April 6, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 11


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Statements by Members

This afternoon under Statements by Members, we will be having statements by the Member for Grand Bank, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, the Member for Burin-Placentia West, the Member for Port de Grave, and the Member for Bonavista South.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Byron Monster of Fortune. Byron beat the best in Canada in the 100 kilogram Master II category in the Canadian Powerlifting and Bench Press Championships held in Kitchener, Ontario March 18-21.

Byron's squat of 557 pounds set a new Canadian record. He also received a gold medal in powerlifting with his 557 pound squat, 319.5 pound bench press and 562 pound dead lift for a total weight of 1,438.5 pounds. He also received a gold medal for his 303 pound squat in the separate Bench Press Championships. This was Byron's seventh national championship.

Another athlete from Newfoundland and Labrador, George Power from Stephenville, placed in the powerlifting event.

The men's team from Newfoundland and Labrador had one of its best showings ever, placing second overall to the host Province of Ontario. Records were also set by Tom Kean and Steve Wiseman of St. John's and Don Cormier of Stephenville.

Tom Kean and Steve Wiseman also won gold medals, as did Mark Holloway, Paul MacDonald and Ryan Rowsell of Newfoundland and Labrador. Bronze medals went to Don Cormier and Jamie Emberley. Jamie is formerly of Marystown and lives in Ontario but still lifts for Newfoundland and Labrador.

All of those lifters have qualified for the 2005 Nationals which will be held Calgary next April.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending congratulations to these fine athletes from Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to extend congratulations to the participants and organizers of the 2004 Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Finals of the Great Canadian Geography Challenge, an annual student geography competition, a competition which took place on April 3 at All Hallows Parish Hall in North River and was attended by seventeen junior high students from across Newfoundland and Labrador.

The contestants, Mr. Speaker, earned the right to participate through classroom competitions designed to generate an interest in geography in a fun and interactive fashion. The top two winners of the challenge will represent the Province in a national final in May via the Internet.

Top honours were captured in first place by Christina Price of MacDonald Drive Junior High School in St. John's. Second place went to Oliver Winstanley of Holy Trinity Elementary in Torbay, and third place to Jordan Doyle of Roncalli Central High School, Avondale. The provincial co-ordinator, Mr. Peter Laracy, certainly was delighted with the level of participation and commented that the development of geographic literacy is essential in a world where modern technology provides students -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HEDDERSON: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: The challenge is made possible through corporate and local sponsorship, including the Royal Canadian Geographical Society, HSBC Bank of Canada, Bell Canada, Imperial Oil Foundation, the Atlas of Canada and the Geometrics Institute at Fleming.

I certainly would congratulate the organizers for a great competition, and in particular I would like to extend thanks and appreciation to Mr. Denis Mulloy of Steele Communications, who acted as quiz master for this competition for the last ten years. Certainly, good luck is extended to the top finishers, Christina and Oliver, in the national completion and I am sure that all members of this House will join with me in congratulating all competitors, the sponsors and organizers for a job well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate yet another phenomenal young person from the District of Cartwright- L'anse au Clair. Seventeen year old Megan Pike, of West St. Modeste, recently received a $50,000 TD Canada Trust Scholarship for outstanding community leadership. This scholarship is awarded annually to twenty students across Canada, two of whom are from Atlantic Canada. Megan met the TD Canada Trust criteria by making a meaningful and lasting difference in her home community. Ms Pike and a group of students recognized the need in their community for young people. She then started the idea of a youth centre and was the original organizer and key fundraiser for the project. She and her friends started writing letters to businesses and organizations in the area and were successful beyond their own expectations.

TD Canada Trust has recognized her efforts. This scholarship will pay $5,000 for her tuition for four years, and allow for $3,500 a year for living expenses. In the summer between semesters, they have also given her an opportunity to work for TD Canada Trust.

Megan now chairs the committee which operates the youth centre that she founded in West St. Modeste and plans to pursue studies at Memorial University this fall.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you.

I would like to conclude by asking all Members of the Assembly to join me in congratulating Megan for her accomplishments and making us proud in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to announce that today, the White Rose FPSO will arrive in Marystown. The 267 metre Sea Rose which is completing its 14,000 nautical mile journey from South Korea, is the largest vessel ever to tie up in Marystown. The Sea Rose will spend the next year and a half at the Kiewit Offshore Services Fabrication Facility in Marystown where work will be done to install and commission the topside units for the offshore oil platform.

This project has given the local economy a major boost. Not only has it brought benefits to the Marystown area; indeed residents of the entire Burin Peninsula and the Province will reap the benefits of this work.

We have a capable workforce in this Province, who have proven themselves on previous projects. At the completion of this White Rose Project we will once again showcase for the world the potential of this Province's workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members to join me in congratulating those who have worked diligently and cooperatively to bring this project to the area and the Province, and I wish all involved the successful conclusion to the topside work.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to the Ascension Collegiate Astros Girls' hockey team who took first place in the Confederation Cup. The girl's team topped off a very successful tournament with a 4 to 2 victory in the championship game held on February 8, at Mile One Stadium. The Confederation Cup, now in its sixth year, brings in high school hockey teams from across the Province, as well as the Atlantic region.

The Ascension Collegiate girls performed spectacularly with a record of six wins and one loss.

Recently, Mr. Speaker, this same team made history in Newfoundland and Labrador by winning the Women's High School Hockey 4-A Championships. This was the first ever in this Province.

The Ascension Collegiate Astros boys team did well also, advancing to the finals with a great deal of skill and talent, but losing to Gonzaga in a 4 to 3 victory in overtime. I want to congratulate Gonzaga.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to extend its congratulations to the Province's new Confederation Cup Girls Champions, and the Province's first Women's 4-A champions, the Ascension Collegiate Astros.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Daniel Lodge, a native of Bonavista, on being selected as Memorial University's Amazing Student of the Week. This is quite an achievement considering that over 16,000 students attend the university.

Mr. Speaker, Daniel is a second year medical student who maintains an 88 per cent average. Perhaps more remarkable, is that he already holds a degree in engineering.

Daniel's accomplishments are not limited to the world of academia, however. He is also a very active member of the community and has extensive volunteer experience both within the university and with outside agencies. And, Mr. Speaker, somewhere in there, Daniel found the time to co-found and become president of a very successful company.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that with his intelligence, dedication and commitment to the community, this young man is well-equipped for a very bright future and I ask all member of this Legislature to join me today in congratulating Daniel Lodge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Government House Leader. Would the Government House Leader like to try to explain to the people of the Province why the government wasted thousands of dollars for a totally unnecessary session of this Legislature last night when the Premier, who is the one-man show, has actually said that we will lead by example and this government will only spend money that is absolutely essential? Would the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, like to explain to all the people of the Province why there was a totally unnecessary expenditure last night or was it just because the one-man show ordered him to have a session to try and bully the Opposition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First of all, there was no waste of money. The House operates both in day and night sittings. I recall on many occasions, when the Leader of the Opposition was Premier, that we were here for many nights. I also recall one sitting lasting forty-six hours straight.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that government has an agenda both legislative and otherwise. The Opposition House Leader has been informed, as well as the NDP, that over the Easter period all of the legislation will be given to them. We have a certain body of work that needs to be done. We will to do it. It does not cost any more to do it from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. as it does from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The fact of the matter is this, never before have I seen an Opposition squiggle so much about sitting and doing some work in the nighttime. We have a body of work to do. We intend to do it and we will not be deterred from doing it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader knows the exact opposite of what he just said is true. Last evening, particularly in a strike, where there had to be management people brought in here to act as security for no reason at huge overtime bills. The estimate provided to us was that it could be up to $30,000 last night to run a session for which there was no urgency whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, and you would know that we sat last week in the evenings because there was urgency to get certain bills passed by March 31, which we cooperated in and did.

The question is this: Can the Government House Leader confirm that the one-man show, who is in Gander today, ordered him to close the Legislature tomorrow for the Easter break whether there is an agreement with 20,000 striking public servants or not? Is that the instruction that will be followed tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. in this Legislature?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Here, here!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, again, I guess, for the Leader of the Opposition, this question is more about theatrics. Just five minutes before Question Period started, I informed the Opposition House Leader that no decision had been taken about the Easter break, that we would be making that decision tomorrow morning, that we would be communicating it to the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, it should be noted, also, what I informed the Opposition House Leader was that no decision had been taken on the amount of time. Would it be to the rules of the parliamentary calendar in two weeks? No decision has been taken.

My answer to the Leader of the Opposition is this: Ask your House Leader before you stand up and ask a question and swallow yourself whole in front of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure if the one-man show were here instead of in Gander, Mr. Speaker, that we would get the answer about closing tomorrow much more straightforwardly than we just did.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The excuse that we hear repeatedly coming from all the members opposite, when they are permitted to speak, is that we have no choice in doing what we are doing now, we have inherited a mess created by someone else, we are drowning in debt we are on the verge of bankruptcy.

How does the Minister of Finance square those statements, Mr. Speaker, with the representative of the bond rating agency, Moody's, yesterday, when asked a question in Newfoundland and Labrador:

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Is this Province on the verge of bankruptcy? How does the Finance Minister answer when the Moody's representative said: We don't give A credit ratings to provinces that are on the verge of bankruptcy? How does he answer that question, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a different tune from what the very Leader of the Opposition said some while ago. I believe he used the same words; what a desperate financial situation we are in.

Credit ratings are given on the basis of a government's fiscal plan to deal with our problem. They are not taken at a snapshot in one specific time. What we are going to do: We presented a fiscally responsible and prudent budget that is going to get us back on the road to recovery, and I have every confidence that we stayed a course that bond rating agencies will not only, in the long term, maintain our rating but improve it; if we stayed a responsible course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I take it that the fearmongering that we are almost bankrupt we won't hear anymore from this Finance Minister. We won't hear that excuse again, as I just understood the answer.

Mr. Speaker, I would like for the Finance Minister to answer this question about a Budget he presented a week ago today. We have heard: We will take a new approach, we will lead by example, we will only spend what is absolutely essential. Can the Finance Minister, in that context, explain why on page fourteen of the Estimates there is an amount budgeted for $20,000 for a housing allowance for the one-man show, the Premier, who is supposed to be doing this job for nothing? Can he answer that question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier's salary has always been listed, as he knows. So are any basic allowances listed. So is the allowance that this government brought in when he sat in this government and brought in that allowance. He used it when he sat in this government. The Premier of the Province has foregone his salary, on behalf of the people of this Province. He does not -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister has the floor. Question Period is very short, so we should let him complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We saw the former Premier of this Province stand in this House and talk about a housing allowance that was brought in by that government, when they were there. It is there, whether the Premier uses it or he does not. You will have to ask the Premier if he wants to use it, or whether he is not going to use it, and not ask me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I would like nothing more than to ask the Premier. If he would only ever show up in this Legislature again, I would love to ask the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, again, the words I just heard from the Finance Minister - now I expect them from the one-man show who has shown that he is a slick lawyer - l a w y e r - a slick lawyer, and he uses it constantly in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Finance Minister said the Premier has foregone his salary. If he had foregone his salary and if he was going to forego his salary this year, including this $20,000 for a housing allowance, why does it need to show up in the Budget that you presented as an expenditure that this government is going to make if nobody is going to take it? Why is in the Budget?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition knows fully well it is not a housing allowance. He knows fully well what it is there for. It was $20,000 put in, when he sat either in the Premier's Office or a minister at the time, for the Premier of the Province if he has to incur costs for entertainment or whatever while he is at home.

The Premier of this Province will determine if he wants to use any or all of that allowance. In the past it has been used. I would like him to ask me a question why my travel and communication is $20,000 less than the former minister used in this position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the Finance Minister is leading exactly where I would like to go about the kinds of issues that are here.

Mr. Speaker, again, the language was - and this is what this government and the one-man show, the slick lawyer, would like everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador to believe -

AN HON. MEMBER: The slick what? (Inaudible)

MR. GRIMES: L a w y e r. Maybe I do not pronounce the word lawyer too well. I know how to spell it - l a w y e r - slick lawyer, and I will keep saying it until the cows come home. I can tell you that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister is suggesting he foregoes the salary. Why is there an allocation written in this Budget to be paid out this year, not to be the Budget lowered by this but to be paid out, $68,252 for the Premier on top of his $70,000 salary as an MHA? Why are those members -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: - in the Budget presented by this Finance Minister for a person who wants the Province to believe he does not take any money?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will answer the question, but the Leader of the Opposition knows that there are seventy-five hours allotted outside this time to explain every single item in the Estimates and there is a provision, but I will answer it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will answer it for him, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will answer it. It is because it is an entitlement that is listed and available to the Premier to take. The Premier chooses not to take either one of these two, I understand, and donate it to a charitable cause for people to use for worthwhile purposes in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Wouldn't the Finance Minister also agree that, in fact, there is an $8,000 car allowance budgeted for the same one-man show Premier, who does not want to take any money, along with free gas, Mr. Speaker, for every time he fills up that vehicle for the year, and that is going to be paid out to the Premier of the Province because it cannot leave his Budget any other way than for him to pass it out from the Treasury and give it to the Premier? Is he trying to suggest -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Is he trying to suggest that total, which is altogether $170,000, is in the Budget and will not be spent by the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador? Or, is he going to admit that it is actually taken by the Premier and used for his own benefit in a charity that then gives him a $30,000 or $40,000 tax break on top of it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

His salary as Premier, and as a Member of this House of Assembly, he has indicated, is listed in the Estimates and he has agreed that it would be donated to a charitable purpose. It does come out of the Province and go to a charitable purpose.

As for the car allowance, I will say, Mr. Speaker, he decided not to use a government car that the former Premier used, a $50,000, LHS -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and a $50,000 Grand Cherokee for personal use. Two $50,000 vehicles were used by that man when he was Premier in this Province, at taxpayers' expense. The current Premier does not want anything to do with two $50,000 public vehicles. He will drive to work in his own vehicle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I am glad he raised that issue because the one-man show, the slick lawyer who is not here again today, has said, I will lead by example by not using the two vehicles that were in the Premier's office, have been there since the Member for Lewisporte, and the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Brian Peckford used to be there years ago. He gave the impression that there are savings to the government.

Would the Finance Minister like to tell this House where those two vehicles are now being used? Were they sold for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador, or are they still being used somewhere else in the government and pretending that there is actually some savings associated with that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will answer it in two parts. Number one, they are not being used for the personal use of the Premier; those two vehicles like was used for the former Premier when he drove no personal vehicle of his own. He drove a government vehicle, which was a Jeep Cherokee, and he drove a LHS car on government business.

The second part of that question, Mr. Speaker, I have asked since last November for a review of every single government vehicle, its lease and its use in government, and we are going to look at use of government vehicles in an efficient manner and only use what is necessary.

In the past we had been paying for vehicles, insurance -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we have been paying for vehicles in the past that were not in use and still paying insurance on them long after they were taken out of service. That was the sloppy way that government did business in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see that the Finance Minister is trying to learn some of the tactics used by the one-man show, the slick lawyer. In fact, if you will check Motor Vehicle Registration you will find out that I personally have owned a vehicle ever since I have been twenty-two years old. Check your own records. Trying to suggest that I did not own a vehicle, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member now to complete his supplementary.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, would not the Finance Minister agree that the only way for his Budget to improve by the $170,000 that goes into the hands of the Premier, the one-man show, is for us to agree to amend the Budget? Take out the $20,000, take out the $68,000, take out the $70,000, take out the $10,000 or $12,000 for car a allowance, and then the people of Newfoundland and Labrador might benefit by $170,000 -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: - which could be up to eight full-time jobs that he would not have to get rid of or sixteen part-time jobs that he could keep instead of passing the money over to the Premier, pretending he does not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to clarify that I have never said he didn't own a personal vehicle. I have said he drove a personal vehicle, a Grand Cherokee, for personal use continuously while he was Premier of this Province and had the services of an LHS car. I didn't say he didn't have other vehicles. That is what he used. When he lost the job as Premier both of these vehicles reverted back to government.

It is the Premier's prerogative to have a salary listed. If he wants to donate that to charity it is his choice. If he wants to keep it, it is his choice. He has decided to donate it to charity, and if the former Premier doesn't like that he is going to have to live with that person's entitlement and what he wants to do with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I don't mean to prolong this, but what I don't like and what the people of the Province don't like is being misled by the government to believe that there is $170,000 that is associated with the Premier's office that is not being paid out. That is what they want people to believe. We are finding out now that it is paid out, it is in the Budget, it does get spend and it could be twenty jobs instead. If the Premier really wanted to do something he could leave it with the Finance Minister.

Now, back to this last question on this issue, Mr. Speaker. There are thirteen other ministers, the Speaker himself and myself, who also receive a car allowance valued at over $10,000 a year. We are supposedly drowning in debt, we are supposedly in a circumstance where we will only spend money if absolutely essential. That is why there are 20,000 people on the streets because we have no money to meet their needs.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Wouldn't the minister agree that all of us, and I will lead by example, should amend the Budget by a total of $160,000, take out the sixteen car allowances because it is not essential and lead by example, as they said they are going to do. Will he do that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to correct the former Premier who should know that it is not $10,000, number one. It is $8,000 taxable allowance. Based on the salary it nets out -

AN HON. MEMBER: With the credit card for gas.

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't use the credit card for gas. I am not aware of it, I don't use it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Minister of Finance has the floor and he should be able to answer the question in relative silence.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They are assuming we are doing what they did. There is about a net of $3,700 after taxes for a car allowance. We cannot charge, I understand - I have never used it, never done it, never charged it - the kilometers that you would normally charge if you are getting a car allowance. If you want to eliminate that and use the regular that anybody could use, that is an option. There is an option to amend that and they know when it can be amended and they shouldn't be grandstanding. There is an opportunity to do that in the proper way.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: To give that impression, Mr. Speaker, that this side of the House is going to rip off the people like they did, he is mistaken. We are not going to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one final question. I do not want to belabour it, but one final question on a different issue and then I will gladly have other questioners.

This, unfortunately, is the second Question Period in a row in which the Premier has decided that there are more important things for him to do than to answer questions about what is happening with 20,000 people on the streets.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

He would rather ruin any chance of a settlement by going out and attacking the character of the union leaders and anybody else who dares to oppose him. Would the Finance Minister, as the chief negotiator, who I understand is trying to reach a settlement, would he speak to the one-man show, the slick lawyer, his Premier, his boss, and ask him, in the sake of trying to get a settlement, to impose a media blackout, which I will certainly gladly participate in, in helping the cause, instead of this character assassination that is only making matters worse. It has been a disaster since January 5; it is only getting worse.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Would he talk to him about having a media blackout, and getting back to some real, respectful negotiations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to know if the reason he wants a blackout now is so that it will not become public, prior to the strike on a Sunday night, the meeting that he and Mr. Puddister and Mr. Hanlon had here in this building?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now I know he is learning from the slick lawyer, one-man show. I had no meeting - and I can say it absolutely with every ounce of honesty in my body - I have not met with Mr. Puddister, I have not met with Mr. Hanlon, I have not met with Mr. Lucas. I am not involved in these negotiations. I am doing my job as the Leader of the Opposition, and their approach is to attack anyone who dares disagree with them, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask for an apology. If he is any kind of an hon. member, he will apologize for telling that lie!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member now to complete his question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

The Leader of the Opposition knows that he cannot say about another hon. member that he has told a lie. He has been pushing the envelope all day, fair enough, but he has crossed the bounds between what is parliamentary and what is not parliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to ask him to withdraw his comment, which basically said that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, where he said that he lied.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there an agreement that if we are going to discuss this point now that we can extend the Question Period the same amount of time? If that is so, then we can -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Not on this issue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible) the right to argue this point after. The Government House Leader knows full well he is doing this only to waste Question Period time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will defer the discussion and ruling until immediately after Question Period. Then we will hear from any other representations that need to be made.

Question Period continues.

We have room for one question by the Member for Port de Grave before we move on to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this session I asked the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and the Status of Women a question about the backlog of work in her department. She stood in this House and stated that this issue had been rectified. The information I have, Mr. Speaker, from reliable sources, is contrary to what the minister had said at that time. Mr. Speaker, there are not enough workers to deal with the caseload. I ask the minister: Does she stand by her statement of March 29, 2004?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment is very concerned about efficiencies in our department. We are in the process of rolling out a new computerized pay system which will help us achieve 100 per cent compliance with all of our policies at all times.

It is also my information, that I have been advised by the reliable sources within our department, that the inefficiencies, or the backlog of work, that was addressed by the hon. member has been taken care of, and I do stand by that comment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under the agreement by all parties in the House it is twenty-six minutes since Question Period began and we now go to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, but in his absence the Minister of Finance. Will this government stop working on the public to undermine the leadership of the public sector union by attacks on their integrity, their approach to leadership and, in fact, convincing people out there, Mr. Speaker, that this Premier and this government does not want to settle this strike? In fact, will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that there may be 20,000 people out on strike on some sort of expensive, cynical and hurtful diversion from this government's real agenda of cutbacks, the Budget, layoffs and all of that, and that the people out there are suffering because this government, and this Premier, does not really want an agreement and they want those people out on strike?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke with Mr. Puddister yesterday and he asked me if we could advance and move negotiations and I said yes, I am quite interested, and we would like to receive a proposal from them. He informed me that he would be convening his people today and he would be putting a proposal back to us before the end of today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know that the union wants to make a settlement, has made offers and has told this government that if they remove these divide and conquer, regressive and unacceptable concessions from the table, that a deal can be had.

The question is, Mr. Speaker, does this government want to deal or are they going to continue the same divide and conquer tactics in their negotiations with divide and conquer, regressive and unacceptable concessions or are they going to make a fair offer and settle this strike?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We thought we made a very fair offer to the unions on March 31. Obviously, in any negotiations there are differences of opinion. Even the NAPE Web site, which I looked at yesterday, shows that there are certain things even indicated there that was not in the last agreement that they want; that was not even in the last agreement. Obviously, there are things that we put to the table too, that were not in the last agreement. We want to see a settlement to this. We are sincere in getting people back to work here in our Province, our employees. We want to see it happen. We hope the resolve will be there from the unions too, and we want to get back to normal here in the operations of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have time for one quick question.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. minister, who is running her department? It seems like it is another one-line minister. Mr. Speaker, last week this minister admitted that there was a decision being made to close twenty offices in this Province while there was a $350,000 office being opened in Ottawa. She did not know which offices would be closing but she said she would advise this hon. House as soon as that decision had been made.

I ask the minister for a further update on the closure of the now anticipated thirty offices and whether or not any action has been taken to close those offices at this point in time, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment for a very quick reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, we are implementing a new computerized pay system. We will be bringing the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment out of the 1960s. We will be aiming for 100 per cent compliance. We will be using advanced communications and technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: In achieving these efficiencies in our system -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister is attempting to answer the question and it is impossible for the Chair or anyone else to hear her answer if the House does not cooperate.

The hon. the minister in about ten seconds. Go ahead.

MS BURKE: In our attempt to achieve efficiencies we will be closing some offices. As I indicated last week, once we have made the decisions they will be known publicly.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As indicated during Question Period, we had a point of order raised by the Government House Leader. Is it the wish of the House that we would discuss that matter now?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would certainly like to speak to the point of order which was raised by the Government House Leader during Question Period. We have had a repeat of this on numerous occasions in the two weeks that this House has been open, that the Government House Leader, whenever things get hot in their kitchen he tends to jump up and try to shut up the Opposition from asking their question on points of order and wasting time. We saw it here again today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when people get into a situation in this House when they utter words that are considered unparliamentary, sometimes it is quite deliberate and intentional to infuriate the other side. Sometimes it is said because somebody has been deliberately provoked, all of which must be taken into consideration by Your Honour in making a ruling. Now, here today, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition Leader feels, without question, that the Minister of Finance has made a statement here today in Question Period that he knows to be absolutely incorrect, that he knows is untrue, and you can put whatever fancy words you wish on it. You can call it a terminological inexactitude if you wish but the bottom line is, he made a statement that is not proper and he ought not to be provoking somebody by making those types of statements. It is a two-way street. If we are going to have decorum in this House, the other side has to respect the right of this side to ask questions, and when they answer their questions they should give answers instead of provocations. That is what has happened here.

If the Government House Leader thinks that he is going to pound this crowd over here into submission by standing on these points of order, I say to him right now, it ain't on. It is not going to happen so he may as well give it up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks by the Opposition House Leader and to assure him, there is no intent, from my point of view, to pound into submission as he has indicated. I am not that type of person.

The Government House Leader indicated that there was a provocation. He believes that the Leader of the Opposition, the statement made by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the Leader of the Opposition says that it is not true. The Opposition House Leader said he can call it a terminological inexactitude. He can call it whatever he wants but there is one thing he cannot call it, and that is a lie in this House. That is paramount -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I listened with the absolute courtesy to the Opposition House Leader and I would appreciate from the Member for Bellevue and the Member for Twillingate-Fogo the same opportunity.

My point is this, that there are differences of opinion in this House all the time. There is language that we can and cannot use. Whatever and however the Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition House Leader want to characterize a statement, there was one thing that they cannot say, that none of us can say without being called to order on it or called to attention, and that is the member is a liar.

MR. SPEAKER: Did I see the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi wishing to address the House?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just briefly.

We have a situation here where a member said something that was regarded on the other side - it was a factual matter. This is not a matter of opinion. Did something happen or did it not? The member said something that is discerned to be untrue and is factually untrue.

The use of the word liar is consistently held to be unparliamentary. If he called him a liar and said that he was a liar, then that would be unparliamentary. What he said was that the statement was a lie. That it was not true. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a very fine line between that. It just really means that the member opposite, who made the statement, all he says is that he thought it was true and then it is not a deliberate lie. It still can be untrue, but we cannot have a situation where you can stand up in this House and tell as many lies as you want and nobody can say that they are lies. We have to be very careful here that we do not set up a situation where the public is out there saying: You can't believe anything that they say because they can say what they like. No one can point out the wrongness of what someone is saying.

There is a distinction between someone being a liar and someone telling something that is untrue. That is a very fine distinction and Your Honour has to make it, but I think in this case if the member is prepared to stand up and say that he thought this meeting took place and now he understands it did not, then I think the matter has ended.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks by the Leader of the NDP. If we were to use that logic than every question in Question Period today and other days, or for that matter any statements in the House, would have to come under the same rule. But, the fact of the matter is - and we cannot escape this parliamentary rule that is simple, that is true, that has been true for the test of time. You cannot say in this House and infer on another member that what he said was a lie. It is not parliamentary and it should not stand in the record of the House with being either unchecked, withdrawn, or some other action taken. That is the fact of the matter, I say to the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is (inaudible) recorded in Beauchesne and all reputable and parliamentary references used in the Commonwealth of countries, that we should always show the greatest respect for the integrity of all members. That is fundamental to the operation of our parliamentary system.

In dealing with unparliamentary language the Speaker takes into account the entire circumstance, the words said, the circumstances in which they are said, the intention of the member who is speaking, the person to whom the words were addressed, degree of provocation, and most importantly of all, whether or not there was disorder caused in the House.

When we deal with words we found that a codification of words has not been found to be acceptable, so therefore we look at all of the circumstances. But, we have to always remember that we have to be very careful when using language. In this particular case, in consultation with the people at the Table, I will review the transcript immediately and I will be back to the House before the afternoon is out to render a decision on that matter.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable members, in accordance with Section 39(2) of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, I hereby table the RNC Public Complaints Commission Annual Report for the period ending March 31, 2003.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents from South Branch to Rose Blanche concerning the health care situation in that particular area, or the anticipated health care situation. This is a petition, this one in particular, which stretches from Rose Blanche to South Branch has about 300 names on it, and concerns the impending review of the health care system in that area.

There has been much speculation in the last two months based upon a request from the Minister of Health that there be cost cutting measures undertaken in Western Newfoundland. Reports apparently have been circulating - which, by the way, I have been lucky enough now and fortunate enough to be provided a copy of, notwithstanding the minister's reticence in providing it to me. Indeed, the concern is that clinics will be closed in places like Rose Blanche and Doyles. The health care facility in Port aux Basques will be - the Dr. Charles L. LeGrow Health Centre itself - downgraded to a clinic status. These are the concerns people have. They fully appreciate that there is a committee in place now, the HAY committee or the HAY group, studying the Western Health Care Boards. We are fully aware of the government's intention, of course, to review the situation on how many boards should exist and so on. They realize they have to await that.

The purpose of the petition is to make it clear to the minister that the health care situation in Southwestern Newfoundland is already cut to the bone. You cannot take from something that is already in minimal status. They want me, as their member, to make sure that the minister, who is here today, is well aware of the concerns of the people in Southwestern Newfoundland. Although you may need to make cost-cutting measures in order to keep a system effective, efficient and sustainable, there are limits to that. Dollar signs and trying to save dollars are not the only thing you have to look at. You must look at and you must have a social conscience. You have to consider that people need these services.

The people in rural Newfoundland have it tough enough as it is. They cannot travel three and four miles to access these health care services. They need the bare minimum that they already have. That is the purpose of this petition, to make the minister aware that the people of rural Newfoundland - it is not like living in CBS; it is not like living in Mount Pearl; it is not like living down the street on Water Street. They do not have the major facilities that you have. They understand they cannot have them, but they want at least the bare minimum that they need to survive in rural Newfoundland, or we will not have to worry about saving money, because four years out, when you have a balanced budget, you will have nothing to do with your money other than spend it in urban areas because there will be no rural Newfoundland, and a Rural Secretariat will not be necessary.

That is the point of the petition. I can assure the minister and government that there are at least twenty more such petitions en route. I have been requested to present them in this House and I will certainly undertake to do that on behalf of the people of Burgeo & LaPoile and the Codroy Valley, which falls within the district of the Minister of Human Resources and Labour.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise and present another petition from my district with regard to the Labrador marine services.

Mr. Speaker, I was denied leave yesterday by the Minister of Transportation and Works, but I have three minutes again today and I will certainly continue to speak to this issue everyday until we have a decision.

Mr. Speaker, the people in my district have been waiting for this government to make a decision on marine services for months right now. Last fall they had to go out and launch a full-scale protest to try and get a decision out of this government as to what the marine services would look like. Mr. Speaker, they made a commitment to the people in my district back in the fall and they told them they were going to hire a consultant, they were going to have a study prepared. They would look at whatever this consultant brought forward to them. They would make a decision and they would have the marine services in place by February, or the end of February.

Mr. Speaker, we still do not have a decision. Right now, the people of my district do not know what kind of service they will have come this summer, which is only a few, maybe six, weeks away. They do not have a reservation service. They do not have an information service. They do not have a boat. They do not have a schedule, and I think that the minister and the government are negligent in how they are dealing with this particular issue; but, Mr. Speaker, there is politics in all of this. It is not about whether there should be a ferry that operates between Cartwright and Goose Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am being -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members know that the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair has the floor of the House. She is addressing the House on an issue of concern to her district, and we ask that she be able to be heard in relative silence.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am consistently being attacked by the members on this side of the House whenever I speak to the marine service issue in my district, Mr. Speaker, because it is a political issue. It is a political issue for the minister who runs that department. On October 29, when he was running in an election, he was quoted in The Pilot in Lewisporte, saying that bringing the Coastal Labrador marine service freight and passenger service back to Lewisporte will be an important move in the direction for Central Newfoundland and Lewisporte.

After he was sworn in as the minister for that department, the minister who would solely be the one to look at the consultant's report, to take it to Cabinet and to make the decision, said this on November 12: Not only is there a big job to be done in this department for the whole Province, but there are issues that are very much alive in terms of Lewisporte. Topping that list for the minister is the Labrador marine freight and ferry service.

Mr. Speaker, this minister is trying to take a Labrador ferry, that is there for the people of Labrador, and move it to his own district in Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the Sir Robert Bond. We are not talking about a freight service for the people of Northern Labrador. The people of Northern Labrador want to have their freight boat operate out of Lewisporte to Nain, and I have no problem with that, but I have a problem when this government wants to, for political reasons, take the Labrador ferry and operate it out of the minister's home district in Lewisporte. I think this minister has not been unbiased in this process. I think that is why we have not had a decision on this service at this time. The people in my district need to have an answer. They need to know what kind of service they will have this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, all the minister does is walk into this Chamber every day that I raise this issue and shout at me from across the floor from his seat. He should be out there telling the people what decision his government is making, and how it will impact them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has now expired.

MS JONES: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Orders of the Day

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House wishes to proceed with its business. The Chair has called Orders of the Day. If members have disagreements with each other, then I would advise them to carry on their discussions outside the House because we wish to proceed with the agenda which is before the House, which is the Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Motion 1: To Move That This House Approves in General the Budgetary Policy of the Government.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am delighted to stand once more in letting the people of the Province know what is in the Budget and how it will affect the people of our Province.

I cannot begin my debate this afternoon without making mention of the extravagance that was spent here in this House of Assembly last night. I cannot begin to speak without letting the general public know that last night, for no good reason, a total unnecessary cost to the taxpayers of this Province was expended. We have approximately two months available to us, and it is longer than that if we wish, to debate issues concerning the Budget, and last night the Leader of the Opposition - excuse me, the Government House Leader; I am not used to that new terminology yet - the Government House Leader stood in his place and he asked this House to remain open beyond the normal 5:30 p.m. deadline.

Now, what did that do to taxpayers in this Province? Why was it necessary? As I said last night, Mr. Speaker, the Order Paper was absolutely blank. There was no legislation on the Order Paper whatsoever. Yet, the Government House Leader stood in his place and asked - and insisted, mind you - insisted that this House of Assembly be open, and would be open for no good reason, only so that the people of this Province would have an extra $30, 000 to pay out, when that $30,000 could be spent in a far greater manner.

Do you know what it cost to have this House of Assembly open last night? It cost extra security, the people who were outside the House of Assembly and inside on overtime per hour. It cost hundreds of dollars in meals. They had to be ordered in meals from outside caterers. We had four Hansard staff on duty here last night, recording whatever was said. Then there was a TV staff of four people, Commissioners of ten people, and a TV satellite of $5,000. You add all of that up, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that what that will be off $30,000 is very little.

We have a Government House Leader who is insisting that this House be closed tomorrow. We only opened this House a week ago. It is a week ago today since the Budget was brought down. The government of the day could have opened this House before Christmas, they could have opened it in January or February, but no, they only opened it a week ago. Here, they are wanting to close the House tomorrow when 20,000 public servants are out on strike. They are wanting to close the House. They do not care if there is any dialogue going to happen to and fro regarding the situation with strikers left out in the cold today, and government services that are not available to the people of the Province who need them the most. No, that does not matter. They are insistent. They have one agenda, and that one agenda is to close this House tomorrow come hell or high water.

Mr. Speaker, I guess that was a display, a display of arrogance of this government, and a display of - they are really speaking out of two sides of their mouth because they will get up and say that this government was left in a cash-strapped position; we are almost on the verge of bankruptcy; our deficit is much greater than it was, and here they can go out on a Monday night and insist that the House of Assembly extend its hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. I guess it is all around justification. If you can find a way to deflect from the real truth of the matter and use justification, you will mange to get anything you want, I guess, in this life; but, I can tell you, they are not going to fool all the people all of the time, because I think anyone who is viewing this session of the House of Assembly so far can see for themselves that we do not mind accommodating the government when there is urgent legislation to go through. I think we already demonstrated that co-operation when it was necessary. We passed Interim Supply; it was necessary. We wanted to make sure that everyone who depends on a cheque from government is going to be able to get that cheque. We also passed unnecessary legislation when it was just political maneuvering on the government's part, for the Student Assistance Loan Act. We did that. We cooperated, but to have the House of Assembly open here last night for three extra hours and probably upwards to $30,000 being spent. I would be the first one to say in my district alone, as MHA for Grand Falls-Buchans, many times people will come to me and they will be looking for extra home support hours; they will be looking for extra drugs; they will be looking for wheelchairs; they will be looking for glasses; they will be looking for false teeth. They will be looking for lots of things; they will be looking for a trip to St. John's to see a medical specialist. Yet, I will have to say, I tried, but there is no way that I can get you this extra money. It is not in the Budget. For the government to come out last night and unnecessarily spend this kind of money for no good reason, when I can stand here in this House any day from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., or any member in this House can do the same. We have two months to discuss the Budget.

Now I know there is a lot of bad news in that Budget, and I know full well that the government do not want me to stand in this place. They would like nothing better than to shut me up so I will not be able to tell the people of the Province how this Budget is going to affect them. I can say one thing here today, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be shut up. I have as much time as I need to tell the people of the Province what has been going on here with this Budget. I am going to use that time and let people know their rights, and I am going to exercise mine. So there is no way that I am going to be sat down ahead of time.

You talk about deflection. We witnessed deflection today when the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board accused the Leader of the Opposition of having a meeting with former union leader Tom Hanlon, current NAPE leader, Leo Puddister, and current CUPE leader, Wayne Lucas. You know, the Minister of Finance could not stand in his place and say accurately that, yes, he knew full well that meeting had been with the Leader of the Opposition because that was incorrect, but yet he left that out there. He left the impression that a meeting had taken place on Sunday night between the individuals described. He left that out there for public consumption when he knew full well that that meeting did not occur. If that is not a slick lawyer deflection, I do not know what is.

We have seen a lot of that over the past few days, and I do not think that has any place in this House of Assembly. Instead of dealing with the situation at hand, telling the truth - we are in this House where we stand up and we have to tell the truth. We must tell the truth on behalf of the people who put us here, but to leave that impression here today is a deflection tactic. It is a slick lawyer, l-a-w-y-e-r, deflection tactic that the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board has used. He knows full well the meeting did not occur, but he left that impression. He would be better serving the people of this Province if he dealt with the matter at hand, and that matter at hand is getting back to the bargaining table and striking up a deal that the public servants of this Province can live with and the people of the Province can live with, instead of bashing in the media and looking for ways to deflect from the real issue of the day. That is actually what happened here today.

I want to talk about a few things here today. You know, I was surprised last night, I was really surprised, when I was looking through The Western Star and there was an editorial there by a reporter who works for The Western Star. His name is Frank Gale. I want to talk about something that was there in that program. I think it all ties in with - the new government of the day, in their Budget, made a news release that they have $1.7 million allocated to a rural secretariat. According to the news release, the government's own words, they are saying: Economic and social development relies on a network of urban and rural communities, ensuring that these communities, especially those in rural areas, are healthy enough to be partners in growth.

What it is they are doing is that - it says: Government alone cannot ensure the vibrancy of our communities. Community and government organizations need to come together. Now, is this what coming together is going to mean? Does this mean that there are going to be two or three centres of urban growth in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and forget about the rest?

Dr. Doug House, who is Deputy Minister for the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, was the first to speak at the opening of the Bay St. George Chamber of Commerce, and that was April 3. This is what he said. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read it. His keynote address was entitled, Beyond Dependency and Entitlement. The new approach and its implications for the Bay St. George area. Now, I wonder if he had that same speaking engagement in Grand Falls-Windsor, what would he say. Why would he say this on behalf of the Minister of Innovation and Rural Development? Doesn't the minister speak for the department?

He said: There is a new era in post-Confederation Newfoundland. That is something he would have said twelve years ago, I guess, when he was here in government. He said: Which is to get beyond the dependency on Ottawa and the debilitating sense of entitlement that has been engendered in too many of our people. That is fine for him to say. He has a posh Deputy Minister job in the new Department of Innovation and Rural Development, whatever they are calling it. What about the people in rural Newfoundland who are on seasonal employment and hoping to carve out a living for them and their families? This is what he goes on to say: Too many of our people - such as having the right to employment insurance.... Now what is wrong with having the right to Employment Insurance?

If you represent a district like I do, and a lot of the seasonal work is logging, then there is farming and of course there is fishing, and there is tourism, what would be wrong with being able to collect Employment Insurance? Especially when you look at the fact that there is about a $40 billion surplus in the EI fund that workers all across the country have contributed to the federal economy, what is wrong with being able to collect Employment Insurance? Look at the fisherpeople in our Province. Shouldn't they have the right to collect Employment Insurance?

Dr. Doug House goes on to say that he does not believe in job creation monies. Well, you tell that to the people in King's Point or Springdale or Robert's Arm or Buchans or Badger or Buchans Junction. He does not believe in job creation monies? He does not believe in trying to get the people who have no prospects of employment in their own communities, where unemployment is 70 per cent and 80 per cent, he does not believe in job creation monies so they can experience the dignity of work even though it is for minimum wage? He does not believe in that? He would rather see these people on the welfare systems of our Province, burdening the welfare system. I think he has been in the Confederation Building too long, in the hallways.

He does not believe in sick leave? Now, what kind of a society you would have, who worked, that did not believe in sick leave. Sick leave is only for one reason; it is to be put aside in the event of sickness or injury. Who would take care of a family if sick leave was not provided? His recommendations seem to be pretty right-wing in my opinion.

He does not believe in pay increases - even as the Province cannot afford such benefits. He does not believe in providing a pay incentive to people in this Province unless the Province can afford it. Well, would he also accept the same thing? Would he be willing to cut his payroll cheque in half? I doubt it.

I think the most glaring recommendation in his speech was what he said. He said, this is where their blueprint - their blueprint; he is supposed to be non-partisan. A deputy minister in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is not suppose to go around with any political stipes attached to their sleeves. A deputy minister is supposed to be totally neutral, and this is what he says. He said: That is where their blueprint for the future applies. He said: There are implications of strong urban regions and they are looking at Stephenville, Corner Brook, Deer Lake, as a second urban corridor in the Province.

Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? He is designating Stephenville, Corner Brook, Deer Lake as a second urban corridor in this Province. Now, that is his idea of creating a Rural Secretariat. If it was left up to Dr. Doug House, everyone would move out of rural Newfoundland and they would head to a big urban centre, and he has already designated the one in the western region so I wonder what does he have in mind now for Central Newfoundland? We have not heard that one yet, so I think I will alert the Chamber of Commerce in Grand Falls-Windsor now, the Exploits Chamber of Commerce, that if you invite Dr. Doug House to speak at your Chamber luncheon, he is sure to tell you where the next, third, urban centre is going to be for Central Newfoundland; but, give him a bit of time. Perhaps he does not need any time because perhaps he already has it made up and he is waiting for an invitation, something like the Premier shopping around for an invitation, to go out and give this news. Anyway, this is $1.7 million allocated to the Rural Secretariat - the Rural Secretariat.

I would like to say to this hon. House today that we worked hard as a former government trying to deal with out-migration. We worked really hard. Everybody knows what caused out-migration and it has been a pattern, I guess, ever since Confederation. All of us have relatives who have gone outside of Newfoundland and Labrador for employment. I remember when I was growing up, as a young girl in Carbonear, it was pretty common for people from my area to head to the U.S. Bricklayers, carpenters, iron workers, all of those people, they were not so much accustomed to going to different parts of Canada but it was pretty common for most of these people to go to the U.S. and find employment, particularly after the cod moratorium in 1992. Our Province felt devastated, but ten years later we have rebounded. Economists will tell you all across our wonderful country that Newfoundland and Labrador is certainly a place to look at and it is forward-looking.

There was a news release that was put out. It was September 25, 2003, and it talked about out-migration, and these are figures from Stats Canada. It says: There was positive net migration - net migration not out-migration; migration, meaning that people had come to our Province - between July 1, 2002 and July 1, 2003. According to information released today by Stats Canada, during that period the Province's population increased by 300 people.

Now, isn't that wonderful? July 1, which is Canada Day, it is worth noting, we had our first increase, I suppose. I do not know when. At least it was a decade. There was an increase of 300 people actually coming and choosing to live in our Province. That brought our population on July 1, 2003 to 519,570 people. So a lot of positive things have been done over the past ten years to erase the traces of out-migration to our Province. Now I question the government's rationale for wanting to spend $1.7 million for a Rural Secretariat. That is almost too much to imagine, why you would create another layer of government when we already have twenty economic zone boards operating within our Province, and a lot of them have done an extremely good job.

I am particularly proud of Economic Zone Board 12, in my district. They have had a record of success. They have sprouted out in a lot of different areas, particularly information technology, with the opening of our (inaudible) Centre in Grand Falls-Windsor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Then again, mining in Central Newfoundland, I guess, is the second largest mining development outside of Voisey's Bay. I know there are great prospects happening all over Central Newfoundland in a lot of areas for mining. So mining has a lot of potential in Central Newfoundland. However, I am surprised that this new government never made any attempt to secure funding for economic development in this Province. I do not know what will be the outcome or the status of those twenty economic zone boards. We know the funding that kept them alive was cost-shared by the federal and provincial government. The federal government paid 70 per cert and the provincial government paid 30 per cent, but now we know that there has not been any hard lobbing going on between the current provincial government and the federal government. I would say I know full well, that people in my economic zone board, that I represent, have already gotten their pink slips. I would think that is the case throughout the entire Province. I do not know if that was known before this Budget came out, it probably was. There is no real teeth to this news release, telling the Province how the $1.7 million is going to be spent. There are a lot of generic words, but no real focus on where it is going to be or what is really going to happen. I guess the devil is in the details. I am sure we will find that out after awhile.

Like I was saying last night, I think it is very important that the people of this Province should know what is not in this Budget. I am particularly concerned about the education aspect. One of the announcements by the new government was: government's objective to provide opportunity through the expansion of distance education offerings to broaden the curriculum and facilitate excellence in learning at the high school level. It is reflected through an additional funding of $400,000 for the Center of Distance Learning. Now that frightens me, because what does that really mean? Half of this flowery expression and talk needs to be dissected. When you really look down through this flowery expression that is put here for distance learning, you know, that really means teacher cuts. That really means, instead of having a teacher in the classroom, someone that you could have interaction with, our high school students are going to spend more time looking into a computer monitor. That is not what education reform was going to be all about.

This government is now proposing to consolidate school boards. They have not made any mention - my understanding is that there was already an article in The Telegram which stated that they would give no commitment to plow back savings from education right back into education. So that is pretty alarming.

Then they have a White Paper on post-secondary education. What they are saying now is hundreds of millions of dollars are invested in post-secondary education annually through sources, such as the provincial operating grants, student aid, and the labour market development fund. They are going to spend $250,000 of the taxpayers' money to find out what is going on in post-secondary education. Well, I cannot help but say that is a study to study. That is all it is, a study to study. Whenever the results are released on that study you will not see any improvements. You will see what they call, efficiencies. What that means is, there will probably be campuses closed of our College of the North Atlantic institutions or maybe there will be consolidations. I do not think you are going to see any further enhancements.

One thing I would like to ask the Minister of Education today - it is really not clear how the new Student Loan Assistance Act is going to come into play, because today I have already received a telephone call from a young student who was trying to make a payment on her student loan. She went to the bank today to make a payment on the new integrated student loan. My constituent said to me that the bank would not take her money because they had no provision yet set up for accepting payments for student loans.

Now, there was a big flurry in this House last week. The Government House Leader and the Minister of Education were on high alert by the Premier, saying: You must get this student loan act passed by - March 30 they said first. Then there was a new deadline imposed, it was March 29. The members of the government were running around like chickens with their heads cut off, frightened to death they were not going to get that act passed in time so they could pad the Budget and include that with the Budget deficit. Here it is, a week later, when young people are trying to make a payment on their student loans and the banks are not accepting the payments on their student loans. I wonder, is the Minister of Education aware that is happening out there today, that there is no provision with the banks to accept the student loan payments under the new integrated system? I would like for the Minister of Education to stand in his place and tell this House that he has notified the banks and they are aware of the procedures, because it appears full well that there was nothing put in place with the chartered banks. Students out there today are prevented from making their normal student loan payments. There was no panic, but there is panic now for students who are going to have to pay more interest because there is no provision, currently, at any chartered bank in this Province for students to go in and make their payments. I hope the Minister of Education will take up this matter that I am raising today in this House and make sure that this is ironed out tomorrow.

Still talking about education; this new government were the ones who stood here last year and said that teachers should not come out of the system. Forget about the Sparkes-Williams report they said, because we want to keep our student-teacher ratio down. We want to make sure that they have the best education they can get. They were complaining because we only took half of the teachers out. Here it is this year, in their Budget they are going to take out 476 teachers over the next two years. What is that going to do for rural Newfoundland, or do they care? Is that the reason why they are going to increase distance education? Probably. If somebody now from Buchans, Ramea, Conche or anywhere, Sandy Cove, Eastport, La Scie, if they want to do a specialized program they are going to have to look into a monitor for it instead of having the teacher in the classroom. Is that what it is all about?

No new school construction. Cancelled or deferred school construction projects totalling $20 million. They include Herdman Collegiate, Corner Brook, $9 million; extension to Leary's Brook, St. John's, $1 million; a new school in L'Anse au Loup, $2 million; Mealy Mountain High School auditorium, $3 million, cancelled or deferred, whichever way you want to look at it; Mobile High, $4.5 million. All of these very important projects that school children, parents and teachers were looking forward to are either deferred or cancelled.

They have come out now with a decision to look at consolidating school boards. They have not, in their announcement, given any indication as to where those school boards will be. They have come out and actually said that they are going to consolidate school boards, but they have not had the courtesy of actually coming out and letting the general population know where those boards are going to be located.

This is what they are saying: We currently have eleven existing school boards and they are going to be merged into five in time for the 2004-2005 school year.

I can tell you, there is a lot of scrambling to be done there.

"Labrador Board - There will be no change to the district serviced by the Labrador Board. This region currently has 16 schools and a projected September enrolment of 4,466 students.

"Western Board - The Western Board will incorporate the Northern Peninsula/ Labrador South Board (District 2), as well as the current Corner Brook/Deer Lake/St. Barbe Board (District 3) and the Cormack Trail Board (District 4). Eighty-two schools will come under the jurisdiction of this board, with a projected September enrolment of 14,807."

They did not say where that school board was going to be. I guess it is something like the announcement the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment made. She came out and made a statement that twenty human resources and employment offices were going to close in Newfoundland and Labrador. You have communities out there worried, and people saying: Who is going to be on the chopping block? She left that out there dangling so people would worry themselves sick about it, and never came out and said where this is going to happen, which communities would be affected. Isn't that typical? Bring out bad news, just bring out half the bad news so you can put people in agony for days and weeks.

Then they are talking about the Central Board. "The Central Board will include the current Baie Verte/Central/Connaigre School Board...," which is District 5, which I represent, "...and the Lewisporte/Gander Board (District 6), which serve 75 schools. In September, the enrolment for the new district is projected to be 14,752 ."

Where is that board office going to be? Does anybody know that? Does anybody have the courtesy to come out and make that statement? I do not think so. That is unfair, to come out and deliver bad news like that and not say which communities would be affected. We all know that these people who work for these school boards have received their layoff slips and they all have to reapply for their jobs. There has been no mention made as to where that board will be located.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: You checked with the wrong people.

I guess the Member for Windsor-Springdale is telling this House - he shouted out across the House today. Can you stand on your feet and assure me that will not affect our current Board # 5 that is currently operating out of Grand Falls-Windsor? Would you please stand and say that you support holding the school office in Grand Falls-Windsor and that you will be doing your utmost to make sure that remains where it is?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Well, if you are as successful in this one as you were with the cancer clinic, I would say it is not going to happen. You have to show the public what you are made of.

"The Eastern Board will be formed from school districts 7 through 10 (Burin, Vista, Avalon West and Avalon East)." Now, can you imagine people on the Burin Peninsula, where are they going to be looked after? I wonder, is that Eastern Board going to be in Burin? I wonder, is it going to be in Marystown or Grand Bank? Do you think that the people on the Avalon Peninsula and St. John's are going to be looked after with a board from Grand Bank or Burin? What do you think? Not likely.

"The new board will serve 127 schools with a projected September enrolment of 44,756." Does anybody know where that board is going to be located? Because it does not say in this news release. This is like giving out half the bad news and letting people suffer for weeks and months, not knowing what their future is.

You can come out and make these statements, and the people who work in these boards all have families and they want to know what is going to happen in their lives. Will they have to move? What are their jobs going to be like? Where will the school board be located? What is involved? What is the point of coming out and making such a blanket statement and not being specific to the point where you are telling where the board is going to be located? Why would you have community after community putting up their case as to why a board should be located in a certain area? I think that is absolutely damaging. It is damaging to the economy. It is damaging to municipal planning. It is pitting one community against the other and it is highly unnecessary.

Now, if this is the new approach to economic development, taking from one community and putting in another - of course, then again, I am not surprised. I am definitely not surprised, because this new government is on record as being totally opposed to school board elections, elected people, and they believe - and they said so in this House of Assembly - that they think

education can be run right here from Confederation Building, from the Department of Education. Their goal now is to make four mega-boards, and probably a year or two down the road say, well that did not work; we are going to do it all from Confederation Building.

That is not the right way to treat the people. The elected school boards did good work and they are doing good work, and they did good work in school reform, education reform. They handle all the local issues and they did the best job for the people they represented. Now, these school boards are going to be squashed and we are going to have a mega-board operating out of, I think, four locations - five - four locations, plus there will be a Francophone School Board as well. It is unfair when the Minister of Education would stand in his place, and also the Minister of Finance, and talk about school board consolidation, give the news and put people's lives on hold and not tell them where the locations are going to be for the board office.

Now, I have not heard the Member for Baie Verte or the Member for Lewisporte or the Member for Windsor- Springdale say anywhere, not in this House or outside, that they are going to be putting forward a strong case for the retention of School Board District # 5 within Grand Falls- Windsor. I have not heard them say that, even though we have a new modern school building that houses the school board office. We have every kind of a hookup connection for computers and monitors. We can provide in-house training and conferences. We have excellent parking and we are within two to two-and-a-half hours from every school in our district. We have all these - we own the building outright. It is totally new and totally renovated and we have a large space. I have not heard any of these members that I mentioned stand up and defend why or make a case for the retention of School Board District # 5, but I am hoping that in the days to come the constituents themselves will put the pressure on and make those people speak, because that is what they were elected to do.

I want to talk about post-secondary education, which is very near and dear to some of the work that I have been doing lately. We had a government here that came out and said that they were going to freeze tuition at MUN and the College of the North Atlantic. That is a good thing to do, because we were on a mission to ensure that our students had the best advantage that we could provide as a provincial government, and that was to lower the tuition. We were very successful in that and we ended up with the lowest tuition rate in Canada. There is only one other province that has a lower rate and that would be Quebec, where they give the residents of Quebec a break on the tuition. We treat all Canadians who come to our university and also to the College of the North Atlantic equal. Whatever rate we give to our Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we actually offer to all Canadians. So, next to Quebec we have the lowest tuition rate across Canada for our Memorial University.

I know that this new government was under considerable pressure to lower tuition or freeze it. They opted to freeze under considerable pressure. I think the students who were represented by the Canadian Federation of Students wanted some assurance that this was not a one-shot deal. They wanted to look ahead for the next two, three or four years where they knew they could have some assurance, in planning their futures, that tuition rates would, indeed, be frozen or even reduced further than they are today. To date I have not heard any such statement from the Minister of Education and I am hoping that he will - even though the first promise of this new government, I guess, that they made after the election, was that they were going to give special precedence to the youth of our Province. They did that by dismantling the Department of Youth, Services and Post-Secondary Education. Now, I would hope that they haven't closed the door and shut out the concerns of young people in our Province by dismantling that department, and I hope that he will operate under the same open-door policy that the previous government did. That is where all the gains were made for students in this Province.

Any student who is now attending post-secondary education in this Province will tell you that the biggest gains they made, in reducing student debt and making student loans more accessible and affordable, were while the Liberal administration were in power. We did all we could, as the provincial government, in providing access to students to get a good education. I think that the federal government has an obligation to look at those same concerns and look at what they can do for students. I was expecting, in the federal budget that came down, that we would see more grant-based funding for young people. We didn't see that. We saw savings plans for future students.

I can tell you, I was highly surprised when I saw that the new budget came down and it is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Blue Book promise in the Budget was that this government would provide a tuition freeze and they would ensure that the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University had money to offset that freeze. Do you know what they did? They did the complete opposite. They went and stated in their Budget: Memorial University, you go back and see if you can find - not see if you can find, go find $2 million in expenditures. Do you know what that means? It means that you are going to cut your staff or you are going to cut out a program, or you are going to do something. The tuition freeze I gave your students, too bad, you go back and look for your $2 million now. So there is no commitment there on the part of this government to offset tuition freeze. They did the same thing with the College of the North Atlantic. They said: Go back and find $2 million, now that I have frozen your tuition. That means the same thing for the College of the North Atlantic; the very same thing. I guess that is really a turnaround, a flip-flop, if I ever saw one.

I want to talk a bit about why it was so important to get that phoney report through the House of Assembly. I took the time today to look up the request for proposals when government decided that they would do an independent external review of the Province's financial position. I looked up the conditions on the Request for Proposals for the Special Review of the Financial Conditions of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They said: Terms of Reference. The review which will not constitute an audit - they say that upfront - will serve to ascertain the financial condition of the Province based upon a review of: for the fiscal year, the Budget Estimates; Revenues, Expenditures and Commitments; Revenue and Expenditure forecasts; and Economic Forecasts.

Then they go on to say for fiscal years 2004-05 to 2007-08. Now, this is what they were looking for, ammunition. "The Process used to determine future years' projections; The validity of the assumptions used in developing the projections; and The reasonableness of the projected revenue and expenditures." The review findings should focus on - this was the question that was asked - "Whether or not the 2003-04 fiscal targets outlined in the Budget remained realistic and attainable." Well, Mr. Speaker, they also asked, "Whether or not, based on the assumptions (outlined below), the current and capital account cash budget can be balanced by 2007-08" with revenue growth.

Now, I think that is a key factor. They wanted to go out on a witch hunt and have someone paint a picture of whether or not the current and capital account budget could be balanced by 2007-08 with revenue growth. Revenue growth says a lot of things. It says: What is this new government doing to promote revenue growth? Do they have any confidence in their own projections? I do not think so, because if they did they would not be bringing in the massive cuts on the people of this Province that were just laid down in the current Budget.

A report on the initial findings of the review will be provided to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board by the close of business November 28, 2003, with a final report provided by December 15, 2003. Well, that is a funny thing about that you know, we did not get that review when it was supposed to be laid on the table for the Minister of Finance. He asked for an extension.

This terms of reference; it is interesting here what the proposal must include. I think this is key to the argument that I have been making over the past few days. The proposal must include: the estimated number of hours to complete the review, including the reports; the rate per hour; an estimate of expenses; HST to be shown separately. I think 4(e) is absolutely key: the name of the person who will be responsible for the assignment and other key staff. At that point the name of the person who will be responsible for the assignment and other key staff. The name of the person responsible for the assignment was Mr. Michael Gourley. I think what is very important here is that - it goes on to say that the proposal must include the background and experience of the individual, and of the firm. In particular, the public sector area. That was known from day one on the Terms of Reference.

The Terms of Reference must include the background and experience of the individual. Now, really, what was the experience and the background on the individual who was assigned to prepare the external audit report for PricewaterhouseCoopers? That is the question. This person was Michael Gourley. Michael Gourley, a close friend and key advisor to former Premier Ernie Eves. That was one of the key points on the Terms of Reference in choosing who would be supplying the information on the external audit report, the background experience of the individual. Michael Gourley, he left his job as Chief Executive Officer of the Ontario Financing Authority on November 7, after a little more that fifteen months into the job, with a payout of $917,000. Can you imagine? A Liberal government source said the deal for a 2003 salary of $289,000 and a buyout of $628,000 was brokered by Eeves office when he was the Premier. The authority is responsible for provincial borrowing and debt management.

Michael Gourley held several jobs during his first years in Ontario public service. He worked for the Government of Ontario from 1973 to 1992. He also did a TV stint with TV Ontario's mascot for Pokaroo.

I think what is the most important here, and the most telling of all, is the fact that the Terms of Reference that the Department of Finance, the President of Treasury Board, used clearly outlined that the proposal must include the name of the person who will be responsible for the assignment, and the other key staff. They should also know the background and the experience of the individuals and the firm.

Who in this House, or outside this House, would believe that the report that was presented by PricewaterhouseCoopers was objective, it was unbiased, it was not painted, but really, in essence, it was fabricated? It was fabricated. They used the exact information that came from the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, and fabricated it to include two more unnecessary figures so the new government could inflate the deficit and paint a much poorer financial position of the Province than was necessary.

I think Moody's Bond Rating Agency, yesterday, said it all. Who would give an A rating to a Province on the verge of bankruptcy? I think they clarified for the people in the Province that what was said in this report done from PricewaterhouseCoopers was totally fabrication, done for political maneuvering, and that was it.

I think that is key. These two Terms of Reference - they have never been mentioned before in this House - I think it is key because the proposal must include the name of the person who will be responsible for the assignment, and other key staff. That was well known to this new Tory government, who they were employing. One of the other requests was that the background and experience of the individual of the firm, in particular, in the public sector area. I wonder if there was a background search done on Mr. Michael Gourley. Was there a background search done on Mr. Michael Gourley? Did he have any connection to the Tory Party in Ontario that were well known? I think so, and this has come to light as recent as January 6, the day after the report came out, or maybe it was January 5. Well, you know, I think these fabricated, these ballooned, these inaccurate figures created a scenario in this Province where people, all of a sudden, as of January 5, felt that they were into a situation that was unknown to them several months back when they were enjoying a good economy in this Province.

I think that any member in this House who would stand in their place and say that, going within their districts all last summer and seeing people at their work, housing going ahead, the economy doing so well, and tourism up, people had a good feeling about the economy in this Province and their own situations in general, but it started if off with the fabrication of the Province's deficit. I think that is essentially what led to the strike that we are now experiencing today, because the people who are there on strike feel like they have been misled. They feel like they have been betrayed. They feel like - I have heard it in the media. I have heard the strikers and the union leaders say in the media that they were willing to share some of the pain in addressing the deficit. In fact, they even agreed to a two-year wage freeze, but I do not think any of them liked the fact that unilaterally the Premier came out on January 5 and said, this is it - without any consultation with unions or their leaders, absolutely none.

This fabrication has led to a monumental problem. I do not believe the Premier of this Province is actually thinking how large it is and how it has expanded. He has done more since January 5 to put our economy back ten years ago, I guess. He has done more in the past two or three months to dismantle the economy that has grown here in this Province than I think the cod moratorium of 1992 did to our Province.

I can tell you, when I look back over 1992 and I remember seeing fisherpeople pounding on the door down at the Newfoundland Hotel when John Crosbie was the Minister of Fisheries, I can see the same reaction today to the new government, that people feel so lost and so betrayed and so misled by the incorrect statements that have started right from January 5 until now. I think the sooner that this Premier realizes what he is doing to the economy and to people's lives, and moves on in a new direction, it will make a big difference to the people of this Province.

When you look at the situation that is at hand today, and look at the fact that - even the report that was done by Mr. Hugh Mackenzie, who is an economic consultant and a research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, this is not the last job that Hugh Mackenzie is going to do.

MR. GRIMES: A much more stellar reputation than Mr. Gourley.

MS THISTLE: Oh yes, an impeccable reputation. This is not the last job that Mr. Mackenzie will be doing. He has a lot on the line, his credentials. He has done work for municipalities and governments all over this country.

Do you know what Mr. Hugh Mackenzie said? He said that Newfoundland and Labrador does indeed face a fiscal problem over the next few years, although by no means as significant as that of the forecast in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report. Now, he said that. He also said, and I think it is important for the record: Neither public spending nor public sector employees' compensation can legitimately be said to have caused the Province's current fiscal problems.

I think that is very important. He said it was not the public sector spending and it was not the public sector wages that caused this problem. He said: The primary cause of Newfoundland and Labrador's fiscal problems is a weakness in the Province's revenue base. A revised, more realistic forecast of revenue and expenditure shows a persistent cash deficit of between $275 million and $300 million a year.

We have said that all along. We have a shortfall upwards to $300 million a year.

He said: While this reveals a structural revenue shortfall, it is far less than the $714 million forecast for 2007 by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

That is true, absolutely true. You will never hear the Finance Minister talk about accrual deficits in the future again, because the Finance Minister of today has taken accrual deficits out of his vocabulary. He does not want to talk about accrual deficits any more. He does not want to talk about them.

He went on to say - Mr. Hugh Mackenzie - that the problem emerged in the early 1990s as the Government of Canada cut back on transfer payments to the Province. Now, I would be the first to say that is the real reason why we have a cash deficit today. That is the real reason, and I think anyone who is in the financial know at all would say that is exactly what happened. That did not happen by reckless spending, and it did not happen by giving the public sector employees a raise.

He went on to say: This problem was not caused by public sector employees' compensation increases, and imposing - this is very important. He has dealt with many of these situations in the past and he said: Imposing the wage freezes advocated by both the PricewaterhouseCoopers report and the Premier cannot solve it.

He goes on to say that, by imposing a wage freeze on our public sector employees and also by - this was seen as the answer by PricewaterhouseCoopers and also the Premier - doing away with salary increases and imposing a wage freeze was the answer to all our ills, but that is not the answer as recommended and analyzed by Mr. Hugh Mackenzie.

He said: There can be no long-term answer to the fiscal questions facing Newfoundland and Labrador without addressing declining federal equalization payments and the related clawback of oil industry revenue inherent in current fiscal arrangements.

I have said this a few time in the past few days, that you are never going to hear our new Finance Minister talk about accrual budgeting again. Last year, 2003-2004, was our first year into accrual budgeting. It had been recommended by the Auditor General for many years, and last year was the first year that we decided to go with that method. Our new Finance Minister and President of Treasury Board knows full well, he is never going to pay off the long-term debt. We have had cash deficits in this Province for fifty-two years. We have had cash deficits for fifty-two years. We have had a couple of years when we had a balanced budget, but they have been rare. Saying that we are going to eliminate a cash deficit in the next four years, that is attainable. That is definitely attainable. We are starting out this year with a cash deficit of $362 million. In four years' time, the new government says, they are going to eliminate that. That is possible. That is possible. In fact, we had a plan ourselves to eliminate that same cash deficit in fours years' time. So, they are not going to be doing anything marvelous or anything outstanding by eliminating the cash deficit in the next four years. What they are not telling the people - and this is how they got elected - is that they are going to eliminate the long-term debt. They are not going to eliminate that long-term debt. Right now, it is standing at $10 billion. Ten billion dollars. Now, that represents a lot of things, a lot of capital work over the years and a lot of unfunded pension liability that has not been paid - although, as a member of the former government, we made a good start. In fact, there is almost $1 billion extra gone into the unfunded liability since 1998 by a move by the government of which I was a part. It was Brian Tobin who made the first start on making a payment on unfunded pension liabilities.

It says: Although budget planning in Newfoundland and Labrador has traditionally focused on the cash balance, the report pays particular attention to a second definition of the deficit, based on accounting on an accrual basis.

You will never hear much talk about accrual accounting. You will never hear much talk about it in the future. I think, intentionally, this new government has confused and muddied the waters because most people cannot get their heads around financial matters. They will never talk about accrual accounting again. What they will focus on is eliminating the cash deficit in four years. That is attainable, and that is a plan that we had.

How did we get a cash deficit? It was interesting; this morning I was looking at some of the line of debate. The current Finance Minister, when he was Opposition critic for Finance, stood on his feet this time last year and spent hours and hours and hours and he was condemning the government of the day - which I was a part of - for not spending more. He talked hours upon end about the lineups for cardiac surgery. He talked about dialysis. He talked about bringing in new drugs. He talked about the need for new school construction. He wanted more money into highway work. He wanted more money into job creation. He felt that there should be more money spent for tourism; the Colony of Avalon was one of the recipients last year. He also felt that education was a high priority and more money should be spent in keeping more teachers in the classroom.

It is very interesting the kind of flip-flop of this current Minister of Finance who criticized, I guess, for twelve for fourteen years, that government was not spending enough, and the first thing he did when he became the Finance Minister was put the brakes on and sock it to the people. The poor people of the Province are going to have to pay the burden for trying to get the cash deficits cleaned up in the next four years.

It is interesting that the charges that have been levied on the people in last week's Budget - it is only a week ago and it sounds like it was years ago. I guess the news has been so bad that it is entrenched in all of us now; how bad this Budget is.

I was thinking last night, as I was standing here, about the fees that are now going to be charged - well, they are already in effect. April 1 the fees started. It was a bit of a joke almost, in recent years, when they talked about gravel pit campers. There was a big move by the previous government, of which I was a part, to do away with gravel pit camping. In fact, Buddy Wasisname and the Other Fellers had a song about gravel pit camping. In fact, there were even mounds of clay put up in front of the gravel pits so people in the Province could not access the gravel pits, and we could do away with gravel pit camping. It was rather unsightly. There was always the problem: Where is the water and sewage going? Was there sink water left on top of the ground, was there garbage left there or was there food. You know, were wild animals attracted these sites? For health and safety reasons the previous administration was trying to do away with gravel pit camping.

All of the sudden, gravel pit camping is going to take on a new meaning. We were supposed to encourage people to spend time in our provincial parks where we had a wonderful camping experience on a family outing, but instead of encouraging people now to use our provincial parks we are encouraging gravel pit camping. For unserviced camping for a night the rates have gone from nine to ten dollars. Unserviced camping weekly has gone from fifty-seven to sixty dollars. I think the best one of all - and I don't know who was thinking about this - anyone who is not camping and they want to take a shower are going to have to pay five dollars. That is almost hilarious. I can hardly stand in my place here in this House and talk about this fee without grinning because it is so silly, it is so simple - silly, I mean. Yes, it is simple too along with that.

Anyone who was looking at this fee - in other words, if you wanted a shower and you were a visitor and you weren't camping, is there going to be someone on the bathroom door with a stamp saying: Are you a visitor or are you a camper, because if you are not a camper you have to pay five dollars before you go in and get a wash. That is what you have to do. I am sure that Buddy Wasisname and the Other Fellers will have a lovely song made up about this one. Make no wonder that we are the laughing stock of the whole country when you see our own provincial government making up a fee that says you got to have a stamp on your hand when you go through the provincial park now. When you get checked in: Are you a visitor or are you camping? Because if you are a visitor and you want to take a shower it is going to cost you $5. This is hilarious, absolutely hilarious! You would be saying, if you are going to have any friends visiting: Take a cake of soap and wash yourself in the pond before you go to the park. This is hilarious! I cannot help but laugh.

Anyway, I will move on to something that is not quite so funny. Now they are going to have every fee here - even for services that are performed which were not charged in the past, they will be charged in the future. For instance, if you have a recreational boathouse and a wharf, that is going to go up from $10 to $25.

I cannot understand this one, a home gardening licence is going to go up from $10 to $25. Now there is a community plot here in St. John's where they are encouraging community gardening; the MacMoran Centre, I think it was. I am not as familiar with St. John's as I would be in my own district, but I remember seeing a show, a TV clip, that the MacMoran Centre here in St. John's Centre were promoting community gardening.

AN HON. MEMBER: St. John's North.

MS THISTLE: Okay, I am sorry about that. I do not know St. John's as well as I should.

The MacMoran Centre were promoting community gardening for low income families and encouraging people to grow some of their vegetables, that way they would have fresh vegetables and, of course, more money in their pockets. I do not know if that applies to this or not, but there is a home gardening licence from $10 to $25. What kind of people are you going to be affecting by putting an increase in a fee like that? It would definitely be a low income earner who are trying their best to be self-sufficient. So I think that one should be reviewed for sure.

Look at this. Someone who buys a new car and is going probably from their house to a garage or something, or maybe they live out of town, they have to buy an in-transit permit, and that goes from $11 to $15. Then you have a book of certificates for light vehicles going from $10 to $30.

Driver examinations for a road test; young people, or even elderly people, who need to be rechecked to see if they are able to drive and are healthy and able to deal with highway situations. Road tests are going to increase from $50 to $60. Of course, if you fail the first one - that is what it looks like to me, road test reassessments. Right now there is no charge, and that fee is going to be $100.

I am concerned about that one in particular because this new government were supposed to bring in major changes to personal insurance in this Province. It has not been done. We all know that we are paying high insurance rates, as much as 50 per cent more than we were paying last year. For a senior citizen, in fact, who may need to write a road test or have a reassessment regarding the capability of a senior or an elderly person or a young person behind the wheel, there was never any charge for that particular test, for driver examination, and that is going from zero to $100. I would not mind if the Minister of Government Services would tell us what that includes. Then, of course, a beginners permit, someone sixteen who is now going to be able to drive with the accompaniment of a licenced driver, that permit is now going to increase from $30 to $40.

There was a good question asked by a caller last night. I was leaving the building here and on my way home I heard a caller ask a question about ambulance usage. They talked about the $115 increase. A patient now, if they order an ambulance, it will go from $75 to $115. They wanted to know who would actually be receiving that $115. Would it be the ambulance operator or the government itself? I do know if there have been changes to that policy but I would like to hear it from the Minister of Government Services.

Then there is acute care, semi-private accommodations: $60 to $85 a day. I mean that is $25 a day. That is a sharp increase. Private accommodations for those who have critical illnesses and need privacy, that would go from $75 a day to $100 a day.

Now look at this: In-patient rate for uninsured agencies reciprocal billing rate plus 15 per cent. Now that is going to reciprocal billing rate plus 20 per cent. In-patient rate for non-Canadians; well I do not think that will make much difference to the people in this Province.

Fingerprinting for the RNC is going up from $25 to $50. I guess anyone who is taken into custody now and they have to be fingerprinted, that fee is going from $25 to $50. How about if your car is towed away? It is going from $45 to $100. I think the people in St. John's just won their battle for on-street parking. I cannot remember what street it was, it might have been Craig Miller Avenue. It was somewhere there in the centre of St. John's. Anyway, towing storage for the RNC is going from $45 to $100. I mean it has already gone, that was April 1.

Accident records has gone from $50 to $75.

If you want a Commissioner for Oaths to swear to an affidavit, that is going to go from $25 to $50. I can remember when people would do that, Commissioner for Oaths, for $2. Now that particular fee has gone from $25 to $50.

I know the republic have increased their fees - can you imagine? - from $250 to $500. So anyone wanting some legal work done and going to a new republic, the fee is exactly double. I mean that is highway robbery. No gradual increase, but an increase of 100 per cent.

Then there is the Sheriffs's Office. Anyone who wants to do a remote search, that has gone from $25 to $35. Then there is someone who is doing a search in the office, that has gone from $50 to $100. My goodness, we have a series of 150 brand new fees for the people of the Province. Now I do not know if that is what the people of the Province voted for; I do not think so. I do not think that they did.

What a difference in last year's Budget and this year's Budget. Last year we, as the former administration, said: The cash deficit for government departments and its funding agencies for the fiscal year 2003-04 is forecast to be $212 million. The total borrowing requirements - including borrowings for school construction, The Rooms, and Municipal Capital Works - is forecast to be $286 million. Do you know the good part about all of that? Our economy was so strong last year that indeed we had an increase of $100 million in revenue generated last year. Now, that says a lot. People had a lot of confidence last year and in previous years in our economy, but I think that is what is lacking in this Budget that the Minister of Finance brought down last week at this time. That is what is lacking. There is no confidence shown in growing the economy in the future. That is why you have a dismal set of figures that they have fabricated and they are using to their advantage at this particular moment in painting a dull picture, and I think that is going to backfire on them. I think that, by creating such a negative feeling around this Province, business will dry up and consumer confidence will dry up, and I think it will explode in their faces because they are creating the wrong kind of a feeling in this Province.

These are some of the good things that were happening this time last year. I told you just a few minutes ago that cash deficits have been around in fifty-two of the past fifty-five years since Confederation. Now, it is true that we do have a cash deficit, and everyone is aware of it, but we do not have the deficit that has been reported by the new government. We do not have that ballooning deficit that has been fabricated for their own means. We do not have that ballooning deficit, and that was demonstrated by myself this afternoon when I talked about the differences in the reports by Mr. Hugh Mackenzie and Mr. Michael Gourley from PricewaterhouseCoopers who painted such an ill picture that was nothing but innuendo and complete fabrication.

This time last year, there was actually $9 million announced for a Student Investment and Opportunities Corporation allocated for a new Youth Opportunities Newfoundland and Labrador program to assist in keeping post-secondary students and graduates in our Province. Now, can anybody from the other side of the House stand up and tell me: Was there anything announced in this Budget to assist in keeping post-secondary students and graduates in our Province? I would like to know that. Because, if there was, I never saw it. Did anybody else see it? I did not see it. No, I think what the young people in this Province heard was the message from the Minister of Finance where he said: All I can tell the young people in this Province is that there is going to be 4,000 jobs cut out of the public sector. That is all I can tell you. I can freeze your tuition for now, but when the post-secondary education White Paper study is done, I cannot guarantee anything after that. That is what he told the people of this Province, the young people.

Were there any new tax incentives to encourage post-secondary students to work and stay in the Province? No, not one. Did he provide a further 5 per cent cut in tuition? No. Did he provide any initiatives to enhance apprenticeship training? No. Did he provide any extra money for summer employment for students? No. Did he provide any money to address the support staff services in the school system, the Warren Report that the union members are out on strike on today, was there any money there to look after that? No. Was there any money towards capital construction and school maintenance? Very little. Did he retain 218 teaching positions? No, he is eliminating over 400 teaching positions. Did he do anything for small business by increasing the small business Corporate Income Tax threshold over four years from $300,000 to $200,000? No, he did not do that. Did he provide a $2 million Home Heating Fuel Rebate to assist low income households? No, he did not. He did not do that.

I have to talk about that now, about that Home Heating Fuel Rebate. You know, it was only a year ago that the Minister of Finance stood in his place and brought forward a resolution in this House saying that it should be mandatory that all low-income earners receive a fuel rebate. He said he felt that, indeed, should be extended to even people who were using electricity to heat their homes. Then, of course, the current Minister of Education went on to put out a news release and this said, "Fuel tax rebate leaves consumers cold." This is what he said, "Far too few people qualify for the rebate. This province's rebate is the most restrictive in the country." He also said, "In contrast, this Province has restricted the rebate to those who heat their homes with oil and has imposed a means test to exclude most who are suffering the consequences of the rising prices and taxes associated with keeping their homes warm."

This is what he said, the current Minister of Education, "Our Party's position when the Harmonized Sales Tax was introduced in 1996-97 and ever since then is that basic necessities like warmth and food should not be taxed...". That is what he said, "...basic necessities like warmth and food should not be taxed...". That is what the current Minister of Education said. When did he say that? January 11, 2001.

This is what he said the proper approach is. I wonder, is this still his new approach? He said, "The proper approach now is either to remove the tax on warmth or else to rebate its full value, not only to the people who use oil to heat their homes, but also for people who use electricity. Necessities of life like food and warmth should not be taxed."

He said: Nevertheless, the government should recognize it was a mistake to tax home heating costs in the first place and find a way to rebate the value of that tax to all consumers who are paying it.

I wonder, would he be so eager to stand up in his place today and say that this is what he wants to do, to take the tax off food and warmth, that is there in the budget?

It is a funny thing about that. There is a strange thing about it, because when we were providing a fuel rebate to low-income earners and seniors around this Province, home heating fuel was thirty-seven cents a litre. That is all it was. Today, in February, it was fifty-one cents a litre for home heating fuel.

The current Minister of Finance can get out of the situation by being cute, by saying: Well, the price of fuel has gone down by four cents a litre from what it was this time last year. That does not alter the fact that in 2001, when we were the government and we were providing a fuel subsidy to low-income earners around this Province, that the price of fuel at that particular time was only thirty-seven cents a litre.

I just finished reading out, 150 new charges and fees are going to be heaped on the people of this Province and everyone who goes outside the door, and even those who do not, they are going to have to pay some kind of fee as of April 1, last week.

Now, the Tory Blue Book that Dr. Doug House wrote himself, all by himself, and presented to the PC government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Well, they were not the government when he wrote it, but they ended up being the government.

They said, "Our seniors have given so much to this Province and asked for so little in return." I would say, why are you heaping all of these fees on our seniors?

It said, "It's time for government to show that our seniors' contributions to society are valued, appreciated and respected. We support seniors' efforts to live full, active and independent lives."

Well, if you support all of that, why would you put a tax increase on seniors wanting to go to a provincial park? Why would you put a tax increase on seniors calling for an ambulance? Why would you put a tax increase on seniors trying to license their vehicles? Why would you put a tax on seniors who might need to get a semi private room in a hospital? These are only a few of the increases.

Now, if you believe what you wrote here, why would you not do this? You said: Ensuring seniors have adequate income to meet their basic needs by reducing taxes. You have not done that, you have increased taxes for every senior in our Province.

You said: Introducing a special needs assistance program of up to $250 to assist with home heating costs for low-income earners. Now, you have definitely flip-flopped here. It is not right what you have done. You have misled low-income earners and you have misled seniors.

The Premier of this Province came out and announced that he was going to claw back the five dollar indexing that seniors had gained on their pension in the last round of contracts. Through public disdain, I would say, and objection you finally came to your knees and your senses and pulled back on that idea of clawing back the seniors' pensions of five dollars a month.

I tell you, you have not lived up to your promise of providing a fuel rebate to those who can least afford it, and those people are seniors and low-income earners. That program costs $2 million a year and seniors look forward to it and low-income earners look forward to it as well. You have not done anything about it and you have delayed - not delayed, cancelled it altogether. That policy is gone. That policy is completely gone.

I am proud to say that when we were the government we increased seniors' benefits. The maximum benefit was increased last year from $300 - normally, a single senior would get $300, as a subsidy, every year, in the fall of the year, usually around October. Last year we increased that from $300 to $350. For a married couple it was increased from $600 to $700. The benefit was gradually phased out as family incomes rose from $14,000 to $20,000. You know, that helps approximately 30,000 seniors in our Province.

Senior citizens in our Province really look forward to that benefit every year and there are many seniors who depend on it. They depend on it for helping with the extra expenses of running a household in the winter and also for Christmas and drugs, you name it. Seniors really look forward to this benefit.

Even though in your book you said you were going to provide a new subsidy, up to $250 for seniors, you did not do it. Instead of that, instead of providing a new benefit for seniors, you ended up imposing 150 new fees, new taxes for seniors, which I do not think is fair. It is absolutely not fair, and there is no justification for it. What happened is that you did not do your homework. The Premier got elected on the new approach that was going to be growing the economy.

Where in the Budget book does it talk about growing the economy? If growing the economy is imposing 150 new fees on the people of this Province, it is like John Crosbie said when he heard about the new Premier. He said, God help us.

Well, if increasing the economy is growing the economy by slapping on those fees, God help us. That is not confidence in growing the economy.

There has been a lot of talk about our public sector in recent days about layoffs, a lot of talk about layoffs. I think, without question, our public sector was led down the garden path when it comes to layoffs. Quite equivocally in the Blue Book it was stated that there would be no layoffs. In fact, I saw one of the Premier's advertisements. I was going through last night and saw in one of his advertising pieces that there would be no layoffs.

Jobs and the economy building a real future. He talks there, how there were going to be no layoffs, absolutely no layoffs, and developing a ten-year strategy to grow the IT sector.

Well, I saw in some of the other propaganda that he had put out, he was looking for a four to eight year mandate to do what he wants to do. This is what he says: Take a closer look. The Danny Williams teams has clearly stated that under a Progressive Conservative government there will be no layoffs in the public service. We will not reduce the public service by 25 per cent, contrary to allegations by our political opponents.

That was signed. In recent days I have been seeing myself, first-hand, a lot of provincial government employees leaving this building - because we have been in here now for the past two weeks, and you observe sometimes coming down in the elevator what people are doing. You see the looks on their faces and so on. I have seen my own self, first-hand, that a lot of people have been leaving here with cardboard boxes, with their worldly belongings in them. I have often heard it said that you cannot believe all of the rumors you hear, but in recent days I have heard that Works, Services and Transportation are looking at closing out depots. Now, some might think that I am an alarmist. I do not think so, because what is happening with this government, I said last night and I will say again today, it is what is not in this Budget that you have to be concerned about.

I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Works, what about the thirty-eight workers on the Avalon that were laid off last week? This is a winter program. Are they going to be recalled? Was there anything said in the Budget about those workers being laid off? Are they going to be recalled? Are there going to be other depots - I do not know about other depots- are there depots anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador that are going to be shut down? Is that part of program review? I know that there is a person hired for program review, who is looking at every department of government. Is this what we are going to see, closure of depots around the Province? We already know that there are going to be closures of human resources and employment offices around the Province.

I do not think it is fair to put out bad news without all the news. That has been typical of this government, where they said they are going to be closing school boards, they are going to be consolidating school boards, but yet they never had the decency to come out and advise which communities would be losing or which would be gaining. Then they came out with human resources and employment offices that would be closed, and they never had the decency to come out and say which communities would be affected. Now we are hearing that there are depots going to be closing from Works, Services and Transportation around our Province, but there has been no formal announcement by this government. So, communities are wondering now, around the Province, who is going to get the axe? What is going to happen to communities in rural Newfoundland? Because that is where they are going to be affected, there is no question.

I think this government has an obligation to the people of this Province, if they are considering closing depots around this Province, to come out and tell the people, and tell the communities, and tell the regions, and tell the Chamber of Commerce, and tell the municipalities, what their plan is, instead of trying to go unnoticed in dribs and drabs of a few people here and there and hope that nobody will notice. I am sure that is the plan.

I heard today on the news that the provincial government is not renewing the Aboriginal constables in Makkovik and Rigolet. Now, I had the opportunity two years ago to go to Rigolet and Makkovik, and I was so pleased to see these Aboriginal constables at work, and they were so well accepted by the community. They were totally involved and they, of course, knew the culture of the communities. They understood the culture. Their performance was, without question, well appreciated and was expert. Now we are hearing today that the provincial government is going to not renew. Not renew means eliminate.

Now, the people who know the citizens the best, who grew up in those communities, they know how to react to the situations. They have created and established a good record in their communities in Makkovik and Rigolet. Here now, the provincial government is not going to renew those four constables in Makkovik and Rigolet.

That is a great initiative that was brought forward and it really went a long way in providing public safety. Who can do it best but the people who are familiar with their own culture? If you ask anyone who is from that community, you ask communities leaders and you ask the people themselves in Makkovik and Rigolet, how that experience has been with Aboriginal constables, what will they tell you? They will tell you that they are extremely pleased. They would be the first to say that there has been a lot money going into training of these Aboriginal constables and they have a good rapport established with the community and the public at large.

You know, this is a backward step, because it has been said that we, when we were the government, have been trying to give people their own identity and letting them take care of the situations as presented in their own communities. This, in my opinion and the opinion of the Opposition, was definitely a right move in the right direction, giving Aboriginal constables the power, the training and the expertise, to deal with policing in their own communities, and it has worked out so well. To think now that program, the provincial government is saying, is not renewed. No renewed means it is eliminated.

How are the people going to react? Well, I heard the mayor today, from Makkovik or Rigolet - I am not sure which community.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) where they are?

MS THISTLE: I certainly do know where they are, because I actually visited Makkovik and I visited Rigolet and I saw those constables. In fact, I was there when they were sworn in. I was there for the swearing in ceremony of those constables, and I can tell you that was a very proud moment in those communities. I went to the two communities. I travelled there with the Member for Torngat Mountains, and he was so proud to see that actually taking place. There was a contingent of RCMP people there, to see those constables being sworn in. In particular, one of those constables had 100 per cent in one of the tests for marksmanship - had 100 per cent, a perfect score - and that has stayed in my mind. Being a part of that ceremony, it was mentioned at that particular time.

Now, to do away with Aboriginal constables, what is the reason they cannot be working side by side with the RCMP there in Rigolet and Makkovik? I am sure the people who have grown accustomed to this form of policing do not want to see it go, and I hope they will make their voices known because it has been a good program. I certainly hope that the new government will reconsider in this matter.

This was setting the record straight. I guess the record that we are talking about is the record now that is presented in this Budget. One of the real facts that was in this advertisement by the current government was: Providing transitional financing cost-shared with the federal government to ensure access to a primary health care provider twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Limit the waiting time for diagnostic and treatment procedures to meet standards deemed acceptable by our physicians.

This is what they were going to do. The CT scanner that was supposed to go to the Burin Peninsula has now been cancelled. This was a commitment that was made by the Danny Williams' team. That was a commitment that was made and a promise that was broken. In last week's Budget, this time, we saw first-hand that the Budget said, no CT scanner for the Burin Peninsula.

I started out saying today that $30,000 was wasted here last night by extending the House sitting hours. When there are so many people out there crying today for home support, so many people out there crying for extra drugs, so many people out there crying for housing, so many people out there looking for help with everything from wheelchairs to surgery to having the access for specialists and so on, and we are here in this House beyond the normal 5:30 p.m. time at the taxpayers' expense, when there is zero legislation on the Order Paper. It is time for this government to take a closer look, I can tell you that.

No layoffs, isn't that something? That was actually bolded up in big black letters. No layoffs in the public service. My goodness. Danny Williams and his team stand for job creation and a diversified and revitalized economy. Now, isn't that wonderful? That is wonderful. Was there anything in that Budget book for 2004 that talked about a diversified and revitalized economy? Was there anything in it? No. There was absolutely nothing in it. The first thing they were going to do was put the axe to 4,000 jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Plus management. They don't count. The school boards don't count.

MS THISTLE: School board don't count, no.

If the new government talks about revitalizing the economy, I don't know why they would be painting a dismal picture.

I would have to say to the new Minister of Environment and Conservation, the first thing he should do is scrap that book, shred it as his first assignment. The first thing he should do now is shred that economy book for his first assignment. When you get past the good page, the Liberal page, the first one in the book, 2003 Highlights - that is the best page there, when the Liberals increased employment by 1.8 per cent, the best ever since 1996. We had 217,000 people working last year and 76 per cent of those jobs were full-time jobs.

Danny Williams and his team stand for job creation. He said that in one breath and then in the next breath he said there were no layoffs in the public service. What did we hear in the Budget? There are 4,000 layoffs coming.

We said: Housing starts reached their highest level since 1992, 2,692 units. What did he say? He said: Housing starts are expected to decline. Isn't that something!

We said: The population grew for the first time in more than a decade. I said that in July, 2003. Can you imagine! We had an increase of 300 people to our Province. Out-migration was gone. We were experiencing in-migration, a new word we had to get used to, it wasn't even in our vocabulary before, in-migration. That is a new word. What is the new government saying? Modest population declines are expected. There is not much confidence -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are having a little bit too much noise in the Chamber and it is impossible for me to hear the hon. member.

Thank you.

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

I am looking over the propaganda that was on the go before October 21 and since. I can tell you that, based on what I see here, the current government does not have very much confidence in generating new revenue for this Province.

We have heard about consolidations of school boards, and I talked about that earlier this afternoon. I am hearing that there are going to be thirty-six positions in the Western School Board alone that are going to be eliminated. That is what I am hearing, that there are thirty-six positions on the West Coast alone that are going to be - and, of course, twenty teachers already let go.

What have we learned about ferry rates this week? We learned that the ferry rates will increase on the Island part of the Province by 10 per cent this year and 5 per cent for the years remaining, for a total of 25 per cent. Isn't that a form of resettlement? I would say so. I would say that is a form of resettlement. In the Blue Book they said they would lower ferry rates over a five year period to bring rates inline with the cost of highway travel. You turned about face and this is what you are going to do. You are going to increase the ferry rates on the Island part of the Province by 10 per cent this year and 5 per cent for the years remaining, for a total of 25 per cent.

I have heard people from Long Island tell me they have to sometimes get off the ferry and spend overnight in Springdale, at a hotel cost, because they could not get back on the ferry because the ferry stops running after supper. They cannot get back. They have to end up spending a night in Springdale, for a hotel and meals, and here this new government is going to increase their ferry rates by 10 per cent this year and 5 per cent for the next five years. Can you imagine that? And they are going to get away with it, are they? If I were living on an island and had to take a ferry I would be rising up and doing something about these ferry increases, I can tell you that. These costs are atrocious and people should not have to put up with it. There was absolutely no consultation, but I am sure they will find out the hard way. They will find out in the ballot box when the next time rolls around. They can only trick the people one time, and then you will know.

In fact, I read out a little while ago about the cancellation of schools here in this current Budget. I read out which ones were deferred and which ones were cancelled. I know for a fact the brochure that the Premier of our Province had when he was running for election, and also the Minister of Justice, they talked about the construction of Herdman Collegiate. I would like for them to speak to that today and say - Herdman Collegiate, is it deferred or is it cancelled? You know there is a difference in deferred or cancelled. We all know about that. I wonder, are the people in Corner Brook satisfied that Herdman Collegiate is deferred? Another election promise gone sour. I guess we have seen a few of those flip-flops in the past few of days. I think that -

Another one is the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, the L'Anse au Loup school. Is that deferred? Is it cancelled?

AN HON. MEMBER: There is nothing in the Blue Book on that.

MS THISTLE: Not a thing. It was almost like they took a page out of the 1986 Budget by Brian Peckford, because it is basically the same thing. I am sure you must have had - is there anyone here in this House, I wonder, who would have been a part of the Peckford government in 1986?

AN HON. MEMBER: There is one over there.

MS THISTLE: There is one here is there? Oh, no, two; two here in the House. Well that is the reason for it. It is just like someone had a good review of the Budget for 1986, the Peckford era, and said: Look, we got away with it for a year or so until 1989, we can give this another try. Well, I can tell you, the people of the Province are not too happy with the increases that you are imposing on them, and they will tell you, one way or the other. Then again, I look around - where are those fee increases? Who is going to be hurt most by these fee increases? Who is going to be hurt most by school board consolidations? Who is going to be hurt most by health care consolidations? Who is going to be hurt most by the closing of Human Resource offices? Who is going to be hurt most by the closure of highway depots in this Province? Is it the people in St. John's? No, I do not think so. Is it the people in rural Newfoundland? Yes, I think they will be if Doug House gets his way and separates this Province into two or three so-called economic corridors. He has the first one named now.

I wonder if the Minister of Justice in Corner Brook is satisfied with that analysis by Dr. Doug House, that he is going to have a corridor now between Bay St. George, Corner Brook and Deer Lake? That is the second corridor. That is economic development, is it? That is a new idea, is it, of economic development? Well, as I said earlier, the next invitation that Doug House is going to get is going to be in Grand Falls-Windsor where he can name up then where the third corridor is going to be in this Province for economic development. The new recycled views of economic development that were on the books twelve years ago.

I wonder what communities would be included in the third economic corridor of development in the Province? I wonder what would they be? Would they be Grand Falls-Windsor and Gander and Botwood? Would they include Springdale? It is hard to know, isn't it? Is that another word for justification for spending $1.7 million on a Rural Secretariat, so you can drive people out of rural Newfoundland? Is that what it is all about? You are going to have the school boards gone; you are going to have the hospital and the medial clinics gone; you are going to have the highway depots gone; you are going to have the Human Resources and Employment offices closed, and you are going to have the ferry rates increased for ferries that are running around the Province. Can you tell me what reason there will be for people to stay in rural Newfoundland, or is that your plan? Is that your subtle plan to move people out of rural Newfoundland?

We have seen recycling of economic development here. There is nothing in your Blue Book and there is nothing in your Budget book on how you are going to create new revenue. The only thing that is in there is how you are going to dismantle whatever is in existence today.

This is what you call it, "Workforce Adjustment Strategy Announced." You are not calling it laying off 4,000 people. It says, "The provincial government is implementing a multi-year financial plan to address the serious fiscal condition of the province. A part of this plan is to achieve a reduction of approximately 4,000 positions in the public service over a four-year period..." - 1,000 people every year for four years - "...which will be realized mainly through attrition and retirements." What a joke!

MR. REID: Another word for layoffs.

MS THISTLE: Workforce Adjustment; I have heard everything from downsizing to workforce adjustment, right sizing, you name it. This is workforce adjustment.

"The main element of this strategy is to use the retirements and natural turnover of the public service workforce to minimize the number of people who are affected..." I thought the main strategy and natural turnover allowed other people to move up in the system. I thought the natural turnover in retirement gave incentive to employees to move up the ladder. Instead of that, they are kicked off the ladder when they get that far.

Oh yes, "Approximately 6,000 positions are expected to become vacant over the next four years... By starting now, we are providing sufficient time to departments, boards and agencies to reduce the size of the workforce, primarily through attrition." I would say that number is going to swell from 4,000 to 6,000, because that is the real plan. It is what is not in the Budget that I think people ought to be worried about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am wondering if the hon. member could take her seat for a few moments. Could I have the attention of all members?

The Chair is now ready, after consultations extensively with the Table Officers and others, to rule on the point of order raised this afternoon by the hon. the Government House Leader relative to comments made by the Leader of the Opposition.

I want to read into the record - we had the co-operation of Hansard and we have the transcripts - the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board said the following, "I would like to know if the reason he wants a blackout now is so that it will not become public, prior to the strike on a Sunday night, the meeting that he and Mr. Puddister and Mr. Hanlon had here in this building."

In reply to that, the hon. Leader of the Opposition vehemently denied there was any such meeting and then he said the following, "...Mr. Speaker, I would ask for an apology. If he is any kind of an hon. member, he will apologize for telling that lie!"

The Speaker, again, has read extensively on the pertinent rules that apply and the Speaker must rule, of course, on the basis of the context in which language is used. Members will note that there was very heightened debate. It was Question Period, and Question Period is very free-flowing, and sometimes words get said that really may not have been meant to be said. Having taken into account all of the remarks that were made, members will note that, "Remarks directed specifically at another Member which question that Member's integrity, honesty or character are not in order. A Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations, or accusations of impropriety directed towards another Member."

In looking at this matter, again I am reminded of Speaker Parent who said in Parliament in Ottawa, "Regardless of how dramatically our opinions may diverge or how passionately we hold to convictions that our political opponents do not share, civility must be respected in the House. This means that each member is entitled to speak and each member can expect a fair hearing, whether or not we agree with what they say or what they stand for."

To quote Beauchesne, Beauchesne says the following: Speakers have ruled consistently and in all Commonwealth parliaments "that statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted. It is not unparliamentary temperately to criticize statements made by Members as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible. On rare occasions this may result in the House having to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident."

Thus, in this context we must accept that the words used by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to be in accordance with the facts as he knows them, and we must also accept the words of the Opposition Leader as also being in accordance with the truth as he knows it. That these two sets of facts have two completely different interpretations of the same matter must be accepted by the House and all members. However, the Opposition Leader is well aware that he cannot, in our parliamentary system, accuse another member of lying. He is free to disagree strongly with the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board but he cannot imply that the minister knowingly communicated an untruth and do so by using the word "lie".

The word "lie" is defined in the dictionary as an intentional false statement. I also inform members that in all the jurisdictions that we have contacted it is still the one word which is always ruled as being unparliamentary in most contexts, and in particular in the kind of context in which we had it today. I therefore ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the unparliamentary word.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Out of total respect for yourself, as Speaker, the rules of this House and decorum for the House, it is my intention to stay in this House and pursue the truth. I would gladly withdraw the comment if the hon. gentleman who made the false statement would be man enough to stand up and also withdraw the false statement.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is not able to carry on negotiations between two hon. members from this position, as the Speaker of the House. I cannot speak for the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, but the Chair is saying to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the case is, in this particular incident, that word itself has been declared to be unparliamentary. If the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board wishes to speak to the House, the issue is not what the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board said to the House. That is not the issue. The issue is the words that were used by the member.

We have to accept both the statements as being statements by hon. members and, even though they are contradictory to each other, we have to accept them as being the truth as members know it, and we cannot hear communications or negotiations back and forth.

I would say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I ask him again if he would withdraw the word "lie" and do it unequivocally?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not meaning to prolong it. Again, I am showing no disrespect for the Chair or the House of Assembly in wanting to promote decorum and respect for each other. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, this is part of a much larger issue where the President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance and the Premier are suggesting that in some way I have been meeting with the union leaders and am involved in this negotiation. The meeting that he talked about, as if it happened, never, ever occurred in this Legislature or anywhere in this Province or anywhere in this country or anywhere in this world on this planet. It has never happened.

The fact of the matter is, if we want to respect each other, I would withdraw out of respect. I would ask him to be an hon. gentleman, and if he was told that by someone else, and if he wants to say that, that would be more than satisfactory to me, that he was given some second-hand information, by the way, which is absolutely false, but he wants to sit in his seat because he is stubborn like his boss, the Premier, and does not want to admit that he has been found saying something that did not happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to withdraw, and I will withdraw when you ask me the next time, unequivocally, because I plan to stay here and pursue the truth, but I ask my friend, my neighbour, the hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to be man enough to stand up and say what he knows to be the truth, or say who told him about a meeting that has never, ever, ever occurred.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates and the Chair is not questioning the integrity of the hon. member and the Leader of the Opposition, not at all; however, I would ask the member again, in unequivocal terms, to withdraw the word he used this afternoon.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I never thought I would see the Minister of Finance behave in this manner but, out of total respect for yourself and for the rules of this House, I withdraw the comment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

Continuing debate, the hon. the Member for -

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Opposition House Leader has the floor. The hon. member.

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

I would like to make it quite clear in my opening remarks, this is a totally separate point of order unconnected from Your Honour's ruling, which was fully accepted and, as the Leader of the Opposition just did, withdraw the remarks.

A new point of order. Because this matter is of grave concern and I think we need some direction on how these issues ought to be handled, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 7, that we have and we govern ourselves by in this Legislature, it says, "The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order." That is the first thing we have to deal with.

Secondly, under Standing Order 49, it talks about offensive language and says, "No Member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor or Administrator of the Government of Canada; nor the Lieutenant-Governor of this Province; nor use offensive word against any Member of this House."

Mr. Speaker, I would also refer you to Marleau, page 522, which says, "Remarks directed specifically at another Member which question that Member's integrity, honesty or character are not in order. A Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations or accusations of impropriety directed towards another Member."

Mr. Speaker, in the context of those two Standing Orders and in what Marleau has stated on page 522, we feel that it is appropriate that the Member for Ferryland, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, should be asked to withdraw the remarks that he made in this Chamber this afternoon. Otherwise, what is the purpose of us having decorum in this House if persons can, at will, on either side or in either party, stand up in this House and make any statements that they wish without any impropriety being considered whatsoever.

If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, we will always have a situation where it will simply be a matter of an opinion being cast by either side. If that is going to be the interpretation of it, it means that under the veil and the cloak of Your Honour's authority in this House anyone can come in here and make any kind of absurd, criminal, slanderous, libelous statement that they want and not be brought to task for it.

Whether one uses any subjective or objective interpretations of what the Minister of Finance said here today, there was an implication that the Leader of the Opposition colluded in some improper manner with union leaders. That, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is in appropriate and should not be allowed to stand.

The Minister of Finance should do the honourable thing and the Chair ought - again in the interests of everybody in this House living by a basic minimum standard, he ought to be able to withdraw these very provocative and offensive words that he has used there. He ought to be asked to withdraw and conform with the rules in future in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader. Do you wish to speak before the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, or after?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, go ahead.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order, the Opposition House Leader has raised a point that I made in the intervention during the main issue, and that is - again, respecting totally your ruling that the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition ought to have been withdrawn and they were withdrawn - there still has, in the interest of decorum in this House, to be some mechanism for hon. members to continue to be respected by each other when something is said that is not factually correct, that is said - not saying that someone told me that this happened. When a member says that something happened, and it was a factual statement, that the other member - it is not a question of a difference of opinion, because it is not an opinion. Either it happened or it did not.

The President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, said that something happened involving the Leader of the Opposition, which the Leader of the Opposition denied and said did not happen. If the hon. member opposite, who made that assertion, is continuing to assert that what the Leader of the Opposition says did not happen, happened, by implication he is, in fact, suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition is lying and not telling the truth.

The response to that should be, as hon. members - and I know the hon. member has been in this House a long time and he knows that it is not a question of opinion here, I thought something happened, or I believe this, or I believe that happened. This is a statement that I think you did this, or the hon. the Leader of the Opposition met with so-and-so. Not that it is a particular crime, by the way. I would not consider it a crime to meet with Tom Hanlon, Wayne Lucas or anybody. These are people who have things to say, important things to say, about what is happening in this Province.

The fact of the matter is, this was suggested as a factual matter by the President of Treasury Board and, as an hon. member, I think it is incumbent upon him to rise in his place - when the Member for St. John's Centre leaves it - and say to this House that he withdraws his comment, or provide an explanation as the Leader of the Opposition as requested. Otherwise, by implication, he is imputing that the Leader of the Opposition himself is lying. I think that is what calls upon him, as an hon. member, to come forward and withdraw his statement. This is not a difference of opinion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: This is not a difference of opinion, although quite often the Chair makes those rulings. I think the public need to understand that the whole notion of having to withdraw the implication of someone lying or saying someone is lying requires that hon. members behave in an honourable way by withdrawing remarks that are contradicted factually by someone who was there and who knows the truth.

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

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

I am not going to belabour the point too much. I will just make a couple of points, first of all, to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board asked a question today, in the House, to a matter which he believed to be true. He would not have asked it otherwise; I can only assume that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the member, I sat down and listened to everybody intently and I would like the same courtesy to put my point forward on behalf of the government for due consideration for the Chair of the House, please.

He asked a question. The Leader of the Opposition obviously believes it not to be true, and has said it not to be true, with some indignation. I accept the indignation that he has.

I want to say to the Leader of the NDP first, in your assertion that the member has continued to assert that question, that is not true. There is no evidence, nor has he continued to assert. He asked one question in the House of Assembly in a rhetorical comment or in a question back to the Leader of the Opposition.

The second point, Mr. Speaker, you have indicated in your ruling, and again I point you towards it in terms of when you look at a ruling on the point of order raised by my colleague the hon. Opposition House Leader, that it is entirely possible in this House, and for that matter in any House, for members to have two different opinions upon the same subject, which they believe to be the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like me to finish?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am just trying to finish.

I will give you a good example today in Question Period. The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question today in Question Period, and yesterday, about closing the House when he knew full well in asking the question that those decisions were not being made, because he was advised of it. I did not stand on a point of order and say to the Leader of the Opposition: Why are you asking that question when you know the opposite to be true? It speaks for itself.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that in this instance -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I will sit down when I am finished, I say to the Member for Bellevue, and not before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the same opportunity was provided to your colleague, the Opposition House Leader, and to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I am just trying to exercise my right, as the Government House Leader, to make a counter-point to the point of order. That is all we are trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the point of order that has been put before you, while I appreciate why the Opposition is raising the point, it is my view that the matter which is before us - there was an assertion made. The Leader of the Opposition believes it not to be true. It has not continued to be asserted by the President of Treasury Board, and I do not believe that the point raised by the hon. member is in order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a further commentary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, we were arguing about whether it is a point of order. I think, in fact, it is a point of honour.

The Opposition House Leader has asked the hon. member to withdraw his assertion that something happened that did not. I think perhaps if it is not a point of order, it is certainly a point of honour. I know the hon. member would not want to refuse to act in an honourable way in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank all hon. members for their presentations on the point of order. The Chair will take these matters under consideration and make a ruling at a later date.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

If I could be given just a couple of minutes under Standing Order 34, to ask you to consider whether or not there has been a breech of privilege of a member of the House in this respect. Our privileges are such that we - as I indicated when I withdrew, that I would stay in this House to pursue the truth. I think that it is a matter of honour and integrity in pursuing the truth.

Mr. Speaker, let me put this into the record again for your consideration. I know for a fact the meeting that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board - I will give him this out, that somebody must have told him about it because he did not witness it, because it did not happen. So maybe someone told him that such a meeting occurred. Maybe he might want to stand up and say that he heard this secondhand, because it did not occur. It never occurred. Let me state it again, just for emphasis. He said it occurred - and this gives it some veracity, as if he knew something about it. He said it occurred on a Sunday night, before the Budget, in this building. That would make - that is deliberately done -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Oh yes, it is in Hansard. They can speak to it afterwards, Mr. Speaker, I am sure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Let's not interrupt the Opposition Leader in his presentation.

MR. GRIMES: That is given. That is said deliberately, Mr. Speaker, to give it some sense of real truth, real knowledge. The fact that, I am not just saying there was a meeting. I know where it was. I know when it was. I know who it was. We are talking about a Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury Board, that we need everybody in the Province to trust his word more so today than ever. We need the unions to trust his word because he is there trying to barter and bargain an agreement in good faith so that we can stop this strike.

This whole issue today is about innuendo, an insinuation that started outside the Legislature by the Premier this morning on an Open Line program. He is using the language: there are phantom negotiators. There is somebody else in charge. He used three names this morning. He talked about two union leaders and he talked about myself. Then the Minister of Finance comes in today and links me with these two people in a manner that would make people believe. Anyone who saw television today, Mr. Speaker, believed that the Minister of Finance had knowledge of a meeting that occurred in this building, on a Sunday night, with myself and two other people.

Now, the facts are this, and let me repeat them: no meeting occurred in this building. No meeting occurred anywhere else in the city. No meeting occurred in this Province. No meeting occurred in this country. No meeting occurred anywhere on the planet. No meeting occurred up in Mars. We do not have access to the Rover. So, I did not meet with the people that he named and I did not meet with them anywhere. I can tell you for a fact, Mr. Speaker, and if you want - he suggested it was in this building. The other people cannot get in this building without signing in because of security purposes. There is no signature on the nights that he talked about here - because he has changed his mind, I understand, about which night. But there are no signatures, that I know of, because I was not here. If they were here, the only Sunday nights I thought they might have been here - they might have been meeting with himself and the Premier trying to negotiate. I do not know if that happened on a Sunday night or not, but there was no meeting with me.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the other part is this, the place that he used to try to give veracity and truth to it did not occur. The actual meeting never, ever occurred. I have clearly disputed what he said. I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt, to say that he would now get up and say: Well, I wasn't at the meeting. I didn't actually see you and the other two people come in the building. Somebody told me that it happened.

Right now, if he is a man of real integrity and honor, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi suggested, he can get up and this can stop, because he can say: I admit I did not see these people in the building, I admit I was not at the meeting, I admit that there is no evidence that anybody signed in, I admit that someone else told me and I was repeating second-hand information; and this can be over.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, because it is exactly right, if he is going to insist - and I have done the hon. thing and withdrew because I used a word which is not allowed in this House. I have repeated it outside and I will until the cows come home, Mr. Speaker, because what I did say in here happens to be the truth. It is just that it is not proper to say it in here, and it is not proper for the member opposite to make the accusation when he has no facts and he has no evidence. He is making it - and the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is this - he is making it impossible for me to stand here with any credibility, because people will then believe -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: They are laughing at that, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious point of privilege. They are laughing at that. The Member for Ferryland is laughing at that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Opposition is making a presentation on a point of privilege. It is a very important part of our parliamentary process and it rarely happens that we have point of privileges raised. I think we should hear him in silence and we will hear every other member, on a very important issue like a point of privilege, with all the courtesy and all the respect and the dignity that this particular procedure requires.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not prolong it, but I will say it again. Maybe they will laugh again.

It is making it very difficult for me or anybody else to stand here and do our jobs effectively, because the insinuation in it is that we are not telling the truth. I am man enough, and I have been man enough today, to withdraw the statement that is not allowed in this House and is offensive.

I ask my friend, my neighbor, my colleague whom I have been here for ten years with, to be man enough to stand up and do one of three things: Explain and prove what he said, prove what he said in this House, stand up now and say that he saw me in this building with two people who I have not seen in six or seven months, stand up and say that he saw it, stand up and prove it. He cannot, Mr. Speaker. Or else, explain where he heard it, and then, at least, we can all understand that: Well, he said it because someone told him and whoever told him, he believed them to be telling the truth. That is understandable. He repeated it because someone that he believed told him something that he then repeated. Will he say that is what happened? Even that would be acceptable and would lead us to at least start believing him again. At this point in time, we need this man to be believable, we need him, like all of us, to be trusted. The actions here today do anything but. Or else, he could go the further step - I apologized and withdrew even though I believed the comment that I made to be the absolute truth. Out of respect for the Legislature, out of respect for each other, out of respect for decorum, I decided to follow the rules in the better interest of doing what we will need to do here in the next several months and the next several years.

Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege is this: If we are not going to have the same kind of respect for this House from all members, including the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board, when I have explained to the whole world that what he said today never, ever occurred - he has an opportunity to explain where he heard it, prove that it happened and then I will be a liar, which I know I am not. I believe the rules in here allow me to call myself a liar. I do not have to because I know I am not and this did not occur.

It is a very important point, Mr. Speaker. It strikes the very heart of parliamentary democracy. I really do believe it with every single bone in my body. We are not going to be able to function in this Legislature. I have been here for fifteen years and this is as serious a breach of my ability to do the job, by being called into question about my own truthfulness. If that is what we are going to do everyday - I used the wrong words to express it, I respected Your Honour in the Chair, I withdrew and I apologized even though every bone in my body said, do not do that. Out of respect for the Legislature, I do it.

I would ask that we all have the same respect for the Legislature, give the explanation, prove that it happened, which he cannot do because it didn't happen, or apologize and lets show some respect for each other and make your job a whole lot easier, and we can all go about our business.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like you to take that under due consideration. It is a serious breach of privilege in my view.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to say that what the Leader of the Opposition is getting on with is the utter most grandstanding I have ever seen in this House. Utter nonsense!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Hansard will show that I indicated, that I said, I would like to know if the reason he wants a blackout now is so it will not become public prior to a strike that, on a Sunday night, the meeting he and Mr. Puddister and Mr. Hanlon had here in this building. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I did not say on Sunday before the strike, nor did I intend to say Sunday before the strike.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did. You did.

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: They don't want to hear, Mr. Speaker, they don't want to hear.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: On a -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

A few moments ago, I reminded the House that when we are talking about a Point of Privilege, even if we strongly disagree with what the member is saying, and we passionately believe in our own minds that what we are saying is the correct interpretation, civility must be respected. On a Point of Privilege, there can be no greater debate in the House than to be discussing a Point of Privilege for members.

I ask all members to respect that, and lets do it in a manner which, even if we disagree with what is being said, lets hear the communication. Every member has a right to be heard, and on this particular matter I again pass the floor back to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will finish what I was saying. I (inaudible) two people, eyewitnesses, who saw the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Hanlon and Mr. Puddister and two other individuals not last Sunday or the Sunday before. I did not specify. I knew intentionally when I said it. It was on a Sunday night that they came down from upstairs and went out of this building. What they met on up there I can't speak on, but they were seen. I can't determine what they met or talked about, but they came down together and went out of this building. Mr. Speaker, I stand by that.

The utter nonsense they are getting on with here in this House is disgraceful, what they are getting on with here. He knows he is grandstanding to grab attention. He got thrown out of this House for not obeying the laws of the House. He did it today so he can stay and grandstand. It is utter nonsense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I again remind members of the importance of this debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I again remind members, it is a very serious debate and we would like to have members heard in silence by all other members.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do want to make a few comments. It is, as Your Honour has said, a very important debate because it does go to the heart of parliamentary democracy and the fact that we call each other hon. members for a reason and we do respect the honour that we bring to a place of this nature.

Just a simple matter that happened, I think, last week when I was speaking in debate and I referred to some remark that the Premier had made outside the House, I did not hear the Premier make the remark and apparently I misquoted him. The Premier came into the House, rose in his seat on a point of order, and said that what the member is saying is not correct. I did not say that. I said something else.

He asked me to withdraw the remark. Without hesitation, without talking about how many witnesses I had or did not have, or eyewitnesses - this is not a court of law. We do not call witnesses here. We take each other's word. When the Premier came into this House and said to the House and to me that I was outside and I did not say what the member is saying that I said, I immediately, without question, without debate, withdrew the remark, and said: Well, if that is what the Premier is saying, I was not there and I am not going to contradict him. I withdrew the remark.

Now, the hon. Member for Ferryland, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, in his response to the request by the Premier - sorry - by the former Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, who has been in this House for fifteen years and is deserving of the honour and respect of an hon. member who stands in this House and says categorically that certain things did not happen, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, and the traditions of this House and any House of Parliament, it does not stand in the mouth of the Member for Ferryland and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to say that I have eyewitnesses.

This is not a court of law. This is a Parliament of honourable men and women. What we have here is the former Premier and the Leader of the Opposition saying that something categorically did not happen, and he is saying - the President of Treasury Board - that someone told me that it did. He is aggrandizing it by saying that they were eyewitnesses.

What we are having here now is that the Member for Ferryland is saying, and asserting, that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is not true and he is not according to the Leader of the Opposition the honour of being an hon. member who is telling the truth to this House. Therein lies, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, a very serious problem of decorum, privilege and respect for hon. members in this House.

All the hon. member has to do is say that, I was not there. I cannot say that. I therefore withdraw that, and let the chips fall where they may. He would be according to the hon. member the honour of being a member of this House.

I would ask him to give the Leader of the Opposition the honour that he deserves as an hon. member, as I did to the Premier last week, as I would give to him if he came to this House and asserted that something that I said about him was, in fact, not true, something that I was told by him was not true and that I had been told by somebody else.

I think it is a very simple matter, Mr. Speaker, but I do believe that it is a serious point of privilege and I do believe that if we do not have that kind of honour and respect for each other then the decorum of this House, and the respect in which we hope to be held by the people of the Province, is sadly diminished.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak to the point of privilege. I am not going to rehash the debate that occurred on the point of order because I believe the point of order, and your ruling on the point of order, will cover both.

First of all, I do not think there is a point of privilege and I will explain why - not my opinion, but the opinion of those people who have defined the body of law called Parliamentary Law and Parliamentary Privilege.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, a point of order - I will put it in this context, in order for - I will quote: For a privilege to be established there must be some act that improperly interferes with the member's rights, such as his or her freedom of speech or his or her freedom from civil arrest. The interference, however, must not only obstruct the member in his capacity or her capacity as a member, it must obstruct or allege to obstruct the member in his or her parliamentary work.

For example, in terms of why I say it is a matter of point of order as opposed to a point of privilege is simply this. A dispute between two members - and this comes from Joseph Mango who is the parliamentary authority in the British Commonwealth, I guess, in terms of parliamentary privilege. He says: A dispute between two members about questions of fact said in debate does not constitute a valid question of privilege because it is a matter of debate and is therefore more a point of order. Similarly, in Beauchesne it says, on page thirteen, §31.(1), "A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege." - and nor does it.

Mr. Speaker, when privilege is raised a prima facie case must be established, which means that on the face of it, the evidence must be strong enough to suggest and to demonstrate and to prove categorically that the Leader the Opposition, in his capacity as a member, that somehow his rights have been obstructed. I assert, in this point of view, that they have not. The point of privilege raised is not a point of privilege, it is more a point of order, which the Opposition House Leader has already raised. That a dispute - long standing tradition, long standing in terms of parliamentary law, long standing parliamentary point for parliamentary privilege is simply this: that a dispute between two members, according to the allegations of fact, does not constitute a point of privilege.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of privilege, which I do submit is a point of privilege, contrary to the comments of the Government House Leader regarding Mango, who is a recognized authority. I think it is quite evident that this is not simply a dispute between two members as to allegations of fact. We have the character of the Leader of the Opposition in question here. This is not an allegation.

We had the Minister of Finance, the Member for Ferryland, stand in this House today and say that the Leader of the Opposition held a meeting with certain union leaders in this building, prior to a strike, on a Sunday night. Now that is his allegation; that is fine. That is an allegation of fact, but it is not an allegation of fact when the Leader of the Opposition stands up here and states to the world that it is a fact - not an allegation - that no such meeting ever occurred. We are dealing here, and as Beauchesne talks about, freedom of speech is basically the biggest privilege that we have in our parliamentary democracy. And implied and implicit within the definition of freedom of speech, is that you tell the truth. It is a necessary implication, otherwise - it is not stated in any authority that as long as you can speak, and you have the freedom to speak, you can say anything you want without harming anyone.

You cannot cast negative aspersions upon anyone in this House. You may be safe from civil liability, because you are saying it in here and not outside the doors of this House, but it is implicit in someone's freedom of speech that you not infringe the character of anyone else. What does the Member for Ferryland do? Instead of doing the honourable thing and saying: Well, I do not have proof and treating it like a court of law, and I heard this or someone told me this. Instead of doing that he exacerbates the situation and stands up here and tries to justify what he said earlier. The bottom line is, he has made an allegation which he does not know is true or not true. He has been told by the hon. member here that it is not true, it was not factual, it did not happen. The Member for Ferryland ought to do the honourable thing and stand up here and say: Thank you very much, if I made a mistake I apologize fully for what I said. And that ends the matter.

We need not take what has been an improper remark here by the Member for Ferryland and continue what was a dishonourable action here. I would urge him as well, it is a point of privilege. He has breeched the member's point of privilege, from the Member for Exploits here, and he ought to do the honourable thing so that Your Honour is not put in a situation where you have to force him to do it. He can save everybody a lot of trouble here by standing up for, not only his rights, but all of our rights here in this House, and do the honourable thing.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on the point of privilege.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Not to prolong it, and to do anything - the furthest thing in the world is grandstanding. I am disappointed again in my colleague, the Minister of Finance, for characterizing it as such. It means he does not take this seriously, which is unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, just to correct, again, the facts, I thought he was at least going to head in the right direction by saying he did admit that he did not see it, did not witness it. He has a couple of eyewitnesses who were at no meeting but saw, now allegedly, me leave the building at the same time as these two gentlemen.

Let me tell you, again, Mr. Speaker, and tell the Legislature and the whole world, that did not happen. I was not in this building with these two gentlemen. I could not leave the building with these two gentlemen if I was not here. I do not know if they were here or not. You can find out if they were here on any Sunday night by checking the security log. I can tell you for a fact that if his so-called eyewitnesses - there must be someone else around who might look like me, but I can tell you one thing, I was not here.

For the last time, for the record, Mr. Speaker, and this strikes to the heart of it, freedom of speech, obstructing my ability to my parliamentary work, because my total integrity is called into question. If this is not clarified, it means that every time I stand here, the members opposite and those who tune in through television will question whether or not I am telling the truth, because there is an allegation here that goes unchallenged and not corrected by this hon. member. That cannot be allowed to stand. That strikes to the very heart of it.

Now, the issue again on a point of honour is this, for clarification, the last time I was in this building with Mr. Hanlon, who was one of the people named, was when I was Premier. He retired back in June. I saw him once since then, for the record, on a golf course. His son had died, for the record, and he was out. His wife had died, pardon me. He was golfing with his son, and I met them at Pippy Park. Now, that is the last time I talked to Tom Hanlon.

For the record, just so the hon. member and the Minister of Finance knows, the last time I saw Mr. Puddister was out at the cow rally on Sunday and we did not even say hello to each other. He was talking to some people. I spoke to Mr. Lucas for a few minutes, just to say hello. I have never been engaged with any of these people in any discussions about this strike and their tactics in terms of bargaining. I have never had a discussion. They will verify that.

The whole issue today is wrapped in that whole insinuation and accusation, and I believe that if we are going to function, again, as my colleague, the Opposition House Leader said, all of us, Mr. Speaker, can save you a whole lot of trouble and a whole lot of time because we set the rules here ourselves. We have Standing Orders but we really decide, with your guidance, how we are going to conduct ourselves. We can save you a whole lot of trouble if we are going to be honourable to each other and respect each other. All he has to do is go a little tiny step further and say, well, I will check with my eyewitnesses; maybe they got it wrong.

I can tell you, I know they got it wrong because I was not here. The allegation, if he is going to leave it standing, Mr. Speaker, then I believe that it will constitute and you will find that it is a breach of my privilege in this Legislature and it is a breach of the privilege of all of us if those kinds of accusations - false as they are - are going to be allowed to stand and members are not going to be honourable enough to withdraw them, qualify them, explain them and so on.

I plead with my friend, my colleague, the hon. member, to make your job and ours a whole lot easier. Otherwise, I would suggest to you that in the representations made, that more clearly than anyone else it is the Government House Leader who is giving you the right quotes to show that there has been a clear breach of privilege here today.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank all hon. members for their presentations.

The Chair will take all of these matters under advisement. When we have been able to do the appropriate consultations with references and other learned colleagues in other Parliaments, we will come back and bring back a decision to the House for consideration.

Resuming debate, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we hear the point of order being raised by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I want members to understand that we just had a very serious discussion. The Chair determined that discussion is now terminated. The Chair said that we are going to take it under advisement and come back to the House with a decision.

I think it is very important that we accept that as the course of action and that we do not engage in shouting across the House. It will serve no purpose. It will only further compound problems. Members will have a tendency, perhaps, to say things that they should not say to each other in the heat of debate, because we passionately might believe different viewpoints of the same incident.

I ask all hon. members, if we are going to continue debate this afternoon, that we give the floor to the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, who has the floor; but, in doing that, I do think there was an immediate point of order being raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi. I ask if he still wishes to continue.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.

I want to raise a point of order concerning the remarks of the Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board in his intervention during the debate on the point of privilege. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into a prolonged debate, but I would not want the point of privilege to be dealt with in a narrow way so I will raise a point of order.

If Your Honour decides that the Government House Leader is right and it is not a point of privilege, it is a point of order, I would like to raise this as a point of order: that what the member said this afternoon in the point of privilege debate, his comments in reference to what the Leader of the Opposition said, in fact, suggest by implication that the Leader of the Opposition is not telling the truth to this House, and that his remarks, instead of withdrawing the remarks, his assertions that he made about eyewitnesses - and I would ask Your Honour to read carefully what the Hansard records - that his assertions in this debate suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is in fact not being truthful to the House, and that those remarks ought to be withdrawn by the Leader of the Opposition.

That is my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will leave it at that for your consideration. I do not want to engage in prolonged debate on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there any further presentations to that point of order?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to resume debate on the Budget and talk about particularly the health care blueprint for reform. This is another in a series of parts of information being given to the general public with no firm details. I always say that the devil is in the details. What we have here as part of the Budget Speech that was presented in this House just a week ago today is about creation of regional integrated health authorities. "Board integration will occur in the coming months .... Initiatives will be rolled out over the coming18 months, beginning with a new structure for regional integrated health authorities...".

What indication does that give to the people of this Province? The health care system as we know it today will not be the same in eighteen months' time. It will not be the same in eighteen months' time. We have heard at least five examples today of partial information that is out there in the public, and communities and people are effected and there has been enough damage done to give out part information without the true facts being stated for the people of this Province.

What we have heard, we have heard it on health care, we have heard it on education, we have heard it on works, services and transportation - their depots are being closed. We have heard it with human resources and employment, their offices being closed. Now we are hearing it on health care, "Creation of regional integrated health authorities." What does that mean? It says, "Board integration will occur in the coming months, providing integrated and smaller corporate structures to better reflect the population base of our province".

Now, earlier today I said that I had read an article in The Western Star, how Dr. Doug House, the Deputy Minister of Innovation and Rural Development, was proposing a new economic structure for this Province. He said at a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Bay St. George that the next second corridor of economic development would be Bay St. George, Corner Brook and Deer Lake. Now, the Minister of Health is coming out with a news release and she is saying that there is going to be a creation of a "...smaller corporate structure for health care to better reflect the population base of our province." Does that mean to the people of this Province that people in rural Newfoundland are not going to have the services that they now enjoy in health care?

Sometimes you have to read between the lines, because I think the new government has dangled pieces of information from this Budget out to the general public, and they have not been honest and straightforward and fair in delivering that full message. They have not delivered the full message as to how people are going to be affected, how communities are going to be affected, and how regions are going to be affected.

There is another statement here that I think needs to be explored, and that is development of a

skill mix framework to ensure health and community services employees practice to their highest level of training.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member.

MS THISTLE: What does that mean, development of a skill mix framework? Does that mean that we are not going to have LPNs and nurses in our long-term care homes? Are we going to have a different skill mix looking after our seniors?

Then it goes on to say, "Development of a Location of Services plan to bring a balance of quality, accessibility and sustainability to our health services...". What does all of that mean to people in our Province? It says, "Our health and community services system needs to evolve to ensure it's in-step with the most progressive..." - is that Conservative Progressive or Progressive Conservative - "...practices across the country...".

We know what the Mike Harris government did in Ontario to health services. We know that we have half the information here now, saying that we are going to have creation of regional integrated health authorities, board integration.

You are careful not to say how those boards are going to be combined. I do not think you were careful; I think you were insensitive. I think you were insensitive to how this would react in the general population.

I do not know if the people in our Province actually know what is being said here, when you put out a news release outlining the Health Blueprint for Reform. Right now we know that there is a study to study being done in the western health care region. We have heard it said - and these are your words, not mine - that your plan is to make a smaller corporate structure that will better reflect the population base of our Province. Does that mean that you will be going under the guise of the economic development plan by Dr. Doug House, that you will be having three or four so-called economic corridors in this Province? If you live in a rural location, too bad, because they want to have a smaller corporate structure that better reflects the population base of our Province. So, if you live in a smaller rural community, you will have to travel to one of those economic corridors that Dr. Doug House is explaining are going to be here. He sees the second one as being in Western Newfoundland.

As we are getting into the close of this afternoon's session, Mr. Speaker, I think I would have to leave asking the people of the Province to ask more questions on health care, because we know that we are in for a big shakeup in the next eighteen months. I, for one, will be one who will be standing and making sure that they will be held accountable.

It being 5:30 in the day, I would move that we now adjourn debate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the hon. member that, it being 5:30 p.m., that this debate would now adjourn.

Are we ready to put the question?

All those in favour of the adjournment of the debate?

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised. We will have to agree to stop the clock.

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible) agree, by consent, in order for me to make my point of order. I need clarification, I guess, from the Government House Leader and the Chair, if I may.

Do I have leave to continue beyond 5:30 p.m.?

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) stop the clock.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

Mr. Speaker, I am just curious as to what the procedure will be. The Government House Leader has informed me that they will make a decision tomorrow as to whether or not the House will be open during the Easter break. Now, under the calendar that is presently in our Standing Orders, as an accepted practice it says that the House will be closed on the Thursday until the third Monday following Easter Sunday. That is what the calendar says.

On Wednesdays, according to Standing Order 9, it says, "At the hour of 5 o'clock on Wednesday afternoon the Speaker adjourns the House without question put."

My concern is that tomorrow being Private Members' Day, Wednesday, and because we do not yet know from the Government House Leader what the plan is on the Easter recess period - and we will not know until tomorrow - I would not want to lose the opportunity to speak to any motion to adjourn, vis-à-vis if the government should decide they are going to go beyond, or not close for Easter, we would like to comment.

I realize it would be premature to do it today because he has not yet made his decision, but I will not get a chance to do it tomorrow if it is the Speaker who closes the House, and not the Government House Leader, by motion.

I would like some clarification and an assurance that, depending on what the decision is tomorrow, we will have an opportunity to address that issue of whether or not the House closes for Easter.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of clarification, I assume that there will be communications on tomorrow. I would ask for direction from the House itself, the many things being done by leave of the House. I do assume that leave will be asked for. I do not know whether it will be given or not, because that is not the Chairs to give. However, I do take under advisement the comments of the hon. Opposition House Leader. I am wondering if there is some commentary the Government House Leader can give to give some clarification or some comment that he would want to make on that point raised by the Opposition House Leader?

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

I cannot comment on it because I do not have a decision to give him in terms of the House, but for all members' sake, and for the knowledge of all members, the Opposition House Leader does not require leave tomorrow because if you adjourn it means we automatically come back on Thursday. So he will have all the opportunity that he wants to have if we are back here on Thursday.

The only thing I can say is, I have indicated to the Opposition House Leader that there is a parliamentary calendar in play that we have all operated under. Any changes to that - to the best of my knowledge, if it is longer it must be done by consent. There is no need to get up. Everyone relax. No one is going to try to thwart or impede or pound you into submission, or anything like that. Any opportunity you want to have to speak on any motion, it is obviously going to be provided.

When a decision is made - as I have given you my assurance earlier today, and again before the House opened. I would have hoped that you had provided that assurance to the Leader of the Opposition because his questions in Question Period today, if he had that assurance - certainly we are not truthful, but I will deal with that at another point. Maybe I can use his words - which he used against my colleague - tomorrow on a point of order, but I will deal with that a little later.

Mr. Speaker, it now being the time to adjourn, I will put the motion for adjournment and back tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: There is already a motion to the floor.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: On that point of order, or we are speaking to the adjournment motion.

MR. PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I am not here to prolong things and get into debates about what the Government House Leader feels about what the Leader of the Opposition did or did not say. I had a valid point to raise here and I raised it. I thought I was very fair about raising it. I did not ask for a debate on a motion, but I would point out again that if we followed the practice as I see written in our Standing Orders, Your Honour would adjourn the House tomorrow, on Wednesday at 5:00 p.m., and under the Standing Orders it would be adjourned until the third Monday following Easter. Now that is what is written in our practice.

The Government House Leader stands up now and says it would automatically be adjourned to Thursday, that is the whole point. The point is that under our standing practice, if we lived by it, we would be back here on April 26. I just wanted an assurance that would not be the interpretation that is given tomorrow. For example, we would get an opportunity to speak. But the rules clearly say that we would adjourn tomorrow, by Your Honour, and be out of here, if we follow the calendar, until April 26. That is all I ask for. I did not need a lecture here, Your Honour.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: To clarify, I referred to it as a point of order but I think the member raised it as a point of clarification. It is all straightened up. I do believe that there will be provision made tomorrow, that we can debate it.

The motion before the House is the adjournment motion of the debate.

All those in favour of the motion to adjourn the Budget Debate, say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

The motion is carried.

The Budget Debate is adjourned.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the House do now adjourn, rise and come back tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. for Private Members' Day.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do adjourn and that we return tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday for Private Members' Day. I believe it is a motion by the hon. Member for Bellevue that we will be discussing.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.