more community supports; this is essential for healthier and safer communities. I applaud the new initiatives in treatment centres for youth and the dedicated staff in our health care facilities and programs. In this time of growth and expenditures in our health care system, if ever there was a time for a need for a complete independent review of our health care system, it is now.

So, after six years of surplus, and in a time of prosperity, how is it then that we still do not have an overall housing policy that addresses the issues of housing affordability, particularly in our areas of large resource development projects? These large resource development projects, in fact, are based on the resources that belong to all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. How is it that there is no assistance for low- to medium-earning working families, who for many, must spend over 30 per cent of their income on shelter while juggling child care costs and the basic rising cost of living?

As housing prices continue to rise and our young working families are saddled with debt, it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to buy a home. Home ownership, we all know, increases family wealth. It is a good thing. There is no concrete budget line or timeframe for the promised low-medium earner home ownership assistance program. Housing groups have asked the government for a unilateral year of gap funding for the federal-provincial housing and homelessness initiative to help outstanding proposals advance while waiting for a possible new program in 2014.

There is no new money in this Budget for housing. These proposals offered by mainly community groups are for desperately needed affordable supportive housing for seniors and people with complex needs. It is these groups who work with these people, who work with the housing initiatives, who worked with the government; it is these groups who are working in the field that are calling this a housing crisis. They have not fabricated this. It is from their experience in working in the field that they have chosen to say that we are in the middle of a housing crisis.

How is it again, with six years of surplus, that in this supposed time of prosperity, many of our citizens have been priced out of justice? There is no provision in the Budget to raise the eligibility ceilings for legal aid. Not only economic access to justice is compromised in our Province, but physical as well. Many of our courthouses are either literally or practically inaccessible. There is no budget line item for either a mental health court or an addictions court. These have become best practices in many jurisdictions, and as we see an increase in mental health problems and addictions problems before the courts, these programs would provide a more effective way to deal with these cases, rather than repeatedly incarcerating people in institutions not equipped to deal with them. Providing appropriate services increases the possibility of rehabilitation, resulting in a cost saving to the public.

In our municipalities, a need for a better municipal funding arrangement has never been greater. It is a good move by the minister's department to maintain the operating grant top-up. The government has to play a role in helping protect citizens and taxpayers from the upcoming property assessment.

Government must help keep people in their homes, especially seniors, by helping municipalities so they can keep their mill rates low. The department needs to participate in the cellphone debate with ITRD, as the department also covers the 911 emergency response, which is an essential service these days. We need a timeline for implementation. Municipalities and regional associations need to pursue money-making opportunities. The government can help with this in a number of ways, by lifting the moratorium on electrical power generation and by passing resources back to municipalities as revenue source.

There are 150 boil orders still at any given time in our Province. This is not acceptable in a modern, prosperous society. The issue of illegal dumping is critical in the Province. Education on this is not the only answer; we need a new waste-management strategy. We need to address the challenges to smaller municipalities. The cost of moving large collections of waste can bankrupt some smaller municipalities.

Speaking of education, we have a fantastic group of dedicated teachers, staff, and administrators. This Budget is not giving them the tools and resources they need to do their work effectively. Our children with autism spectrum disorder are getting lost in the shuffle. We need a better HR model to support the new and wonderful inclusion policy, were it to be consultants at the board level or specialized teachers in the classroom. New schools in Torbay and Beachy Cove are already overcrowded. The NLTA says that our teachers need more time for professional development. This is not provided in this Budget. We need an updated school transportation policy, one that reflects the realities of working families of today and the increasing traffic and transportation patterns in our communities.

From Budget 2012: People and Prosperity, the Minister of Finance said: "Mr. Speaker, our economy has never been stronger; investment is at record levels and employment is robust. We have established a solid foundation with a new mandate to lead this fine province. We now have a responsibility to make choices that will benefit the people of this province – 2, 10, and 30 years down the road…We will make decisions that capitalize on our strengths and chart a long-term path with definition. We will strike an acceptable balance between fiscal management and strategic investments. Our future will be shaped by the choices we make right here, right now."

Once again, in this time of prosperity, with our population of 500,000, Mr. Speaker, this Budget does not fulfill the promise of people and prosperity. In these areas, this government has left working families to fend for themselves and either be swept along by the wave of prosperity or drown in its wake by the rising cost of housing, child care, home care, and the cost of living increases so many are experiencing. This is not innovative or creative. There is nothing new in this Budget; it is business as usual.

The decisions this government has made with the resources of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are at times positive, but have also left too many people behind. This government has a duty to the people of this Province to invest our resources to provide the best services and social programs possible to enable people to work and participate fully in society; this is equality and social justice. With years of surplus, how could this government have missed the mark so often? Six hundred and sixty-four million on the shelf for a project not sanctioned, $2.2 billion in cash assets tucked away somewhere, this government once again has missed the opportunity to truly invest in the people of this Province, to offer programs that would better enable them to be part of creating a fully thriving economy that would mean further prosperity for all, ensuring no one is left behind.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There being no further speakers, the motion is that the Report of the Social Services Committee be concurred in.

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.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 3, Concurrence Motion, Report of the Resource Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the Report of the Resource Committee be now concurred in.

The Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand here with a little bit of a cringe in my neck from shaking my head with disbelief that the Member for St. John's Centre is so negatively looking at the programs and services that we offer in this Budget. While I agree, there might be little glitches and there might be little cracks in the armour in some of the services that we need to offer; there is not one positive Opposition member who offers us some type of opening process that we could encourage or include or improve the programs and services that we have.

We have been applauded by hundreds, if not thousands, of groups out there for the positive things that we have done in this Budget and previous Budgets, Mr. Speaker, but I am not going to talk about the doom and gloom, I am going to talk about the good things we are doing particularly around the Resource Committee in this past Estimates review.

As the Chair of the Resource Committee, I had the privilege to work with other members of the Committee to help direct open, informative dialogue for the Departments of Natural Resources; Forestry and Agrifoods; Advanced Education and Skills; Innovation, Business and Rural Development; Environment and Conservation; Fisheries and Aquaculture; Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I would like to thank the Committee members for their dialogue and input – Members for Lake Melville; Bonavista North; Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune; Humber Valley; Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair; Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to note that we dealt with over 25 per cent of the Budget lines that we had involved in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BRAZIL: The member there was not a member. He was a fill-in member. It does not count as part of the official members. So I know you tried to get some extra acknowledgement; I appreciate that. I will acknowledge you later on in my speech.

I also want to thank the ministers and their staff for very diligently having informed dialogue and sharing information, and being very co-operative with the members as they asked questions all through the process.

I was a member last year of the Resource Committee, and as a new member I got to learn the process that was used here and I did understand one thing. Last year, just under Natural Resources we spent over six hours debating the Estimates. When I look back and reflect on it, I thought, well maybe as Chair I kept it down to less than three, maybe it was my talent – but I realize it was not when I went back and looked at the dialogue. What I did realize is that this Administration, and our Premier, and the Minister of Natural Resources, and the staff at Nalcor, over the last year, have been very open with the information they shared, very professional with the information being shared, very precise with answering the questions that have been asked, and very engaging with the general public, with the Opposition, and any stakeholders out there who wanted information around that. Day in and day out, the Premier here and the minister answer questions from the Opposition – and obviously to their satisfaction, because it took less than three hours for us to get through the Natural Resources Committee. So again, I think that is a testament to where we are as we move the Muskrat Falls agenda forward.

I want to look at some of the issues that we have discussed and some of the programs and services, particularly under the Department of Advanced Education and Skills. We looked at poverty reduction – $11.3 million increase this year alone to an investment of $150 million a year. We also went into the largest increase for Income Support recipients. We are giving the most vulnerable people financially, the largest increase that they have ever had so that they can begin to move forward and take better control of their lives. We eliminated the Income Support recipients having to apply for Canada Pension at sixty, to give them more freedom. We expanded the Income Support supplement working program for single parents so they have more independence and they can start to stake their future down the road.

Access, inclusion and equality programs – $6.5 million invested to assist persons with disabilities to move towards full inclusion in our Province. That was applauded by many stakeholder groups there, and it is still now being looked at by other provinces as a program that they could also implement. Under free enterprise, we cut red tape, particularly around business, with Innovation, Business and Rural Development. Red tape and reduced taxes for business – taxes is one of the lowest in the region. That is our way of trying to encourage investment here, our way of getting new, innovative businesses to take a stake with what they are doing, and for us to invest as a partnership there and move things forward to diversify what we do in this community and particularly in this Province.

Innovative incentive programs for the business community, loan guarantees, business skill development programs, all things that we debated from the consensus from the Opposition, all members of the Committee, it seemed to be great programs that we have initiated, that we are moving forward. As we gelled the two departments together from last year, how that gel is working, how the minister is taking the business components of it and innovation and making them flourish out in the community and finding the proper stakeholders to make things work.

Under that department too, rural broadband investments – since 2003, $27 million for broadband, increasing access to high-speed Internet by 312 per cent increase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Substantial.

Mr. Speaker, we are reaching nearly 500 communities in this Province and they go from some of the remote rural areas to some of the suburban communities. A very positive investment that we have done and one that we continue to do, continue with this Administration and the minister involved.

Another $2 million to communities to continue access to broadband to help with investment for business and infrastructure designation – we are moving things forward again; this is not an end result. We will end it when everybody has full access to high-speed Internet. That will take a bit of time because some of it is a very costly process, but the minister is working with the industry. It is not only us; the feds have to buy into this. They have to understand that this is a partnership. The industry itself has to be able to do it and we have to find a way to make sure that the users can also get affordable, accessible broadband access. We are working towards that, moving it very quickly forward, but making stages so that everybody has a light at the end of the tunnel when they will be able to receive the services that they deserve.

Research & Development Corporation – over $50 million we have invested as a Research & Development Corporation. This year alone, another $19 million to be invested as we diversify the businesses, as we engage businesses out there, as we engage innovative products, innovative services, that can be based here in this Province and service nationally and internationally the different industries that are out there.

Under fisheries, Mr. Speaker, funding to the centre for fishery research, programs at the Marine Institute, Memorial University, just a few – millions that we have put into that. Again, we can diversify what we do in the fishing industry, that we can bring the proper stakeholders in, and that we can be a leader in the world market when it comes to research. That we can guarantee the products that we produce are second to none and that the investments that we put in come back ten-fold. That the people in the industry themselves have control over what is happening and have an ownership stake. That rural areas are still taken care of, as we have been one of the full-fledged Administrations that really put an emphasis on rural Newfoundland and Labrador and realizing that we have some challenges, but we want to try find ways to diversify and improve the industries that do exist and find new ones that we can introduce into those areas.

The sealing industry – the whole world might think that the sealing industry is dead, Mr. Speaker, but it is not. I guarantee you, through the vision of this Administration, our Premier and the minister here, we have invested into the sealing industry alone this year - the sealing industry itself has leveraged over $100 million in recent years to this Province. It is not a second to none industry. It is a very successful industry, a very important one to this Province.

This year we have invested $3.6 million to Carino Processing because we have vision. The industry might be a little wobbly right now, but we are planning for the future. We know it is a vibrant industry. We know it is a very vital one for this Province and we know the people who have worked in it and laboured in it for years and part of our heritage, deserve this industry to be vibrant again and move forward. I know through our Administration and our Premier, and this minister that will happen, I can guarantee you that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Aquaculture, Mr. Speaker; hundreds of people are working in that industry in rural Newfoundland. We get labelled here that we do not do enough in rural Newfoundland, hundreds, if not up in the thousands right now, are doing aquaculture, something that did not exist only a few years ago. It is the investment and the vision of this Administration over the last number of years and we are continuing to do that with more investments every year.

In 2006, we invested over $24 million and have leveraged $400 million from that industry, Mr. Speaker, when you talk about that, quadrupling our investment just from the industry itself. We will invest another $13 million in additional supports this year in aquaculture for wharves, biosecurity and additional supports. We are also planning. We know the aquaculture industry is a vibrant one. We know we want to be a world leader, so we are making sure we have things in place that are beneficial to people in the industry and can grow, particularly in rural areas, so that we have access to a proper crop for harvesting.

Mr. Speaker, under Natural Resources; it is a given here, we are blessed with a wealth of natural resources, blessed with vision that the Province and its residents are the ones who will reap the benefits. We have made it clear, we are open for business. We will give you a good contract if in return our citizens are going to reap the benefits and our citizens are going to get a fair shake at employment, at infrastructure within the communities, at services they are aware of, and that at the end of the day we have control where that industry goes because we want to make sure we are not only part and parcel of a partnership, but we also have some control over the end results.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell a little story about where I am from, and people may know this. Coming from Bell Island, as people may have known, back in the 1960s and prior right up to that, Bell Island was the epitome when it came to an industrial community, a mineral oriented one, one of the richest communities in Atlantic Canada. Four thousand people a day worked underground. Thousands came from this side and went over and worked in different parts of the industry. We were a leader in all kinds of technology.

Mr. Speaker, what we lost there was vision. Nobody planned, nobody had vision. When the industries – because they were not regulated and we were not partners here. It was the former Administration, a Liberal Administration, when the industry said we are moving, we are going, we do not want you anymore, we do not need you, you are not giving us enough incentives, they left. There was no planning. There was no lead up, there were no negotiations. I remember as a young boy standing with my father and my grandfather and when the last whistle blew for the last shift change you knew there was doom and gloom. They talk about it on the other side, about doom and gloom. If you want to see doom and gloom, stand with me in 1966 on Bell Island you would have seen doom and gloom.

Mr. Speaker, we could not save the mines at that time because it was not our Administration. A former Premier came over, he had a contractor. A German contract was on the desk, it is going to be signed. Stay with us, vote for us, and keep our Liberal member in there. It is not a problem, we have it done, we have vision, and we know where we are going. Two weeks later they were offering $1,500 for everybody's home but you had to leave Bell Island, if you want to talk about resettlement. The people of Bell Island, because of their background in the mining industry and because of their want and desire to be part of this Province, they stayed. To this day, this is a very vibrant community. We have invested in other programs and services and that is why this community has (inaudible). We have had some bad times over there. We were on the pinnacle of being supported by government.

The last number of years, Mr. Speaker, we had 500 people a day travel to St. John's to work in every industry, every profession you could think of, from trades to nursing, to medical professions, to teaching, to all kinds of skilled trades, and that is because we have invested in education. We have given young people an opportunity to be able to stay on Bell Island, get educated here, go back and live there and have a system that goes back and forth. We made it affordable. We are working on making it more reliable. We know we have some challenges to work with but we are doing that so we are investing properly when it comes to our education needs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, we have invested because we realize there are some challenges over there with people who have some special support needs that we have offered. Normally, people have to travel to come for educational things. We have answered to the vision of the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, we offer Levels I, II and III, the first time in our history over there. We had a college; we always had a college on Bell Island.

The former Liberal Administration, even though there were 400 or 500 students a year, people would travel from other sides to go in and do the different skilled trades, they saw the wisdom and closed it down. They did not think it was necessary. Obviously, that took a hardship on the educational abilities for people on Bell Island, but this Administration saw the vision. We wanted to bring the services to rural Newfoundland and they did, Level I, Level II, last year Level III. I want to add, four of our students have won national awards from the Peter Gzowski Foundation for their improvements, most of them single parents. Three have already gone on to post-secondary to do trades, non-traditional stuff for women, doing trades. It has been written up in The Globe and Mail, written up in all the local newspapers. That is a testament to what we do in this Province; that we invest back into rural Newfoundland and back into the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, Advanced Education and Skills, again, we are a catalyst for growth. Through education and the labour market development, we have started to move things forward. We have engaged all sectors here to make sure that what we do is in the best interest of all the people involved. Access to education, training and certification is second to none. We realize we are going to have a job shortage. We know there are going to be potentially 70,000 jobs needed in the next ten years. We are planning for it; that is vision.

Our certification programs we have implemented; we have engaged White Papers on post-secondary education skilled task force, taking those because there are stakeholders telling us what is needed. Taking them, implementing the programs and services they recommend, making sure they are available and accessible to all the key players. That is why, as you can see, the increase in skilled trade; how people are moving from the apprenticeship programs up to the journeyman's program. In return, journeyman program people are being able to come back and have more apprenticeships part of their programs.

We set a plan to engage the skilled trade industry. We made it easier for students to be engaged. Tuition freezes, giving you another example of how we have made it accessible for post-secondary education. Tuition freezes, total to date, $183 million we have invested just to make sure we can keep the tuition freezes going.

MR. S. COLLINS: They are not protesting here.

MR. BRAZIL: My colleague here from Terra Nova noted, they are not protesting here. They are not people we are seeing in Quebec here. We engage the students unions, the youth organizations, the general public out there, and the administrators of these post-secondary institutions and ask them, how can we better engage young people? How can we make it more accessible? How can we make sure there is some diversification here, that there are special needs for students coming from rural areas or parts of Labrador, or other areas? That we can still make it accessible and that the student debt at the end of the day is minimal.

We have engaged student groups from all over, an additional $19 million for a loan that was going to go into our programs. We have upfront needs grants. We have interest-free student loans. We have doubled the study period exemptions from $50 a week to $100 a week. That gives the students more of an ability to earn so they can help offset some of their costs, thus their student debt would be less when they graduate. We established the Workforce Development Secretariat, all positive things to be able to move our education system forward.

Mr. Speaker, to go again and talk about Muskrat Falls, and I have jumped back and forth a little bit on it. I want to talk about how we are planning for some vision, how we are planning to address our energy needs, and how in the near future we will have our debate and we will make our decisions on how we move forward. That will be a positive thing, where Newfoundland and Labrador is going to have control of their energy needs, where they will invest their money to make sure what we do is in the best interests of this generation and generations to come. That is long-term planning, Mr. Speaker, sustainability and renewable energy.

We have been very confident on how we have moved a lot of programs forward. The Opposition talked about we are not socially conscious. This is the one Administration, if you go back through all the Budgets, and I have read the last twenty Budgets, and we are the one who is most socially conscious. There is not a sector in this community, not one sector that we do not have a major program or a major initiative, or a major way of engaging them to see what their needs are and addressing them, not one. I question that you would advise on one. There might be little glitches in what we do but there are substantial programs and services there that address all the needs of the people in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have been fortunate over the last number of years to be fiscally responsible and invest in the right areas. When you become a government and you become an owner in the oil field, that is vision. That shows that you know where your future is going; as you are doing your investment and you are generating your revenues, you are also looking to decide, to make sure that you diversify what you do, so that one day if that revenue stream is different, you have an ability to offset it – very creative in how we do that, very creative in how we have done that, and it shows leadership.

Other provinces are watching the norm of what we have done. They are looking at how we put it in place, why we put it in place. We put it in place because we now want to be a have Province, and that is what we are. We want to make sure that every citizen has a certain quality of health care, a certain quality of life, a certain quality of engagement, a certain quality so their kids will have a better lifestyle than we had. That is what we are gauging toward – very positive to be able to do that.

We have move things so far forward that we have been engaged by other provinces and other countries to lend them the support we have done, lend them the information that we have had. We are open minded; we have been fortunate to be able to move things forward and we do want to support any other entity out there that would like to learn from us.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about something that is a little bit different than people would normally think. I am going to talk about something that is not in the Budget, something that was deleted from this year's Budget. I know a few ears and a few eyes might open up here, because it is not the norm you talk about. Under the Department of Advanced Education and Skills, I am going to talk about the Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy. Last year, a $5.1 million, almost $5.2 million investment; this year, zero, Mr. Speaker – zero.

MR. S. COLLINS: Why?

MR. BRAZIL: The hon. Member for Terra Nova asks me that question, why; because contrary to what we have been accused of, we have strategies, we have plans. This was one we started three years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Three years ago.

I have to give bouquets to the present Minister of Advanced Education and Skills and the two former ones, the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Health, for guiding this along over the three-year course. In three years we have managed to engage thousands of young people into the skilled trades. We have managed to get thousands of young people engaged outside of the Province to come back, to attract some of our skilled young people who have moved away because they were not engaged, they did not have the skill set, they did not have the opportunities. We have done it.

We have invested in rural areas so that we give them an opportunity when they come back to find employment in rural areas – it is satisfying to live there – through recreation, through better health care, through access to infrastructure. We have done all that, Mr. Speaker. We have also found a way to engage them when they come back to start their families, because we have new schools, because we have engaged all kinds of extra programs and services after hours for this population.

We have also made incentives, ways to come back. If you are skilled tradesperson or you are a professional in different areas, we have some incentives to encourage you to come back here. People are feeling good about coming back to Newfoundland and Labrador. They are feeling good about staying here. They are no longer leaving the day they graduate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, that is what a strategy and a plan are about. That is only one of hundreds that we have in every program and service that we offer. Every department here has a set strategy and a plan. Our Blue Book has been set out; the third Blue Book here has a set plan and a strategy. Our Blue Book does not go three years and four years; we go generations, Mr. Speaker. We plan for the future, and that is what vision is all about. Through the leadership of our Premier, the ministers, this caucus, and this administration, and all the support people that we have working in the civil service, Mr. Speaker, we will move this and many other strategies forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it is really encouraging to hear of a government that plans for generations down the road. I am reminded, when someone is stargazing and planning for generations down the road, sometimes they trip and fall into the ditches right in front of them, because they were planning too far down the road and missed the immediate obstacle.

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that we are dealing with, which has come to everybody's mind, is the energy development on Muskrat Falls. The government keeps promising that they will talk about all sorts of other things for us, and consider other options, and consequently –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: – I had a little research done and I wanted to see what other alternatives there were. The research, Mr. Speaker, that I had done – and it was done by somebody in the Opposition offices – turned up two studies that I would like to review in my speech. These studies were completed – one is called Final Report, and the other is called Final Report. They are signed off by a guy named Wade Locke; these are studies signed off by somebody named Wade Locke. It seems that the government may put some stock in what Wade Locke has to say.

The first one of these is called a screening document, and it looks at thirty-one different types of energy that we could be looking at in this Province. The very first one that Wade Locke did – and I note that they were done in August, 2010, and this is before Muskrat Falls was signed off on. This one was done, guided by a steering committee led by the Department of Natural Resources, and included representatives from the Research and Development Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador. It also included the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and the Department of Business, and Nalcor Energy. So, I thought this would be a worthwhile read, Mr. Speaker. These people were purporting to know something about energy a couple of years ago.

So, this project took place between September, 2009 and March, 2010, following a structure that narrowed down thirty-one energy types into innovation priority areas. The process reflected the difference between energy types and involved analysing energy types, based on both resource potential and opportunities for innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador that could add value in overcoming barriers for local and-or external development.

To read along and determine what Wade Locke came up with two years ago for the screening criteria of this group composed of these three government departments, Nalcor, and Wade Locke, this is what they were saying before Muskrat was being talked about. The screening criteria chosen were reflective of the goals of the overall project to identify areas of technological energy innovation in which Newfoundland and Labrador could obtain competitive advantage. Four questions were chosen. The four questions were: Does Newfoundland and Labrador have, or could Newfoundland and Labrador have, sufficient local resources? These would include local natural resources, such as wind resources, and existing local assets, such as docks and heating systems.

The next question was: Is the energy type consistent with the Energy Plan? Two years ago, Mr. Speaker, the government claimed to have an Energy Plan. Does it facilitate and enable environmental leadership, energy security, sustainable economic development, and optimization of electricity export value, optimization of long-term value for oil and gas, and effective governance?

The third question was: Is technical innovation required? This would address whether the innovation that is required is technical – that is, not market, company, or regulatory – and avoid producing solutions that are based on wishful thinking rather than true market needs. Is it feasible that Newfoundland and Labrador could have appropriate capabilities to meet the challenge? This would include existing capabilities such as a university department, an industrial base, and international competitiveness.

Of the ones that were discarded, first of all they looked at novel wind concepts and said: conclusion: do not carry novel wind concepts forward as Newfoundland and Labrador capabilities are not suited to innovation needs. Tidal barrage is the energy type consistent with the Energy Plan. Tidal is mentioned in the Energy Plan, but appears to be more oriented to tidal stream rather than tidal barrages; conclusion: do not carry forward tidal barrage, mainly as no suitable sites – in particular in comparison with other locations.

Then Wade Locke and company, and the government from two years ago, looked at ocean thermal energy conversion; that means harnessing the difference in ocean temperatures from surface to deep water; conclusion: do not carry forward novel energy concepts as limited bases to innovate and compete. Further, feedstock supply, such as biomass feedstock – is it possible to use biomass feedstock? Conclusion: do not carry forward bioenergy as a feedstock supply as there is very limited innovation required. Waste to energy: do not carry forward waste to energy as modest resource level and limited innovation.

Lignocellulosic biofuels: do not carry forward as limited basis to innovate and compete. Power generation, and this is from biomass from wood: do not carry forward biofuels for power generation as technically mature and limited innovation base. Small-scale heat, and this would be in pellet plants: do not carry forward small scale, technically mature and innovation already dominated by others. Large-scale pellets: do not continue with large-scale heat, as technically mature and innovation already dominated by others.

Biogas and synthetic natural gas: do not carry forward as no gas grid and limited innovation. Solar: do not carry forward, modest resource, limited applications. Geothermal: do not carry forward as no resource, limited innovation, and no basis to innovate. Hydrogen: do not carry hydrogen forward on a large scale as there is no large-scale infrastructure, market access lacking, and limited innovation base. Uranium: do not carry uranium forward as limited basis to innovate and compete. Uranium for power generation and waste treatment: do not carry forward uranium power generation and waste treatment forward as limited basis to innovate and compete. Peat: do not carry peat forward as limited innovation and some questions about sustainability. Oil shale: do not carry oil shale forward.

Renewable resources, wind: do we have, or could we have, sufficient local resources? Yes, world-class offshore wind resources; also have large dock and shipping facilities. Conclusion: carry forward offshore wind for evaluation as skills and resources are strong. Small-scale wind: do we have or could we have sufficient local resources? Yes, world-class onshore and offshore coastal wind resources. Conclusion: carry forward small-scale wind for evaluation as resources are strong and there are some skills in applications engineering.

Wave energy; conclusion: carry forward wave energy for evaluation as innovation required which may match local capabilities and there is some primary resource. Tidal, which is stream: clear tidal stream opportunities, Strait of Belle Isle, Point Amour, Pike Run; conclusion: carry forward tidal stream for evaluation. First-generation biofuels: carry forward first-generation biofuels for evaluation using fish oils. Hydrogen: carry forward hydrogen, and energy conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT (Kent): Mr. Speaker, in addition to this study, which identified areas that we could and should follow up on – these are studies that were paid for by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; Wade Locke Economic Consulting, I think government may be familiar with him. In this final report, called Newfoundland and Labrador Energy Innovation Roadmap: Priority Identification (Phase I) – energy warehouse areas, onshore wind energy. Mr. Locke said, the hypotheses of valuable innovation to be tested: "The output of this section of the evaluation is a set of potentially valuable innovation opportunities that Newfoundland and Labrador could pursue, assuming it has the resources to be competitive in doing so. The opportunities are, therefore, presented as hypotheses at this stage including an element of what the opportunity is and how it might be approached."

Mr. Speaker, he identified the largest wind turbine companies in the world, the largest being Vestas, in Denmark, with 21,000 employees, and, in Canadian, $9.4 billion in sales two years ago; second being GE Wind from Atlanta, Georgia, with $22 billion in sales; third being Gamesa in Madrid, Spain, the third biggest with $5 billion in sales; the fourth being Enercon from Aurich, Germany, 12,000 employees worldwide; next was an Indian company, and fifth was Siemens. All of these companies are pursuing wind energy and yet we have not considered it.

What he also concluded is that the overview of the key players involved in wind energy innovation globally looks at three particular factors: turbine manufacturers, universities and institutes, and testing centres. The three types of innovation players are present in Canada with a concentration on the East Coast. However, as summarized in figure 19, there is nothing of significance in Newfoundland and Labrador as of today.

However, in Eastern Canada there are a number of small wind turbine manufacturers; they are in Quebec, Ontario; a number of research areas are on the East Coast of Canada, including the University of New Brunswick, the University of Moncton in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and the CORUS Centre in Quebec, which is a partnership of five colleges. So, Mr. Speaker, you would have to wonder why we are not going to bother to look into this if they are so heavily invested in these other institutions.

Also, there are testing centres; in PEI, a thirty-eight-acre world-class wind testing centre that employs a board of a dozen people and five staff members, and is funded by the National Resource Council, ACOA, and the PEI Energy Corporation. Their universities and institutes are all involved, and all of these are pursuing wind energy. Mr. Speaker, some of the applications that he comes up with are: the CORUS Centre in Quebec is "looking at hybrid wind-diesel systems, for example: Design two hybrid wind energy-diesel compressed air storage systems to supply electricity to isolated sites, northern villages, telecommunications stations and scientific bases." The WEICan Canada, in PEI, wind-hydrogen village; "WEICan is collaborating with the PEI Energy Corporation to develop the potential for hydrogen storage and subsequent use, and the application of such technology for remote and island communities."

The conclusion of the wind energy study is to say "It is important to note that Newfoundland and Labrador will need to have a plan to overcome all barriers to the deployment of onshore wind energy in the Province; however, we anticipate that most barriers…" "…will be overcome by the purchase of innovative solutions from international third parties."

Mr. Speaker, this Budget sets aside more than $660 million as an allocation – previously I called it a dowry, a down payment for Nalcor to be able to draw down on. Two years ago, when the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was serious about alternate energy and Muskrat Falls was not on the radar screen, Wade Locke was employed to carry out these studies, along with our own Research and Development Corporation, the Department of Natural Resources, the business department that we had, and Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, at that time, and identified these opportunities; two years later, what has become of these opportunities? Are we still pursuing them? I think not. In fact, what we have done – one of the issues that will probably get us into trouble with Muskrat Falls is that we are not open-minded and we have no interest in any other alternatives.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources first came to my attention a few years ago, and this was at the time of the Lamer inquiry. He is an outstanding advocate, an excellent advocate, he is passionate, and he can present a case. However, at that time, the shortcoming that was identified by the Lamer inquiry as to why we convicted three people in this Province of murder who were innocent is that we developed a focus, a mentality, not on finding the truth but on getting a conviction.

I say at this point that the Minister of Natural Resources is an advocate and he is pressing forward a government position that says Muskrat Falls at all costs, to absolutely prove the case that Muskrat Falls is the best thing and the right thing, to the absolute exclusion of looking at other reasonable alternatives. Other reasonable alternatives were identified by Wade Locke, the same Wade Locke who also endorses Muskrat Falls, the same Wade Locke who was given what was called an Isolated Island option, which has a negative connotation in itself, because who would want to be isolated in any event – simply a play on words.

Of these two choices, which one is the best? Simply put, grammatically, of two choices, neither is the best. One may be good and the other better, but best is a superlative. We were given only two choices; consequently, one can only be better. One can be good, one can be better; one can be bad, another can be worse. Unless we look at all of the options, then we have not earned the right to say which is the best, because we have not looked at all of the options.

The cost to produce hydroelectricity from Muskrat Falls will be very substantial. Even more recently within the last few days, I saw an article, a report quoting Wade Locke, saying if this project runs more than 20 per cent to 25 per cent over the figure which we have been relying on, then all of a sudden it will not be viable and it should be revisited. We should look at the numbers; we need a redo on this.

Mr. Speaker, without committing as to whether Muskrat Falls is the best, because we have not looked at all of the options, I would urge the government in this Budget that the $660 million set aside for Nalcor simply be reversed until we can demonstrate that we have a use for those funds for Nalcor. It is premature to be allocating huge sums of public money for a project that has not been sanctioned, for a project that may well end up costing all of us very dearly for the next fifty years.

Mr. Speaker, there are good odds that one or two of us may be alive when Muskrat Falls is paid off if we go ahead, but no more than a handful of us. The comparison between Muskrat Falls and Churchill Falls is very stark. Not only is Muskrat Falls much smaller – it is maybe only as much as one-sixth of what Upper Churchill was – we missed an opportunity to have more revenue than we had with the Upper Churchill that did not saddle us with a huge debt. If we are saddled with a huge debt for Muskrat Falls then we will have shut off all of the opportunities that could have come our way with the billions of dollars that we are planning to commit to Muskrat Falls.

I would venture to guess that down the road, within a handful of years, many people will want to know who signed off on this Muskrat Falls that we keep paying for, who got us among the most expensive energy in North America, some of the most expensive energy in the world, when we could have had wind power, we could have had offshore gas. We did not look at all of the opportunities, we did not look at all of the alternatives, so why did that Forty-Seventh Assembly of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly sentence us to pay this huge mortgage for a long, long time, and force us to pay higher than necessary energy rates without even looking at all of the options?

If all of the options are adequately looked at then I think that nobody would want to stand in the way of development. No one would want to stand in the way of Muskrat Falls if it is demonstrated to be a good project, but the absolute concern that I have at this point, and I think is shared by many people in our Province, is that we really do not know, we are jumping in blindly; government is advocating a position without clearly ascertaining all of the facts.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that primarily the Minister of Natural Resources – who is a fantastic advocate; he can present a case and he can convince the bird to come down out of the trees. I would implore him to go back to the drawing board, check all of the alternatives, go slow on this particular project, and not to bring your massive majority to force this on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Win the argument by virtue of the argument being the correct argument and not by virtue of having thirty-six seats to vote against eleven who are still seeking the answers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the Budget Debate, which has been ongoing for several weeks now, we have heard two distinct scenarios, Mr. Speaker. We have heard the doom and gloom versus the positive; the glass is half full versus the glass is half empty. Sometimes it is a question of attitude in terms of how we look at ourselves and how we look at where our Province is going.

Mr. Speaker, a wise old friend of mine used to say: it is not a question of how far you have to go, but look at how far you have come. When you look at how far we have come as a Province in 2003, from a financial and economic perspective, to the confidence that we have in ourselves as a people, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we have come a long way and we have every reason to be proud and positive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, since 2003, our government has built approximately – at least $5 billion in infrastructure, spent on infrastructure, including building numerous schools, hospitals, and long-term care facilities. They have been built in all districts in this Province, Mr. Speaker, on the government side and on the Opposition side. Our economy has grown and we have reduced our debt by almost, or more than, $4 billion.

Mr. Speaker, our economy today compared to the rest of the world is considered stable and positive. While certain segments in our economy such as the fishery and the forestry are encountering challenges and difficulties, our Province has never been more prosperous. That does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that everything is good everywhere in the Province. What it does mean is that as a government, we are committed to all areas in this Province and we are committed to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, the one thing we do as a government, though, is not simply looking at will we get elected in 2015. We look to the future. We want to ensure that our children and grandchildren have a secure and prosperous future. We are looking to that bigger picture. Sometimes in laying that groundwork you can be criticized. The Opposition often asks: where is the plan? We have not seen any plan. Well, there was an Energy Plan in 2007; that Energy Plan outlines how we will use our God-given natural resources to transition from a non-renewable resource economy to a renewable resource economy.

Mr. Speaker, we will use our hydro, we will use our wind, and we will use the resources that we have, the small hydro, to replace the oil when it is gone. Mr. Speaker, we are always looking, as outlined in the Energy Plan, to that day in 2041 when the Upper Churchill contract expires. What I hope to do in the next sixteen minutes is to simply outline the basic elements of that plan.

Tonight I am going to talk a little bit about oil, Mr. Speaker, and to a lesser extent, mining and gas. There has been so much talk about Muskrat Falls in the last number of months that sometimes we fail to emphasize the importance of our non-renewable resources. Mr. Speaker, oil, gas, and mining account for approximately 40 per cent of the Province's total gross revenue and almost 40 per cent of the Province's GDP. Newfoundland and Labrador produces 32 per cent of Canada's conventional light crude. Mr. Speaker, our oil produced to date has been 1.3 billion barrels of oil with the average daily production for 2012 being almost 260,000 barrels. The cumulative royalties, Mr. Speaker, received from all projects to February 29, 2012 is approximately $12.6 billion. We currently have three projects in production which comprise four fields and a fourth project, Hebron, in development. Hibernia, Terra Nova, and White Rose, including North Amethyst, employ over 3,700 people and close to 90 per cent of those 3,700 people are residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, our Premier led the way in the negotiation of these contracts. She was the Minister of Natural Resources when these riches opened up, but there had to be negotiations with oil companies and with mining companies. We had to ensure that as a government we got the best we could for our people, that these resources were used to benefit our Province. That, Mr. Speaker, is where the Premier brought her valuable expertise as she now sits in the chair as the first female Premier of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example of a couple of very important aspects of those negotiations, which I think are crucial. In Hibernia Southern Extension, Nalcor – being representative of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, as we are the shareholder – is a 10 per cent equity partner for a $30 million purchase price. Mr. Speaker, do you know how long it is going to take us to get back that $30 million? Not very long.

The first oil was achieved, Mr. Speaker, in June, 2011. There are 1,200 construction years of employment in our Province. The average employment during the peak years is 466 persons. Just think, Mr. Speaker: that is money that goes into the economy; besides our royalty and our equity stake, good money, good jobs going back into the economy. We have commitments, Mr. Speaker, from research and development expenditures and a Gender Equity and Diversity Plan, which is a crucial aspect of the vision this government and our Premier have for this Province.

Mr. Speaker, what we want to ensure is that young women, ladies in our society have the same opportunities as men and that there is no such thing as the traditional trade. Just as men can be involved in all trades, so can women. That is, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why the Advanced Education and Skills Department was set up. These gender and diversity plans are a crucial aspect of our agreements with these companies.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we come to Hebron. Nalcor is a 4.9 per cent equity partner for a purchase price of $110 million; 5,000 construction years of employment, Mr. Speaker, with 12,000 employment person years. Construction of the GBS at the Bull Arm site is anticipated to commence some time in the near future when negotiations are finalized, and peak around 2015 with 3,500 employees.

We met with a mining company the other day, myself and the Premier, Mr. Speaker – not even one of the biggest mining companies – who said: We are going to need 900 people when we are in peak production. We are out there with Vale Inco, Mr. Speaker, with 2,000 or 2,500. We are not even talking about Muskrat Falls yet, with its peak of 2,700 people when the project commences.

Are there jobs in this Province? Are we going through now a situation where there has to be a new attitude towards jobs and where we have to work with the unions and the companies to ensure our young people can get access to these jobs? Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills outlined the other day 70,000 new jobs coming up.

What is there to moan about in this Province, Mr. Speaker? Yes, we have issues we have to deal with, and as a government we will be there to help people to transition from the jobs they currently have into new employment, Mr. Speaker. This is a prosperous time, and although it is not without difficulty, there is never a better time to be in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, so much of what takes place in the world today is based on the price of oil. There is no crystal ball which you look into and say: This will be the price or this is what is going to happen. What we have done – what the Premier did when she was the Minister of Natural Resources and what I have done as the Minister of Natural Resources – is meet with the experts. We look at and say to them: Can you help us? Can you offer assistance as we make our plans for the future in helping us determine how to budget and in helping us to make decisions, for example, in relation to Muskrat Falls and Holyrood?

Mr. Speaker, we seek that advice from a group like PIRA in New York, Mr. Speaker. There are 500 or 600 big corporations and countries who seek their advice. We sit with them; we sit with individuals like Dr. Mark Schwartz and we have big decisions to make: Where do you see the price of oil going?

Mr. Speaker, I have talked about this a number of times, and we are not going to get – as the Minister of Finance will tell you – someone saying: In 2022, the price of oil will be $136.50, but we will have a range; it could be $130 to $150, $150 to $170. What they do is they look at their past experience at predictions and they say: Well, this is what we expect to happen. Does that mean it will happen? No, Mr. Speaker, as we have seen numerous times when oil went from $30 or $20 to $140, when we saw what took place in 1972 after the Upper Churchill was developed. So, while we cannot predict with certainty, what we can do, Mr. Speaker, is avail of the expertise of others.

Now, let us look at again, Mr. Speaker, very simple terms. It is a question of supply and demand. There is not enough oil in the world today to meet demand, so that will ensure the price goes up. The measurement of oil that we will often see in the news is West Texas Intermediate. A number of years ago, West Texas Intermediate oil traded at $10 to $20 a barrel more than Brent. Brent is the measurement that we use in our Province, being similar to the North Sea crude. Today, Brent will trade at $10 to $15 more than West Texas Intermediate. Myself and the Minister of Finance looked at each other in this meeting in New York, and the explanation given was quite simple; there is a glut at, I think, Cushing, Oklahoma, where the oil – they cannot get the oil to market and therefore cannot meet the demand needs.

Mr. Speaker, the activities in the Middle East – there is a geopolitical element to the pricing of oil. Activities in the Middle East, whether it be the Arab Spring, the wars in Iraq, or whatever goes on in Iran, Mr. Speaker, affect the price of oil. No one knows exactly how much oil the Middle East countries have and they will not tell us, but they can control, to a certain extent, the price of oil.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we have the great unknown – becoming a little bit more known, but still unknown – and that is China. China, at 5 per cent growth, will a number of years from now burn more oil than the United States. It is absolutely amazing what is happening in China, and that is where our demand for Iron Ore and the LabWest mining projects are taking off. That is why we see this company in China partnering with a company in Labrador. That is why we have Tata Steel – I think the second biggest steel company in the world, if not at least in the United Kingdom – also up there in Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if China grows at 5 per cent, unlike the 9 or 10 per cent that we have seen in other years – again, cannot meet the demand. The middle class is growing at some phenomenal rate; it could have been 80 million people a year, primarily based on what is happening in India and China, and the other BRIC countries: Brazil, Russia, India, and China, I think are the four main ones.

The world currently burns 90 million barrels of oil a day, Mr. Speaker, so that even the new shale oil that will come on the United States will not be enough to meet the demand. It will help the US demand, but will not meet world demand, Mr. Speaker.

All of the indications right now are that the price of oil will continue to rise, Mr. Speaker, that these companies are safe or they feel comfortable predicting ten, fifteen years out. They can say to us that oil can be expected to go $140, $160. Some people, Mr. Speaker, say as high as $200 a barrel. We do know for example, and one good gauge is that we see all of the money that is being spent in Alberta, Mr. Speaker, in the oil sands. It is costing approximately $85 a barrel – I think I was told at one point in time – to get that oil out of the oil sands. That means, Mr. Speaker, that oil – these companies are not into it out of the goodness of their heart, they are into it to make money. They have predicted, and they know they will invest millions, hundreds of millions, and billions of dollars because they know that price of oil is not going below $85 a barrel, Mr. Speaker, to the best of their knowledge.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we have watched what has happened with the shale gas revolution in the United States, it has changed certainly. It has been a game changer in the United States both with the new terminals that have been created, and also the use in making electricity. Mr. Speaker, we are making a calculated decision based on the best advice possible that the price of oil will continue to go up in the next period of years. That figures in, Mr. Speaker, to how we budget. That figures in, Mr. Speaker, to this year with two rigs down, how much deficit we can expect. It also figures in, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not we will do Muskrat Falls. I will speak to that at another point.

Where I am going with this, Mr. Speaker, is we know that our oil, that Hebron – there was a study that was provided during the Hebron hearings saying that Hebron will take us up to approximately 2037, Hibernia will take us to 2040. It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, when you think about it, if you were following what went on back in the 1980s. The debate that went on around Hibernia is not that much different than what is going on now around Muskrat Falls with a lot of hard feelings, a lot of accusations, and always the spectre of the Upper Churchill sitting in the background.

Well, look what we have made with Hibernia. Hibernia was a make-work project, Mr. Speaker. That 8.5 per cent federal share that the federal government has, we would certainly like to be in a position to get that back. Hibernia, Mr. Speaker, has been a game changer for us. We have oil now that will take us to – that is without any new discoveries, that is without finding a way to bring our natural gas to market when it is economically viable.

Mr. Speaker, will there be new finds? We know they are still out there exploring and again, they are not doing it out of the goodness of their heart. Now, we come up to 2040. What happens in 2041? Although, Mr. Speaker, we do not have all the details and we cannot figure out all of the questions, we do know one thing, that that God-forsaken contract that was signed in 1969 will expire in 2041. There will be the renewal for twenty-five years. That renewal, again, that I have great difficulty with and I wish we could tear up that contract, Mr. Speaker, but the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on a number of occasions now that we cannot. I wish there was a button, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure every Newfoundlander and Labradorian dreams of there being a button in Churchill Falls where you could just go press the button and that nightmare ends. That is not the way it works, Mr. Speaker, because the courts have said a contract is a contract. We will speak of that, Mr. Speaker, later on.

What is important here, Mr. Speaker, is that Muskrat Falls, our wind resources, our small hydro, they allow us to transition from that non-renewable resource economy to a renewable resource economy. There are decisions that have to be made, and I have just listened to the comments of the member opposite, the Member for St. Barbe. Mr. Speaker, we have already indicated we are going to file reports in relation to wind, the importation of natural gas. We will file in relation to the possibility of building a pipeline. They will all be made public. All of the Decision Gate 3 numbers will be made public because at the end of the day there is a decision that has to be made, and as elected officials, Mr. Speaker, we have to make a decision. Sometimes the easiest thing for a politician or politicians to do is simply leave it for someone else, but, Mr. Speaker, as Ed Martin, the CEO and President of Nalcor said one day at the PUB, the stars are aligned. It is now or never, Mr. Speaker, in terms of Muskrat Falls, and potentially the whole of the Lower Churchill project.

Mr. Speaker, someone will say: well, it is a legacy project and why are they so determined to do this project? Well, Mr. Speaker, I am just going to put myself, if she does not mind, in the position of the Premier for a second. Here we have our first – figuratively speaking here now. Here we have our first female Premier. She will go into history, our first female Premier. Now what is in it for her? What is in it for any of us to do a bad deal? We all want to leave a legacy. It is better off to leave no legacy at all, Mr. Speaker, than to leave a bad one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, what governments do, what we were elected to do as leaders is look at what is in the best interest of the people of this Province. The Premier looks at her grandchildren and children, Mr. Speaker. I look at my children. I have seen pictures, Mr. Speaker, of you out with your children on Facebook. Why are any of us going to do anything that would jeopardize their future, Mr. Speaker?

What we will do, Mr. Speaker, we will avail of the expertise that is available. We will listen. I listened with interest to the Member for St. Barbe. I have listened with interest to the Leader of the Opposition. I have listened with interest to the Member for St. John's East, and I can assure you we will listen and we will look at all options, because at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, there is one question: Is Muskrat Falls in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? In making that decision, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at that bigger picture. We are not looking at whether or not what we do today will get us elected in 2015, because that is not what we are here for, Mr. Speaker. What we are looking at is a vision for the future for the people of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, what we want to do, what all of us want to do is to provide a bright future for our children, and that is why projects like Muskrat Falls are so important. At some future point I will have an opportunity to talk about the Upper Churchill project in more detail, but, Mr. Speaker, I can say to the members of the Opposition and to the people of this Province, we have not made our minds up. We are exploring all avenues and we will be more than willing and looking forward to the debate in this hon. House on Muskrat Falls.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, it is a privilege for me to stand here again tonight and speak on behalf of the Resource Committee. I had the privilege of sitting on two Estimates Committees, and both the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation were quite willing and forward with the information on all of the questions that were asked. I will commend the staff for the work they did too, I must say, in responding to the questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Especially, I will say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, as we know, the night before he had some trouble with some health issues and I can tell you, he was in extreme pain the morning of that Committee. I really appreciate the fact that he sat through it and sat through all of the questions. He gave us all the time we needed, so I have to mention that.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I want to do though, I want to clarify something that was said last week in the House. It came up in Question Period. The question was asked by the Leader of the Third Party. It was a question about the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper mill. We know that this issue has been ongoing now for a number of weeks. There was a comment made by the Premier about it finally ranked the question in Question Period. I really want to clarify exactly what had happened there and at that time.

As you know, I am an MHA for Humber Valley and of course what happens in Corner Brook actually has a tremendous impact on the whole area of Western Newfoundland. In particular, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and the activity in the industry that goes on in that mill have a far-reaching impact. It really goes out into even Central Newfoundland. I would venture to say that on the Province as a whole that if Corner Brook Pulp and Paper – if the mill did not make it, it would be a tremendous loss to this Province.

The MHAs – I know in terms of the Official Opposition – were very much aware of how sensitive this issue was, not only in the mill itself but also in the power plant in Deer Lake at the hydro generating station. It was with this in mind that we were asking questions to all the people involved, which included a number of ministers. We felt that we were satisfied with the progress and the answers that we were getting; therefore, it really was not necessary at that point in time to be asking questions in Question Period. We had continuous dialogue with our constituents in our districts. They were kept aware of the positions that we had. We also relayed the information that we were given and I must say I felt that the working relationship was indeed a good one. This was happening both from a worker's point of view, from a management point of view, with the contractors, because there was an awful lot at stake. With this in mind, I felt at least I should take a few minutes now to just to clarify what happened there.

We also took it to the point where we had a meeting with the Department of Finance. Because we were hearing some concerns about the liability in the pension plan and what it is, if anything, that government could do, Mr. Speaker. We met with the minister last week on that. We went through what I felt were all the questions that we needed asked, and we were very comfortable with the dialogue and the answers that we were given on that. We left that meeting feeling that if there were any questions or if there was anything government could do, they were more than willing to do to make sure that there was a positive outcome for the people in Western Newfoundland. We still believe that today too, Mr. Speaker.

So I was then somewhat surprised to hear the response in Question Period. I do want to make sure that I really express the concern that we had at that time, and indeed for the people of Western Newfoundland, and indeed the people in all the Province, that we were not just sitting here and not doing anything, not asking questions in Question Period, simply because there was a lack of concern. That was not the case at all. Even today, we still know that this is a very sensitive issue, and I still believe that I think for the workers, for the owners, and certainly to all the people on the West Coast who are either directly or indirectly involved with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, they all realize now that we all hope and the objective here is to have an outcome where we can actually see that mill continuing to exist in Corner Brook for many years to come. The benefits that we would get through the contractors to the logging industry and all the other associated benefits that accompany a good, viable operation of that mill, will extend it far into the future.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, we had the opportunity to meet with both the pensioners, the active workers, and many other people who are concerned with the outcome at that mill. As I said, right now, our objective is to continue to ask questions when they are appropriate and to take that information back to our workers. Now, we do understand that there will be a meeting with the owners of the mill in Corner Brook; that should happen, from what we hear, this week. I would encourage government to make sure that the workers are involved and given an equal opportunity to express their concerns, if indeed they still feel that way. When you look at the impact on that mill – and I just mentioned a few minutes ago about how far reaching it is and about the serious impact that can have an all the other industries around Western Newfoundland, as I said, and indeed into the Province too. I need look no farther than the sawmill industry itself. We have seen significant debate within this House on certain investments into sawmills, and particularly the one in Roddickton. So, it is important to all of us that those investments get the return that they are anticipated to be, so when government, on behalf of the people of the Province, make significant investments into those industries, that the return is there and we actually make sure that the benefit can be accrued to the people of the Province.

This is what happens when you have a pulp and paper mill that is there to support all of this. We now understand that in some ways the price of lumber is starting to come back. So, the future – at least for lumber pricing – we believe that it does have a good future. What is important is that is supported by what would be the core in all of this, which is a successful pulp and paper mill in Corner Brook.

When I look at this and you take this a little bit further, you think about what are all the other benefits from a successful mill. I need to look no further than the impact that we see, even on our tourism industry. That is one of the departments that we were questioning in our Estimates. When you think about all the resource roads that are available and that are actually built because of a forestry industry, these roads are then used to support tourism and they are used to support all the active and healthy lifestyles that all of us as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to enjoy on a daily basis.

It is just simply not about the operation of pulp and paper mill, but it is about all the other things that are associated, all the other benefits that go with that. As I said, in particular the sawmill industry and, indeed, the tourism. Then I think about how you manage the forest, what do we do, and I think about silviculture programs and indeed that in itself is, even though it is seasonal – and we are concerned in recent days about the impact that the EI federal cutbacks will have on seasonal workers. There is a perfect example about where you have your silviculture program or your forest management program that can certainly be impacted and affected by federal cuts.

I also look to the contractors who actually support the forestry industry, not only the logging contractors but they would be people who are actually suppliers to the forestry industry, not just the mill in Corner Brook but indeed the logging contractors, your truckers, and all those other people who supply maintenance and roadwork, as I said, to the mill in Corner Brook. These are all important. It is extremely important that we continue to support the initiatives of that mill. We must watch and we must actually be keeping an eye on what is happening there and if there is an opportunity for us, as an Opposition, to ask the appropriate question, I can assure you we will be there and we will be keeping an eye on this. Right now, what we see is that the pieces of the puzzle that are required to make this positive are certainly there.

I will finish up with the mill in Corner Brook here now, just my comments on that. Just to reassure that our involvement will be there, if required, but I would also encourage the government – and I am sure they will – continue to stay involved and watch this closely because this is certainly very, very important to the future of Western Newfoundland.

One of the other things that we have raised a few questions on in the House of Assembly in this spring sitting, some of it related to budget, is the C-NLOPB and the role they play in terms of the activity that we get offshore. What I did is I pulled down some information. This was a board that was put in place in 1986. There were four objectives to this board: one was safety, one was environmental protection, resource management, and industrial benefits. This was a board that operated at arm's-length, put together with joint membership with the federal and provincial governments. Their role there was to, as I said, with those four regulatory mandates in place – what this board would then do was to make sure that us as a Province, and the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, would get the benefit and that the offshore would be managed and developed to the best interest of the Province.

What I have found though in recent days, of course, is that we now have some vacant positions on that and we have continued to ask for this because some of those positions have been vacant for quite some time. I do believe it is timely that we get those positions filled because we know we are moving into a time now when the chair itself will be vacant, and we will need to get a new chair in place, which will mean co-operation again from both the federal and provincial governments. We do know too, however, that there is a vacant seat there on the provincial rep. Of course, when you look at all the activity that is going on and the important decisions that have to be made, it is extremely important that we fill those seats and we get the appropriate people and the right amount of people in place to make the necessary decisions.

One of the important things that I have looked at, when you look at the role of the C-NLOPB, and we all remember as a Province the crash of Cougar 491 and how important C-NLOPB – the role that they played in determining the outcome of the Wells inquiry, and putting that inquiry in place was important. So when the recommendations came back, one of the recommendations of Justice Wells was that we would have an independent safety regulator. We all know – what we were told at least, is that would require an amendment of the Atlantic Accord, and indeed, that recommendation was divided into two parts, (a) and (b). He also went on to say that if (a) could not be, which would be an independent regulator, there was a (b) selection to it that gave us what he felt would be another solution to that.

This is still something that is concerning, of course, when you look in recent days and when you look at the recent events of where we are. These recommendations that we have seen from the Wells inquiry and having the appropriate board members in place to make the right decisions is extremely important to the future of the four objectives of the C-NLOPB, which are safety, environmental protection, resource management, and industrial benefits. With that said, that is a question we have raised and we will continue to ask until we get the appropriate amount of board members in place to make sure that board can work to the benefit of all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador.

A few minutes ago there were some questions in response to the Minister of Natural Resources about the Muskrat Falls debate. What we do know now is there will be some information over the summer that will be compiled as we get the updated DG3 numbers, which are very key numbers, as this project is considered for sanction. Right now we are still working from DG2 numbers, but DG3 numbers will be very important.

As the Opposition, we will be playing our role and entering into the debate on Muskrat Falls, whenever that is. We are anticipating it will be some time in the fall, depending on when the information comes in. What we are concerned about is the rules of that debate. How will that affect Opposition? What role will we play? One of the things that will be extremely important is giving timely access to the reports that are going to be commissioned through Ziff Energy, the one on natural gas, or the MHI report, the study on the DG3 numbers. These will be extremely important. What we will be suggesting is that some of the people who put those reports together should be available to the Opposition parties for discussion and certainly for questions.

One of the things a few minutes ago that the minister mentioned was about the doom and gloom situation. I will say right now, that as an Opposition we are not here to ask questions simply because it is a doom and gloom situation. That is not our mentality. What we are doing is we are asking questions of concern. We will continue to ask the questions we feel are on the minds of people in Newfoundland and Labrador before anybody enters into what is a significant investment into the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is our role.

The other thing we have heard a lot of over the last few weeks, as I have said, is about the demand for Muskrat Falls power. As you look back and you do a comprehensive review of where we have been as a Province in terms of Island demand over the last ten years, you will find there is very little increase, and those numbers are readily available from Nalcor. You will find the demand for the Province's Island need really has not grown that much at all. Those numbers go back now over about ten years, largely because of the industrial loss of the mill in Stephenville and the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor. In recent days now we are seeing that we have a number of fish plants that are taken out of the system and this too will have some impact.

All along when we have looked at the Muskrat Falls project, it was always 40 per cent for Island use, 20 per cent for Emera in return for their investment into the Maritime Link, and then it would be 40 per cent that would be used – typically when the debate started or with the term sheet, it was really around export power. We now have entered I believe, and largely because there have been a lot of questions about this, how we would use that power in terms of meeting the demands of the mining industry in Labrador. That is the other 40 per cent.

During the Estimates we did ask some questions about if you have an Island demand for the domestic use where you are not seeing increases, what happens in 2017 when the power comes on stream and yet here we are as ratepayers of the Province paying for 100 per cent of the project, which is 40 per cent of the power? What happens if we are not using 40 per cent of that power? What we would be suggesting or the question that we are asking is: Should this go back to the ratepayers who are paying 100 per cent for this power? Let alone how the money for the export power or for the mining industry in Labrador, how that is used, where that money goes, which we understand would go into paying for other areas which would be things like health care or roads and those sorts of things. That is a question that is on the minds of many of the people in the Province right now. What happens if we do not use all that power? Will the commitment be made to offset the energy costs in the Province?

The other thing we have asked and we will continue to ask, is about how do we invest into Muskrat Falls? One of the things we do know is that government is framing this up as an investment to make us an energy Province so that we will sell our energy and in return we will get money that will be used to support things like infrastructure, things like health care and so on. What we do not know right yet is the performance on that investment.

These are questions that I think is something we will continue to ask. It is fine to say you are going to make the investment, but what you need to know is when will that investment start paying dividends for the people of the Province? Then factoring into all of that, we will need to include the lost opportunities that we had for borrowing that money or where we could have used it in other places.

Even though it is complicated in some ways, it is a discussion that we will have to have in terms of the financing of the Province, how we spend our money. For us, as an Opposition, it is not about doom and gloom; it is about an opportunity that certainly has not – we do not know if it will ever come again. We do know that we are facing non-renewable resource money; even though we do know that we are good to 2041, in terms of the oil, we also know that it is very important that we invest the money at this point and do it right, so that the return on investment, indeed, we can use the dividends to further develop our Province into an economy that can actually work for all of us.

So, Mr. Speaker, my time, my twenty minutes is just about up. I will finish up by saying in particular, where I started on the West Coast, we are concerned about the sensitivity out there and we will continue to ask the questions when they are appropriate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak to the debate that is taking place as a result of the report of the resource sector committee. I was happy to be the appointed person on the committee from our party. While we did share the responsibility for attending Estimates sessions, because of different members having critic areas within this sector, I did meet with all the members of our party and have the notes of all the members of our party who sat in on some of the Estimates meetings. I sat in on two, myself, in this sector.

It is an interesting sector, because when you look at some of the things that are in this sector, they make sense to fit under resource: Environment and Conservation, for example; Fisheries and Aquaculture; Innovation, Business and Rural Development; Natural Resources; Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Also in this sector now is the Advanced Education and Skills Department, a new department that was formed this year. I guess it is there from the perspective of human resource, because there is nothing to say that the Resource Sector is relating only to the natural resource sector; for example, Tourism, Culture and Recreation is not the natural resource sector. So, I guess in the very broad sense of resource, it is understandable when you look at the departments who come under that sector. I did sit in on the Estimates for two of them.

As I, today, in particular, was going through the reports from each of the Estimates meetings, the reports that we kept as a party, as I was reading the notes from our caucus from those who attended the meeting, and as I spoke with the people who attended the various Estimates meetings, there seemed to be a common theme that was running through our experience as a body, our experience as a caucus. That theme is rather discouraging; the theme that we saw in this sector – especially when it comes to the development of the natural resources, when it comes to the Environment and Conservation, when it comes to Tourism, Culture and Recreation, even when it comes to the human resource – it is like this government has forgotten in this area to keep people at the heart of their decision making.

What we find when I look at the natural resources sector, for example, and I see the huge developments that are there – the developments in oil, the developments in mining – what I see is a government that is ‘corporatizing' the development of our natural resources. It is very easy as a government – when it comes to the huge developments that happen around mining, and oil and gas for example – to enter into relationships with the large corporations that run these enterprises to benefit from them economically. There is no doubt that we have benefited from them economically, especially from the oil and gas, through equity investments, for example, in Hibernia, and gaining money there.

When it comes to the actual development, government does not have to be creative. It does not have to come up with visionary ideas, because they have passed our natural resources over to these huge corporations. It is the corporations that make the decisions.

I look at the fishery and I see the same thing, that we are seeing corporations that are making the decisions around our fishery, not our government. We have a government that is allowing the corporate sector and the corporate demands to shape our fishery.

It was very interesting, for example, to hear the Minister of Natural Resources talking about the role of China when it comes to our natural resources. I find it very discouraging, because when I look at the role of China, for example, when it the natural resource of our fishery, China does not want a secondary – a processed fish from us. China just wants a raw product. We have corporations that are co-operating with that demand from China.

It is the same way when it comes to our mining. I am very discouraged to hear that, with regard to the ore in Labrador, where China is in communication with one of the companies up there. China does not want the pellets, China wants the raw ore, and this government is sitting back and saying: Well, that is fine; if that is the direction in which things are going, we accept that – instead of challenging, instead of saying: No, that is not the way we want it; we have to have secondary processing here, we cannot be putting out our raw product. When I look at that, I say: What is this government's commitment, then, to the people who have been working in those areas? What is their commitment to the fishing people? What is their commitment to the people who have been working in the mining industry? What is their commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Their commitment is to the corporations, Mr. Speaker.

When I look at the various areas that are here, that is what I see over and over again. I look at Advanced Education and Skills and I think of what is happening to our people in the fishing industry with plants closing, people who started working in plants when they only had Grade 7 or 8 and who did not develop good literary skills, people who are at an age where retraining is very difficult; where is this government with regard to saying: Let us really look at the basis of their being able to move into some other area. One of the things that would be required would be developing literacy skills, but does this government have a vision with regard to developing literacy skills for people, for example, who have been working in the fishing industry for the last twenty-five years, since they were sixteen years old? No, that is not their vision.

What is really bothering me is the way in which they are just letting things happen, Mr. Speaker. Whether we are talking about the federal cuts – which I know they have no control over, I am well aware of it, but those federal cuts are affecting the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. When I hear them responding the way they are responding to our questions with regard to the federal cuts – the cuts to ACOA, the cuts to EI, the cuts to the RED Boards – they have this non-visionary response and this response that has nothing creative about it. That is what came out in all of the meetings. They could not give creative answers. They could not come up with concrete answers. They have put all their marbles in the same basket. It is big development; the answer for the future is Muskrat Falls. What happens to rural Newfoundland and Labrador if all of our apples are put in that basket of Muskrat Falls? What is going to happen?

If we do not look at our industries, if we do not look at agriculture, if we do not look at the fishery, if we do not even look at tourism, culture and recreation and see it as something that has a long life, that there are people at the bottom of it and be visionary in plans that we make, then it is very discouraging. When we look at rural development, for example, rural development is community economic development. This government does not seem to understand community economic development. Yes, it looks like it is small. You look at it, no, you do not see billions of dollars, but what you do see in community economic development are vibrant communities, are people employed and people who are bringing a big contribution to the economy of any area where community economic development is created.

We have a government that they used the term diversification of the economy, and I heard it in the Estimates meeting but I do not see it. They talk, but they do not act. We heard for example, in the fisheries, they spoke in the fisheries about the marketing that they had stakeholders come together several times over the past several months; they want to create a seafood marketing council. We have been hearing that for a couple of years. That was the one thing in the MOU two years ago that they actually said they agreed with and we still have no action.

This is what the thing that bothers me is: the continued promises by this government but no action, promises with regard to early childhood and education, promises with regard to tourism and culture. They say they understand tourism and culture. They say they understand the importance of our own traditional culture here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Then what do they do? They do something absolutely stupid in this Budget, like cutting the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council by $33,000. In the name of goodness, I mean what did they want the $33,000 for? That $33,000 means an awful lot to actors and to theatre groups who are trying to build up the community economy – the economy at the base. You take the changes to Employment Insurance. No, they cannot undo the changes to Employment Insurance, but what are they going to do in order to help make up for the changes? What are they going to do for artists?

I do not know – I presume they listen to the radio and I presume they read the paper. They must be hearing the same thing I am hearing from artists who are saying they do not know what is going to happen. Artists who work, and work, and work can go a period of time when through no fault of their own they just cannot get any work. Guess what? EI is what has been there to help them. What are they going to do when those artists are seen as repeat "offenders"? Because that is how they are viewed by the federal government, as offenders. What are they going to do for these artists who are seen as repeat offenders? It is the same way with the fish plant workers who are seen as repeat offenders. These people are not offenders, but that is how they are being seen by the federal government. What is this government going to do to replace what is happening? Not to do EI, I know they cannot do that, but to make up for what is happening.

What we are seeing is people are being left out of the picture, Mr. Speaker. People are being left out of the picture in every one of these areas. For example in Fisheries and Aquaculture –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

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

We see a disproportionate amount of money going into the development of aquaculture than is going into our traditional fishery when it comes to both the number of people who work in aquaculture as compared to those in the traditional fishery. As we compare the amount of money that comes from aquaculture as compared to the traditional fishery, we know that a disproportionate amount of money is going into that industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

A big, disproportionate amount of money going into that industry, as compared to the traditional fishery I say, Mr. Speaker. What is that saying? That to me is another sign of the corporatization of the development of our natural resources that the majority of people, the people who are working, the people in the communities do not count.

I get very discouraged when I hear them talk about, as the Minister of Natural Resources did, a glass half full or half empty. I thought we would stop hearing that crazy example here in this House. When we are talking about the lives of the people in our Province, when we are talking about that, we are not playing games and it is not one of the stupid pop psychology things which the glass half empty and half full is all about. We are talking about what are the impacts. Yes, there are people who are benefiting from the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is not the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. I am going to use an expression that I hope I can use, because it is a Newfoundland expression. It is a Newfoundland expression that –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has recognized the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi who is making some comments in respect to the Concurrence debate. I would ask members if they would respect her time allocation.

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

For people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador right now, those who are affected by all of these cuts that I am talking about, those who are being forgotten by the decisions around the fishery, by the inaction of this government, those who are in the whole area of agriculture who are really trying to develop our agricultural industry but get small amounts of money from this government; in all of the areas that we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker, for them, they do not feel like this is a wonderful, prosperous economy that is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said, I am going to use the expression that is a Newfoundland expression, when they say the arse is out of her, that the bottom of the boat is gone; that is what it means, and that is how they feel. They feel like there is nothing left for them, that this government does not want rural Newfoundland and Labrador alive.

Unfortunately, they are patterning what is happening on the federal level with the Conservatives in Ottawa, because obviously, they do not believe in rural Canada. So, a combination of a federal government that does not believe in rural Canada, and our own government who seems to be just letting things just die in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker – no wonder the people are feeling the way they are.

This government can say whatever it wants about the glass half full or half empty. I am listening to the people in the Province. The people in the Province are the ones who are saying that they are not benefiting. Yes, if you live in St. John's, yes, if you have a good job, yes, if you have a well-paying job, you are feeling all right, but not if you are dealing with these EI cuts, not if you are dealing with the cuts that ACOA has made, not if you are dealing with all these various areas that I am talking about, Mr. Speaker.

This government, unless they hear you are saying what they want you to hear, they do not pay attention. So, when it comes to Muskrat Falls, for example, Mr. Speaker, anybody who asks a question or anybody who has an analysis based on facts that are different from theirs does not count. It does not matter who it is; whether it is individual experts, whether it is groups, it does not matter. They undermine what is being said if it is not what they want said.

So, Mr. Speaker, when I know that they are just passing things over to corporations to develop our natural resources, when they are passing things over to companies who are running aquaculture rather than our natural fishery, when I see that they only want people who say what they want to hear –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – then, Mr. Speaker, I get worried. When I look, for example, at what happened with regard to the joint review panel who studied Voisey's Bay – yes, I was on that one; I mean who studied Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker – and the reaction of this government to the report from that joint review panel, I really get concerned. That panel concluded that Nalcor had not demonstrated the justification of the Muskrat Falls project as a whole in energy and economic terms, and that there are outstanding questions related both to Muskrat Falls and Gull Island and their ability to deliver the projected long-term financial benefits to the Province and to the people of the Province, even if other sanctioning requirements were met. This government refuses to accept that determination by that panel. It refused to accept the determination by our own Public Utilities Board. They only want to hear what is going to confirm them. If you do not say what confirms them, then all of a sudden you are an enemy and you are seeing a glass half empty and not half full.

Well, the people, Mr. Speaker, who cannot heat their homes and who would like to be able to do a retrofit to be able to heat their homes better; the people who cannot afford housing up in Labrador, who hope they can get a job up there, but when they go up, cannot stay because they cannot get housing – and we have examples of that in my office, where people had to come back because they could not stay, because they could not get housing; the people, Mr. Speaker, who are in the fishing industry who had jobs and plants and now have no idea where they are going to go; the people who are retraining in their forties and fifties and who only have maybe Grade 6 literacy skills, Mr. Speaker; actors, all those involved in our cultural industry, who now do not know what is going to happen when they do not have jobs – people, Mr. Speaker, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who are scared of what is happening in this country of ours.

They are the people that this government should be committed to, Mr. Speaker. That is what they have to do. That is their job, that is our job, that is all of our jobs: to show people that we can come up with ideas, that we can sit down, that we can find ways to make this work. There are all kinds of examples of how people can deal with the kinds of challenges. This government said – I heard the Minister of Fisheries say it and I heard the Minister Natural Resources say it – we have challenges, but they have no idea how to deal with the challenges; they will not sit down with people to find the way to deal with the challenges, because they have put everything in the basket of oil, they put everything in the basket of Muskrat Falls and mining, and they do not care for what is going to happen to the rest of the fabric of this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, to say that I am disappointed in this Budget from that perspective is really an understatement. Obviously, I cannot support this Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I will not be able to support this Budget -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - and I am glad that I had the opportunity to have this final statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of speaking tonight, but after another belly flop of a speech in this House of Assembly, I have to take the opportunity to say a few words.

I will tell you what we heard here tonight, and I listened to it carefully; I do not know if every member listened to the hon. member's words here tonight, but we got a lesson in communism. That is what we are talking about here: moving to a communistic state. We are talking about throwing all of the corporations out of Newfoundland and Labrador; we are talking about no corporations to develop our oil fields; we are talking about no corporations in our agriculture; we are talking about no corporations to fuel our fishery and grow the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador that pays for the social programs. That is what I say to the hon. member.

I tell you what we will have to do in this House of Assembly before this session is over, and that is give the Third Party a lesson in what is called a budget, a balanced budget, Mr. Speaker. You cannot give everything to everybody all at once; you have to have an economy to grow your Consolidated Revenue Fund in order to deal with the programs and the socialistic, idealistic ideas that you have, I say to the hon. member.

You get up there and you talk about the federal cuts, you talk about EI, you talk about the community-based economy and all that kind of good stuff, but you have no answers. You never did have any. As a matter of fact, what I will say to the hon. member: maybe you will get into rural Newfoundland and Labrador this summer if you would take part in the pup tent tour that I heard is happening all around Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I am waiting for the event list and I am waiting for the t-shirts to go along with it, Mr. Speaker. I cannot wait to see that happen in Newfoundland and Labrador, to see them get out there and really understand what rural Newfoundland and Labrador is about and how we have invested in rural Newfoundland and Labrador in the Harbour Bretons of the world, I say to the hon. member. If she ever makes it down on the Connaigre Peninsula, have a look around and see the economy, see the people at work, and see a growing industry called the aquaculture industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will tell you something, Mr. Speaker, we only have approximately three more years left and you will see one of the biggest bell flops that happened in democracy this century be undone again because, I will tell you right now, there will be no Third Party anymore if they keep talking about all the things they are talking about. That is what I will tell you. I will give you a lesson in that. That is actually a warning, if you want to change your idealistic ways.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member to direct his comments to the Speaker.

MR. O'BRIEN: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I know you are intent on every word I am saying, Mr. Speaker.

Listen, I heard the hon. member saying, I was listening intently to the hon. member's words; she spoke, and she did not know whether what she was saying was allowed in the House and if it was a parliamentary term that she should be using, Mr. Speaker. In the words that she said, she said that it was a term that she has heard in Newfoundland and Labrador many, many times, and that was: the arse is out of her.

I will tell you something: if you ever took government, God forbid, the arse would be out of her, I can tell you that right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: She talks about it as if there is no deficit, there is no responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with regard to the way we spend our money and the way government spends their money; no connect whatsoever with regard to the real world that we live in. You cannot provide those services without a growing economy.

That is not what really is (inaudible) in a Budget; that is not what is really important. What is important is the fiscal responsibility that is shown in making the decisions of spending that money. That is exactly where a responsible government comes in. That is what we have shown since 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: More importantly, Mr. Speaker, that is what we have shown since our present Premier, Kathy Dunderdale, took over the reins of this Party. We have shown fiscal responsibility with making those decisions. That is what is shown in this Budget, Mr. Speaker. We came down with a Budget, and yes, absolutely, there was less spending than in previous years because we had surpluses and whatever.

What was recognized the most with regard to this Budget was the way we fiscally responded to the economy and to the needs and wants of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador without driving ourselves down into a deficit, which we found ourselves in, in 2003. That is exactly what happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: That is exactly what happened. You know, I listened to the hon. member, and she talked about the large corporations and the passing of our natural resources to the large corporations. I said in the beginning of my speech here tonight that we had a lesson in communism. She has no idea whatsoever what it is to have an economy, to have people at work, employed by corporations, making money, paying for mortgages, bringing up their children, sending them to universities and colleges, and carrying on the tradition of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working and having a working community – no way in this earth.

All we hear over there, which I always refer to as the belly flop of belly flops, is that they always talk about the doom and gloom. I go back to it again, Mr. Speaker: the arse is out of her. I did not think I was able to say that in the House before this point in time, but I may use it more often now as a parliamentary term that we can use in this House of Assembly, I say to the hon. member.

Then you have the Leader of the Third Party talking about plant closures, and then they have one of their colleagues talking about the mothballing and not mothballing and all that kind of stuff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tear them down.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, tear them down, and mothballing them, and deal with the environmental issues, and that kind of stuff. You are talking out of two sides of your mouth; you do not even have one colleague talking about the same thing as the other colleague.

We have seen the biggest ‘blurp' and boo-boo in the House of Assembly of House of Assemblies in Canada last week when we got prior notice of all of the questions in the House of Assembly, and then they asked all of the questions that they let out of the bag when they came in here. They did not have the resources to come up with a new set of questions. That is why I refer to the Third Party as the belly flop of belly flops of democracy, and that is what I say.

She talked about: does this government have a vision. We have carried on a vision that started way back beyond 2003 in regard to this party and the way we built this party. I have heard other members in this House of Assembly also refer that we do not make decisions for the sake of decisions that will get us politically elected again. We make the hard decisions; we have and we have shown that time and time again over the last number of years, especially in this Budget. We have made hard decisions that we clearly understood; we had to make those hard decisions to get us to a better place, a place where Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would be better off.

She talks about Muskrat Falls, that we put all of our eggs in one basket; we put all of our eggs into the oil; we put all of our eggs into Muskrat Falls; we put all of our eggs into agriculture; we put all of our eggs into forestry; we put all of our eggs into this, that, these, and those. Well, that is what is called a balanced Budget. That is what is called investing in the economy. That is what is called investing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, because that is where most of that is, I say to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: That is exactly what you said. I was listening to you clearly.

Then she talked about tourism; she talked about tourism and she said, I think she particularly said – not verbatim, I do not have Hansard to go off of – they think they know or they understand tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador. We think we know. Okay, our tourist ads are being hailed not only in Canada, but North America, and worldwide.

Why are people coming to Newfoundland and Labrador? Why are they coming, because it is a great place to visit, it is a great place to be and experience the culture, and also, it is because of those tourist ads. That is only picking one thing with regard to the great work that tourism does, but what did she zero in on? She zeroes in on the $30,000 cut to artists' budget in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is all she did, $30,000. She said, what is $30,000, just $30,000? Well, $30,000 is a lot of money when you are talking about cuts to health care, you are talking cuts to Child, Youth and Family Services, you are talking cuts to Advanced Education. That is what you are talking about, $30,000; in a Cabinet, in a process of Budget, we scramble for every $30,000 we get.

Then I hear your colleague, the hon. member, my critic, talking about Municipal Affairs; he is talking about the new fiscal arrangement, and he is talking about the MOG formula and whatnot. Well, that all takes money; that all takes money. That is what that takes. Each and every time that we are up there, we are scrambling for every red cent we can get into our own departments.

I suppose the only stabilizing factor up there in regard to that Budget process is two, really: the Premier and the Minister of Finance, because we as ministers want to get as much money as we possibly can for our departments to provide the programs that we have in the hopper to provide to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is just not done in a realistic world. It is not done in a realistic world. That is not the way it works. We have to have a government that is fiscally responsible and in tune to the wants and needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we have to have.

When the hon. member talks about the plant closures and all that kind of good stuff, and the agricultural industry, and the fishery side not taking up for the traditional fishery, and all that kind of gear, I wonder, and I shudder to think that there are people out there who are listening who clearly might not – I do not know how to say this, in a way, and I have been careful with my words – actually understand that in government wise, there is a responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a responsibility to make all of the people – and I say to the hon. member, when this government took government, it represented everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador: man, woman, and child.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: We even represent the NDP.

I tell you something, I am getting down below my 50 per cent time to speak and I have to get a few points in, because there are certain things that really disturb me. When I sit back, when I am out of this House of Assembly, and I start to think about Newfoundland and Labrador, the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Newfoundland and Labrador that I believe each and every one of these members in this House of Assembly dearly loves, dearly loves this Island of Newfoundland and the mainland of Labrador. It means so, so much to us; the way we have clawed our way from a have-not Province to a have Province. We clawed our way. We absolutely clawed our way against every challenge that was out there in regard to the global economy, the downturn in the economy; here we sit in one of the most prosperous Provinces, in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: The Third Party always give the impression that they are going to form a government, God forbid. They are going to form a government and they are going to be all things to all people; everybody is going to be the same, everybody is going to be absolutely the same.

AN HON. MEMBER: Communism.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, and you are right. I do not even know if that is communism; it could be some form of capitalism, I do not know, but that is not a realistic world. That is absolutely not a realistic world. When it comes down to people of poverty, this government has been more responsive to people in poverty than any past government in Newfoundland and Labrador, and any government in Canada, I say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I shudder to think what will happen in Newfoundland and Labrador, I really do, if something like the glitch that happened in regard to the 2011 election – they thought they were going to form the Official Opposition, God forbid that they would, and God bless us that they did not. I sit over here and I think about if I had to watch when reality hit, that you had to deal with a Budget, you had to deal with departments, the wants, needs, and challenges of departments in regard to providing the service that particular departments would provide to the people, or the municipalities in my case, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. What would happen to the Third Party when all that hit?

AN HON. MEMBER: Frenzy.

MR. O'BRIEN: Frenzy, absolutely, and that is exactly what would happen. I think what it would be, it would be actually scary to watch that process. I will tell you something, I will tell you what would be even scarier to watch; it would be scary to see the life go out of Newfoundland and Labrador, the life, the pride that was created over the last eight or nine years of this government investing in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are investing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I shudder to think to see the lights go out in the eyes and the pride go out of the eyes of the people of this Province. This government has invested in all aspects, all regions, all areas of Newfoundland and Labrador to make sure that light will never go out and I shudder to think that it will ever go out, I guarantee you that.

Rural Newfoundland – let's take rural Newfoundland, down in CONA college, I believe, down in Lord's -

AN HON. MEMBER: Lord's Cove.

MR. O'BRIEN: Lord's Cove, $175,000 investment, Friday past. I think there was over $700,000 invested over the last several months. Now, does anybody here know where Lord's Cove is? Is Lord's Cove down by Ches's Fish and Chips? I do not think so. Is Lord's Cove down in the Gut? No, it is not. Lord's Cove is in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, where we invest heavily –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: – where we invest in the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. What is the hon. member saying, one job? That is what you think about; you do not think about what it is going to provide the people, and the opportunity that it is going to provide to the people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. O'BRIEN: Is that what you are missing? That is exactly what you are missing, I say to the hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members opposite, each other, as they are speaking on the floor of the House, they engage in conversation and they are really supposed to be directing their comments to the Chair. The intent would be, obviously, to Mr. Speaker, the view to address the Chair as you address your comments, rather than to members on the opposite side of the House.

MR. O'BRIEN: I will keep my comments to you, Mr. Speaker, because I know you understand what I am saying, because you represent some of the rural communities that I talk about yourself, Mr. Speaker, and you understand what makes rural Newfoundland and Labrador tick. You understand, Mr. Speaker, that rural Newfoundland is a different place today than it was in 2003, that the people in rural Newfoundland have the same pride as the people of downtown St. John's, have the same pride as the people in Gander, have the same pride as the people in Clarenville, have the same pride as the people in Grand Falls-Windsor, have the same pride as the people in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: That is exactly what it is in all of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I talk to them on a daily basis, being the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I see it. Yes, absolutely, they have challenges; yes, they might. I am telling you right now they feel comfortable and they feel confident that this government will try their living best to face those challenges head-on with them, side by side, in a partnership for all of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is exactly what happens in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: We do not turn our backs on rural Newfoundland.

They get up and they spend their twenty minutes and all they talk about is doom and gloom – doom and gloom, that is it. You have the doom and gloom society, I believe, that is over there. As a matter of fact, I nearly go so far as to say that they get together every single night and they make sure that they cannot go to sleep happy, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: They get together around about 8:00 o'clock, or 10:00 o'clock, or 9:00 o'clock, whenever this House of Assembly recesses. They get together and they talk with each other because they are frightened to death that one of them might wake up happy in the morning, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: When they get on a plane and they fly out of here, wherever they are going, maybe Toronto, maybe Montreal, maybe wherever they might be going, it frightens the life out of them that they might get in a taxi, they might meet somebody and say: you are from Newfoundland and Labrador? My God, there is something happening down in that Province. I wish we had a government, I wish we had a province just like yours. How often we have heard that, how often we have seen that, how often we have been in taxis in Toronto.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: I recognize the hon. Member for Bay of Islands, because he understands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: He is not part of the Third Party, he is not part of the fourth party, he is a part of the Official Opposition, I say to the hon. members. He understands a good government and he recognizes a good government, and he gives credit where credit is due. As a matter of fact, I have heard just about every single member over there give credit where credit is due. Well, when I am telling you –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member his time is up.

MR. O'BRIEN: When the doom and gloom sisters get up –

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the member his time is up.

Does the member have leave?

MR. O'BRIEN: I will just finish here now, Mr. Speaker, and all I say –

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. O'BRIEN: All I say, Mr. Speaker, is when you see the doom and gloom society up there, you will never hear any credit coming from that part of society.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the report of the Resource Committee be concurred in.

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.

On motion, report received and adopted.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, it being 10:40 o'clock in the evening, I do move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that this House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this 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 stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.

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