April 15, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 17


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Before we begin today's session, the Chair wishes again to welcome all visitors to the public galleries; however, in doing so, I must again remind all visitors that they are not to participate or to demonstrate in any way, nor to show approval or disapproval of any proceedings in this House.

On four occasions in this session, including the sitting yesterday afternoon, the Chair was obliged to suspend the sitting due to disorder which originated in the galleries. In such matters the Chair, as the presiding officer with responsibility to maintain order and decorum, has very few options.

The Standing Orders are very clear. Any person who misconducts himself or herself shall be asked to leave the galleries. As a last resort, the Speaker may ask the galleries to be cleared and that the House sitting be suspended until the Sergeant-at-Arms is satisfied that the House can conduct its proceedings in a manner consistent with our rules on order and decorum.

Finally, the Chair has the option to ask security to identify a person or persons who consistently interrupt the proceedings and ask security to bar that person or persons from attendance in the galleries. The Speaker is, however, very reluctant to bar any person or persons from attendance in the public galleries. In this regard, I ask all visitors for their co-operation.

Again, on behalf of all members, we welcome all visitors to the galleries and ask visitors to refrain from any participation that might be seen as showing approval or disapproval of any proceedings in our House.

Thank you very much.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have statements by members and we have statements by the following members: The hon. Member for St. John's Centre, the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, the hon. Member for Burin-Placentia West, the hon. Member for Port de Grave, and the hon. Member for Humber Valley.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize another record-setting year for the St. John's Port Authority. Last year, Mr. Speaker, the St. John's Port Authority set three records. The first record was for gross revenues of $4.2 million, the highest ever recorded in one calendar year. The second had to do with the 1,100 vessels that utilized the Port facilities during the year 2003. The third record, Mr. Speaker, concerned the 1.6 million tons of cargo that moved through the facilities of the Port.

Mr. Speaker, the private sector plays a large role in the revenues received for the St. John's Port Authority. Congratulations to all of the private sector companies that utilize the facilities, services and staff of the Port Authority to grow their businesses and employ Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

As well, I would like to recognize and congratulate the President and CEO of the St. John's Port Authority, Mr. Sean Hanrahan, and his staff for the numerous infrastructure improvements made over the last few years. The improved Port facilities make them financially and physically more attractive for business to be conducted by both the public and private sectors. The annual economic input from the Port to the Province is estimated to be $220 million per year.

I ask that all hon. members join with me in acknowledging the record performance of the St. John's Port Authority for the year 2003.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Kerri Sheppard, a Grade 8 student of Fitzgerald Academy, English Harbour West, in the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Sheppard performed for the first time in the Annual Central Newfoundland and Labrador Kiwanis Music Festival. Kerri accompanied herself with classical guitar and competed in the vocal class - Songs for Movies - age fourteen years and under - along with fourteen other participants.

Her enchanting performance of Drift Away placed Kerri first in her group; a tremendous achievement for this young performer. Her classmates, teachers, community residents and the whole region share her accomplishment and are very proud of her success.

Mr. Speaker, this was her first ever participation and Fitzgerald Academy's first ever representation in the Kiwanis Music Festival. I am sure we will hear more from Kerri and Fitzgerald Academy as they continue their participation in other musical festivals to come.

I ask all members of this House to join me in extending congratulations to Ms Kerri Sheppard of English Harbour West for her recent accomplishments in the Kiwanis Music Festival.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 today to recognize Ms Melanie Adams of Marystown. Melanie is a former student of Marystown Central High School and is the daughter of Kurt and Marion Adams.

I would like to extend congratulations to Melanie on being awarded the Natural Sciences and Engineering Resource Council Doctoral Scholarship in the amount of $42,000. In its decision, the council cited Melanie for her academic excellence, research ability, leadership and communication skills. She will complete her doctoral studies in Biochemistry at Queen's University in Ontario in 2005.

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a prestigious award, and speaks again to the rich talent and ability of the youth in our Province. To be recognized nationally is an honour in itself. To be recognized through a national scholarship of this nature speaks to the hope that the council places in individuals such as Melanie.

Melanie's research will involve investigation into the resistance of various drugs to different bacterial strains. This type of research is beneficial to drug companies and individuals who use various drugs to combat diseases.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all member of this House to join with me in congratulating the family of Melanie Adams, who I am sure must be overjoyed with this achievement, and to Melanie congratulations on this most outstanding accomplishment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute to the life of Mrs. Elizabeth Bradbury, who passed away on April 9, 2004, at the grand age of 106.

Mrs. Bradbury was born in Bay Roberts on January 20, 1898, the eldest of three children. At the age of twenty, Elizabeth married John Bradbury, a Cooper from Coley's Point. They lived in Coley's Point and she became a stay-at-home wife and mother of seven children.

Elizabeth supplemented her husband's income by selling vegetables that she grew in her own garden, and by sewing. She was an accomplished seamstress who made all her family's clothing. She would draw patterns on brown paper and make everything from suits to wedding dresses.

Mrs. Bradbury had a deep and abiding interest in the political scene. Her daughter, Beatrice Bradbury, said her hard-working mother was a go-getter and would have been a politician had she been born in a more modern time.

I ask all members to join with me in extending sincere condolences to the family of Mrs. Elizabeth Bradbury.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate a successful sports team from the Town of Deer Lake on two of their most recent accomplishments.

On February 22 of this year, the Elwood High Girls Basketball Team won the Newfoundland and Labrador Basketball Association Hall of Fame Cup held in St. John's. This is a major accomplishment, as the team was ranked number seven out of eight teams.

The Elwood High Girls Team have competed nationally and internationally over the past eight years and have represented our Province well.

Mr. Speaker, most recently the team won the 4A's girls basketball tournament, making them the top high school girls team in the Province. This tournament was held on March 26 and 27, and the Elwood girls are only the second team outside the Avalon Peninsula to win this tournament.

This team is coached by Mr. Charlie Barker and Mr. Gerry Gallant. Mr. Barker is retiring this year and I am sure he could not have received a better retirement gift from his team.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members of the House of Assembly to congratulate the Elwood High School Girls Basketball Team on their recent success.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we begin Question Period today, I must remind all members on both sides of the House of the need to maintain order and decorum and an atmosphere that respects the integrity of each and every member. Personal attacks, insults and demeaning language or actions are never in order in this House.

While Question Period is a time of considerable cut and thrust in a freewheeling parliamentary structure, disorderly language or actions that are designed to be offensive to another member should not occur. Question Period is designed for the asking of questions and for the government to provide answers.

Yesterday, some language and actions, in the Speaker's opinion, did not serve the parliamentary system well. Each of us, my fellow parliamentarians in this House, have a responsibility to ourselves and to the House to assure our comments, both on the record and off the record, conform to the accepted rules of order and decorum. In this matter, I ask today for your co-operation to make sure that our Question Period proceeds in a very orderly manner that is respectful of the dignity of the House and respectful of the dignity of all hon. members.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House I provided the President of Treasury Board with the basis of an agreement that could bring an end to the largest strike in the Province's history, that has been caused by this government.

The components of this agreement include a two-year wage freeze, future negotiated raises, and the removal of the pension, sick leave, and school board concessions. I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Would he like to provide any final update to the strike situation before heading into the long-overdue talks that are going to occur later this afternoon?

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: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that I should discuss things here in the House today, certainly in light of the meeting, but I do want to say to the hon. member across, to (inaudible) Premier of this Province who negotiated an agreement on pensions and joint trusteeship with this Province, after almost three years in office they still had not done anything about it because they found it problematic for government, the same problem that was passed to us, that we are now dealing with, I might add. They had three years to implement the last contract and they did absolutely nothing on job evaluation, absolutely nothing on the joint trusteeship, and three years in power to do it. That is why the problem is here today, Mr. Speaker, and he has to bear the price for dealing with a great part of the problems we have today in our 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.

Mr. Speaker, it is still good to see that the President of Treasury Board in more interested in the blame game and the past instead of solving a fifteen-day strike that he and the one-man show Premier caused by himself - nothing to do with the past. This is about today and the future. They got elected to show real leadership and take a new approach.

Mr. Speaker, the question as well to the President of Treasury Board is: Yesterday, he advised us in this House - he did not want us to ask any questions, although he went on the radio afterwards and did an extended interview to talk about the government's position again, and why they need concessions, but does not want to talk about it in the Legislature -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to get to his supplementary question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The question is this: The minister himself said in this Legislature that he would be calling the union leader, Mr. Puddister, right after Question Period. He did not call until after 8 o'clock last night. The meeting is not going to occur for another hour or so, twenty-seven hours later. Doesn't he understand that there are growing crises in the health care system and growing crises on an individual basis in this Province that are occurring by the hour and there happens to be a strike that is fifteen days old. When is he going to stop mollycoddling around, walking around as if nothing is happening -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: as if everything is hunky-dory? Let's get to the talks, get to the resolution, and take it seriously.

Would he like to tell us why it took twenty-seven hours, the fifteenth day into a strike, before he could look somebody in the eye and try to get a resolution?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Up to March 31, in negotiations, we were at the table for a number of hours, and things broke down and things appeared in the public - and I have said this before - things that we did not think represented what was said at the table. We were involved in an exchange of proposals and we had a proposal that we responded to the next day. We had another written proposal the next day, on Holy Thursday, which we responded to on Good Friday, and we waited five days and got no response to that proposal.

Mr. Puddister has been in the public asking that we get together and talk. We responded and I called him, and we set up a meeting for today and he immediately agreed. When I said the time, he had no objections to that particular time. He did not raise the issue, and he was pleased that we were going to sit down today and meet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: I reserve judgement on the outcome of that until we have an opportunity to discuss at the table where they wanted to be, where we would like to be, and get it resolved. It is not in shouting back and forth. It is a serious time. Mr. Speaker, it is a serious time for our Province, and I am taking this very seriously. I am going to deal with it on behalf of the people of the Province, a responsibility that will not be shirked by people here on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of everyone on this side of the House and our caucus, I can tell you that in the best interest of all the people of the Province we hope that these belated talks this afternoon are successful and that we have a resolution.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask a question directly to the Premier. In his January 5 address to the people of the Province, the televised address, the Premier stated, and I quote: We are in very real danger of drowning in our own debt.

He is nodding, Mr. Speaker, that those are his exact words. He also said, and I quote: We have an evolving financial crisis.

He is nodding again, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that he did say that. He has since stated publicly as well that we are on the verge of bankruptcy and his government would lead by example and only spend money on things that are absolutely essential.

He is nodding again, Mr. Speaker, so the people who do not see him on televison know that he agrees, that is what he has said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to get to his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Does he still today stand by those comments that he agrees that he made in the past?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, nobody knows better than the hon. gentleman opposite just how serious our financial crisis is, because he and his government created it. When we came into power in November, we had an opportunity to be briefed by the people in the Department of Finance and the people in Treasury Board and they told us just how serious that crisis was. Then what we did was, we did the responsible thing, we went out and hired an independent auditor to review the books.

They came back in January, Mr. Speaker, with a report and they confirmed our worst expectations. They confirmed that we were going to have a $15 billion debt, the highest in the country at the end of a four-year period. They also indicated that we were going to have a deficit of $1 billion a year. We have done everything we could to try and control that, to try and deal with it. This was caused by the hon. gentleman opposite and by the members of his Cabinet at that particular point in time. Those people who are sitting on the other side of the House now were part of his government. They, in fact, caused this financial crisis.

Yes, I do stand by the fact, and I do acknowledge and realize that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - you did truly create this mess.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that, yes, he still stands by the comment and they do plan to lead by example and spend money on things that are absolutely essential, because that is how desperate the financial circumstance is.

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transportation and Works and the Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

The commitment of this same government that is in that dire financial strait that was just reaffirmed by the Premier again today, was to provide ferry service to the nearest connected road system and to reduce ferry rates. In the Budget we heard ferry rates going up instead of being reduced, because they have no money, desperate financial straits, they will only spend money that is absolutely essential.

Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, in the most recent decision with respect to the Labrador marine services, they bypassed the nearest road system at Cartwright to provide - these are the words that the Minister of Transportation has used - a choice, an option, an alternative to the people, because a small extra investment of money is worth it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to finish his question.

MR. GRIMES: My question is: How does the minister match those words with the ones we just had reaffirmed by the Premier, when MP Lawrence O'Brien is saying he compares the decision to Marine Atlantic providing choice to Newfoundlanders to go to Montreal instead of North Sydney. Wouldn't that be wonderful, because we would not want to stop in Nova Scotia?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: How do they match the two statements, Mr. Speaker, that is my question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I think that the statements match perfectly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: We, Mr. Speaker, are committed to providing the best possible freight and passenger service for the greatest number of people in Labrador, and if that costs a few extra dollars, this government has committed to do it. That is the choice that we are providing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the scariest thing about that answer is that they probably believe it; that it matches perfectly. I do not believe it matches for anybody else in Newfoundland and Labrador who just heard the two circumstances described.

Mr. Speaker, let me describe it again. The Premier says: No money. We can only spend money on things that are absolutely essential. We are almost bankrupt. We have a dire financial circumstance. The minister says: We must provide a choice even if we spend extra money that we do not have, Mr. Speaker.

The question is this: How can the Premier justify ignoring an independent study that he had commissioned himself, that he said he would implement with no politics being played and that it would be the lowest cost option? I bet you, Mr. Speaker, he will not stand on his feet and answer to the personal commitment he gave, that the lowest cost option would be chosen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

How can he sit there - because I know he will not stand and try to suggest that we are broke: I promise to put in the lowest cost option but I am now going to support a minister who wants to provide a choice, an alternative and a few options for people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, when it is to his benefit or he thinks it is to his advantage to say so, says we are a one-man show. When somebody else stands to answer a question that is more particular to the department, it is is something else, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we are very, very appreciative of the great work that was done for us by the public policy institute of Memorial University. The Premier made no commitment to implement anything. The Premier made a commitment to allow the public policy institute to independently do their work. It is the government's job, Mr. Speaker, to make a decision after they are provided with those options. Just as it was the government's job to reject this report in 1997 when the hon. crowd over there were the government, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have made what we believe is the best decision for the greatest number of people in Labrador. We made it deliberately, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to fund that decision, despite the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked the question of the Premier because it is the Premier's very words that I was asking about. He personally made the commitment. Mr. Speaker, what is he now going to say to the people, as the Premier, who have him on tape - and we will play the tape with his voice, not the Minister of Transportation - play the tape where the Premier with his voice, in his words, is promising: There will be no politics. We will use the lowest cost choice. It will be done on the basis of an independent study. We will not play politics with it. How is he going to answer that, when instead we have a decision that he now will not even talk about himself, he is so ashamed of it. He is so defenseless in terms of trying to defend it. He will not talk about it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is going to cost the people of the Province over $5 million extra dollars, money that they do not have for striking workers, they do not have for hospitals, they do not have for schools and they are going to sit there and let this play out and try to suggest that it is okay and he is keeping a commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is clear to all who wants to see -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask for the cooperation of all hon. members. A question has been asked by the Leader of the Opposition. The Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs is attempting to answer. I ask that he be heard.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is clear to all who wants to see and hear where the politics has been played on this matter, Mr. Speaker. If we wanted to play politics with this - if this was strictly a political matter we would have put the whole thing back to Lewisporte, Mr. Speaker, but we wanted to provide a service that is the best for the greatest number of people in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, the fearmongering and the rumour mongering and the cost of this service is coming from the (inaudible).

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind people in the gallery that we cannot tolerate any participation or any noise from the gallery to show approval or disapproval. The Chair is monitoring things very carefully. Again, I ask you not to show any approval or disapproval of anything happening on the floor of the House. Again, visitors are always welcome to attend but you cannot participate.

The hon. the minister. You have about ten seconds left to complete your answer.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Depending on which Liberal and which day of the week it is, Mr. Speaker, they have the cost going anywhere from $3 million to $5 million to $7 million. I heard a caller last night who tagged the cost at $15 million. It is ridiculous, it is ludicrous, it has no credibility. The additional cost will be about $500,000, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the minister admits he did not play as much politics with it as he wanted to, only as much as he could.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier directly about another issue, a different issue, another commitment, another betrayal. The Premier, himself, during the election campaign, committed to the Labrador Metis Nation that government would apply the Powley decision to guarantee hunting rights to the Metis people of Labrador. He has since reneged on that promise and the Metis people have said publicly that they felt betrayed by this Premier. I think that might have been the first time that word was used. It certainly, Mr. Speaker, has not been the last.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to get to his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a new question. I am now asking the Premier a new question on a new issue.

The Premier has stated he asked the Department of Justice to do a review to see whether or not the Powley decision actually applied, and said there would be a response by April 12. It is now April 15. Would the Premier like to stand in the House today, tell us the results of the review, and tell us whether or not he is going to honour the commitment to the Metis people of Labrador, or are they still feeling as betrayed today as they felt a couple of months ago when he had a meeting just to try to save face for a few days?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition wants to inflame every situation that we are involved in as a government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We had an extremely good meeting with Mr. Russell -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - and officials from the Metis. We also explained to them that the Powley decision applied to everybody in the country equally. The Justice Department gave an interpretation of that. They are following through on that. We are going through a process with the Metis, which is a very favourable process, which is a process they have agreed to, and they seem to be quite satisfied with it. So, that is an up-to-date on where it is. We are doing whatever we can to work with the Metis people, and will continue to do so despite your attempts to inflame the situation.

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.

The decision to base the Labrador passenger ferry in Lewisporte will cost the government $1.7 million a year more. The Minister of Transportation and Works said yesterday, this was a Cabinet decision.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services. How can she sit at the Cabinet table and deny Alzheimer's patients proper medication in favour of a politically motivated, unnecessary passenger ferry service in her colleague's district?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I would like to indicate to the hon. member that the Department of Health is given a budget and the Department of Transportation and Works is also given a budget. The budget that was provided -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: The budget -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I am asking members for their co-operation. Shouts across the floor do not facilitate the giving of an answer, and I ask the members again to be co-operative.

The floor goes back to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The operational budget of the Department of Health, Mr. Speaker, was increased by 5.5 per cent last year, which indicates this government's commitment to the health care of this Province. I say that indicating also that many of the provinces across Canada are spending around that much in increases in their health care portfolio, and there is acknowledgment throughout the system and throughout the country that health care cannot increase at an accelerated rate; however, with a 5 per cent increase in the budget -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to conclude her answer.

MS E. MARSHALL: - there is a recognition that health care is a priority for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister knows that the government decides how much money goes into each department within its government, and that figures can be shifted.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the Minister of Health and Community Services, the former Auditor General, could sit at a Cabinet table and agree to pay for a report that her government was not going to use, and agree to fund an unnecessary ferry passenger service for political reasons and leave Alzeheimer's patients out there in our Province without access to drugs that they desperately need.

Mr. Speaker, my question is this: I know the minister has a head for business, but does she have a heart for people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I can assure the hon. member that I certainly do have a heart for people. The drug program for the Department of Health was increased by $8.6 million this year -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: - over what was approved last year.

I would also like to remind the hon. member that since she served in Cabinet she should know full well that money cannot be transferred between departments.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister - just to clarify - I said allocation. Government can allocate to whatever departments they wish.

Mr. Speaker, this government could have provided for the cost of all Alzeheimers's drugs for patients in the Province at a estimated cost of $1.5 million per year. Minister, what do you say to those Alzeheimer's patients whom you are denying critical medications in favour of a unnecessary passage ferry service in your colleague's district?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

During the past year I have met with a number of individuals, groups and organizations who have indicated that they would like to see additional drugs added to the drug formulary; however, given government's financial position we did add $8.6 million and did add one new drug.

With regard to additional drugs going on to the formulary I would like to inform the hon. House that we are carrying out a review of the provincial government's drug program with the hope that we can identify savings to add new drugs to the drug program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under our rotation, I have about time for maybe one question from the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, unless he would rather yield the chair to the member and do our four-minute rotation with the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi first

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for recognizing my place in Question Period. My question is for the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier told the House he instructed the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to restart talks with the unions, but the minister is quoted by CBC as saying that if the unions show some flexibility talks might be resumed. He is quoted as saying the following, "I've got to understand that there is a willingness, a real commitment to doing something and getting people back to work, otherwise it is futile."

I want to ask the Premier, what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to know is, is there a real commitment on the part of the Premier and his government to doing something and getting people back to work in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for his question, Mr. Speaker. Yes, there certainly is a commitment by this government to try and bring this to a resolution.

As the member is aware, and as all hon. members are aware, this matter had gone on for some considerable time. In fact, we had put our offer in last Friday. Five-and-a-half days have basically passed and nothing had happened. There was basically an impasse. The union have indicated that they were not going to come back and present another -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If the Member for Twillingate & Fogo would just allow me to answer the question. He gets a chance to ask his own questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask for the cooperation of all members. The floor is with the hon. the Premier and I ask that he be able to provide his answer with relative silence.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To repeat to the hon. member, we had a period that went by for about five-and-a-half days when there was an impasse. We felt, as a government, that we could not allow that to continue any longer. So in discussions with Cabinet, with our caucus, myself and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, we felt it was incumbent upon us to try and break that deadlock. That is why the minister made the telephone call last night to Mr. Puddister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

- with a view to setting up a meeting. They both agreed that the appropriate time for a meeting was in about fifty-two minutes from now, and we will do everything we can to try and reach a proper settlement to this dispute.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi, on a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier also is quoted as saying the government has some room to move on the monetary issues but, Mr. Speaker, the real question is whether or not this Premier and this government are prepared to show the kind of flexibility they are requiring of the unions. Knowing that it is the concessions that are causing the problem, that pensions will not cost any money during the life of the agreement and that the joint task force on sick leave has yet to be started and do its work, will the Premier and his government show the kind of flexibility that is absolutely required in order to settle this dispute?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member opposite of course knows that it was the previous government that has this task force in place, that refused to act on it and did not act on it for a considerable period of time.

With respect to the details on the negotiation, I would really respectfully prefer not to discuss them in the House at this particular point in time because I do not want to do anything to prejudice the negotiations and the discussions that are going to take place very shortly between Mr. Puddister and officials from his side, and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and officials from our side. In the best interest of not having that break down for any reason whatsoever, I would certainly prefer not to discuss it in public right at this particular moment. I hope he respects that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I think we have about two-and-a-half minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. The Privacy Commissioner has been on the payroll since last fall, but the access and privacy act has not yet been proclaimed; albeit, we have had references to it in the Bluebook and in the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister. We have 20,000 people on the streets in this Province today, getting $200 per week strike pay, and yet we have the Privacy Commissioner, who has been on the payroll getting $5,000 a payday and cannot go to work because this government will not proclaim the act. Minister, do you agree with this continuing waste?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I believe the previous government passed that access to information legislation. I do not know why they did not proclaim the act, as a matter of fact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Stand by, the matter is under review. The matter is under review and the proclamation will take place when appropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I am asking members for their cooperation.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo should know that it is his role to ask the questions and it is our role to answer them, and we will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Time for one question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister of Government Services if she is committed to leaving the office of Petroleum Products and Pricing Commission in the town of Grand Falls-Windsor? Many indications point to the fact that the office is being moved either to Corner Brook or St. John's. Can the minister confirm or deny that her department is preparing to pull the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission out of Grand Falls-Windsor?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to the Pricing Commissioner for Petroleum. I am now reviewing that particular commission, and in the very near future I will give this answer to the House of what my decision is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the monthly Public Tender Act Exemption Reports for March 2003 to March 2004.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure today, to again enter a petition from the people of Southwestern Newfoundland dealing with the health care facility situation and the clinic situation in our area. This is the seventh in a series that I have been provided with by the people of Southwestern Newfoundland.

As we all know, there is a review currently being undertaken by the department as to the efficiencies, shall we say, of the Western Health Care Corporation, and the Hay Commission is due to report back sometime in May.

It is quite well know, as well, that based upon what the directors of the Western Health Care Corporation have said, a lot of communities in Western Newfoundland may well be about to bite the dust, as it were, as a result of impending changes. Particularly, I refer to the closure of clinics in the Codroy Valley area and in the Rose Blanche area which were apparently slated for axing.

Again, all told, this brings the number of signatories to these documents, seven of which I have submitted, to about 6,000. That is 6,000 lives that will be negatively impacted if these services that currently exist are downgraded.

I have stressed to the minister before, and I notice she listens intently when I do present these petitions, that it is already a bare-bones existence for many of these small rural Newfoundland communities. If this were to happen, clinics were to be closed and so on, it would be totally devastating to the people who live in these small communities who don't have the access and the ability to travel to more urbanized centres which have larger facilities.

Again, I would urge upon the minister that when the time comes, yes, you might have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to make sure that these services continue to exist, but I am sure that in your wisdom and your financial management abilities that the monies that are necessary will certainly be found to ensure that these services remain intact and that the people affected mostly by them, i.e. rural Newfoundland, will not be negatively impacted.

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.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I want to stand today and present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the District of Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Labrador Coastal Marine Service.

It is no secret, Mr. Speaker, that the people in my district are outraged and disappointed with the decision that this government has made to take their ferry, the passenger ferry for Labrador, and move it to the minister's own district in Lewisporte.

[Commotion in the Gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair reminds all visitors to the Gallery, we welcome you to attend our Assembly, it is a great honour to have you here but, please, as you exit, would you respect the order and decorum of the House and do so without shouting, and that kind of thing. We thank you for coming but we ask you to leave in an orderly manner.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, the House will recess until order can be restored.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Petitions with the House, the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, I believe (inaudible) introduce a petition (inaudible).

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

As I was saying, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the people of my District of Cartwright-L'anse au Clair as it relates to the Labrador Coastal Marine Services.

Mr. Speaker, people in my district are, no doubt, very disappointed and outraged with the decision that government has made to move the Labrador ferry to Lewisporte. They have, certainly, expressed their views and their opinions but they also feel that they have been betrayed by this government. They feel that when they had a conference call back on November 26 with the Premier of the Province and he committed to them, in that conference call, that he would honour the recommendations in the report that the consultant was providing, and they took him at his word. They believed what they were being told. They only hoped that the authors of the report would do a full and thorough evaluation and reflect what was in the best interest of the people. That is entirely what the consultant group did.

The consultant group did recommend that the Sir Robert Bond would operate between Cartwright and Goose Bay as a passenger ferry for the people in that area. It also recommended that the Trans Gulf would operate from Lewisporte to Black Tickle, ports to Nain as a freight vessel for Northern Labrador. That would be for a period of three years, at which time Lewisporte would cease operations and all operations would be based out of Cartwright. That was the recommendations of the consultant. But, as we heard yesterday, Mr. Speaker, from the minister's reply in Question Period to my colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains, is that the consultant's report meant absolutely nothing. He stood on his feet yesterday and said: What government will be dictated by a consultant's report? But, they were not the words that he used when he and his government and his Premier went out and paid $110,000 to Memorial University to have that information collected and have those recommendations provided to them.

What is even more insulting, Mr. Speaker, is when the minister got up a couple of days ago and said the people in Labrador were wrapping themselves in the flag again. Well, I take great exception to that and so do the people of my district. They have a right in a democracy to make their views known, to go out and advocate for issues that are important to them. Mr. Speaker, they expect honesty from their government. They expect that they should be able to believe and trust the words that are being said and the information that is being given to them. Mr. Speaker, my people, not only did they lose a marine service that will be the cost of over 100 jobs in my district and probably the closure of twenty-six businesses, but they also know the money that will be used to pay for this study and for part of the cost of running the service into Lewisporte will come out of the Labrador Transportation Fund; a fund that was earmarked for work in Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has elapsed.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

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

I move, Motion 1, that this House do approve the budgetary policy of the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

I do believe that the speaker who adjourned the debate is not available to speak to finish it up this afternoon, so I think we will go to the government side.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

My understanding, though, is that whoever stands first is the one who gets - I think we had made arrangements for the Member for Torngat Mountains to go.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess it is an honour to stand and speak in this House today. I cannot say it is an honour to stand and speak to the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the Budget I want to touch on the Labrador Marine Service. During Question Period the other day I asked the Minister of Transportation and Works, and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs a question. He came back and said the reason why he did not travel to the north coast of Labrador was because I had an illness in the family. Mr. Speaker, that trip was planned on February 2, 3 and 4. I informed the minister and his staff that they could proceed without me. They came back and said: No, we would like for you to be there. What the minister did not say the other day, Mr. Speaker, is that the trip was rearranged for March 4 and 5. Only a day prior to travelling to the north coast my office called to confirm that things were on, only to find out that the trip was cancelled. His office did not even call me and let me know that the trip was cancelled.

Mr. Speaker, I guess we look at this marine service now as being, the people on the north coast again are second choice. I can say that, Mr. Speaker, because if the Sir Robert Bond did not go to Lewisporte then the Trans Gulf would have gone out of Lewisporte. No ifs, no buts, about it; but, because of where the Sir Robert Bond brings more benefits than the Trans Gulf, cherry-picking was done. I use that word because I believe there is honesty behind it.

Again, if the Sir Robert Bond was not put back in Lewisporte, the people on the North Coast of Labrador who depend upon the freight service more than anyone else, would have gotten their wish. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, there were eight options lined out in the report that this government paid $150,000 for, every option indicated that the Trans Gulf sail out of Lewisporte. The minister said yesterday: If the Member for Torngat Mountains can come back and tell me that his people are more happy with a fourteen-day service as compared to the seven-day service, I would say to the minister that if you would have taken the time to consult with the people in my riding, Sir, and if you had read that report - it is black and white - that is what they wanted.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a container is going to be stationed in Lewisporte - companies are going to go down with X number of boxes for Cartwright, for Mary's Harbour, for Goose Bay, for Makkovik, and it is all going to be put in one. When it gets to Cartwright, that whole container is going to have to be unloaded and sorted.

This is what happened last year, and the service this year is going to be no different. Plus the fact that the storage space in Cartwright does not have the capacity to hold three containers let alone ten or twelve.

I can say to the minister again that we got pictures of it last year. It was very clear from the people who spoke in Cartwright that they saw the freight for the North Coast sitting on the dock, in the elements, not even covered.

Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke of the support he had. Well, MP Lawrence O'Brien whom the now Premier, who was the Leader of the Opposition, talked about so much last year, MP Lawrence O' Brien has come back and said, "This lack of respect for Labrador..." - shown by this government - "...is gutless and appalling".

"O'Brien is especially disappointed that the Premier, who stood up for the Labrador Transportation Fund when the previous administration proposed abolishing it..." - now this Premier and this government - "...is now siphoning money out of the fund for political reasons."

"This decision amounts to $600,000-a-year - at least - as a make-work project for Lewisporte, at the expense of Labrador transportation priorities."

Mr. Speaker, he also said, "Two years ago, Premier Williams condemned Roger Grimes for, in his words, ‘raiding the Labrador Transportation Fund'." Now the MP says, "Is it any better to raid that fund for the blatant political interests of a PC district on the island?"

The minister also spoke, but before I get to the Member for Lake Melville, I want to say thank you to the Member for Labrador West who stood up and had the honesty to say that we in the Upper Lake Melville area and in Labrador West will use the Sir Robert Bond mainly for recreational purposes. It is the people on the North Coast of Labrador who are totally dependent upon the freight service, and this government chose not to do that.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, the minister said the other day that he had the backing of the Member for Lake Melville. Well, he might, but let me go back to October 16, 2002, in a letter written to the Member for Bellevue, who was the Minister of Transportation at the time, and it goes, "The Town Council of the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay wish to express their concern with government's decision to reassess your 1997 commitment to base the ferry service in Cartwright, Labrador. We feel with Cartwright being the base for the ferry service this will enhance the transportation system for all of Labrador. The tourism potential alone will show many increased benefits to our community. With the ferry terminal in Cartwright we feel that the Labrador freight and ferry service, along with the road connection to Southern Labrador, we will all see a much improved transportation of goods and services and access for the travelling public. This will allow for a longer transportation season for the people living in Labrador. We feel that the economic benefits that will accrue to Labrador will be tremendous and request that the port of Cartwright continue to be a priority for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador." With every best wish, John Hickey, Mayor, Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, again, I know that most of the members who are new here and sitting back, they do not understand the conditions and circumstances that the people in my riding have to face. I can say to every one of them that their Cabinet cheery-picked. I will say it again. They cherry-picked, because there are more benefits for Lewisporte by putting the Sir Robert Bond there than it is by having the Trans Gulf. If, by some chance, the Sir Robert Bond was not put back in Lewisporte, then they would have given the North Coast exactly what the transportation committee had suggested.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Budget, for the first time since I have sat here in 1996, nothing with regard to the Labrador agenda - and I am glad to see that the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs walked in - nothing was outlined in the Budget with regard to a commitment to Labrador - none.

Mr. Speaker, there was no mention of Aboriginal Affairs or the need to address the social problems that plague my riding. I can say in this House today that I am not proud when I say that we have more social problems on the North Coast of Labrador than anywhere else. Media reports will confirm that, and to see that this government has not made any commitment to address these problems shows their lack of concern for Labrador. Maybe it is true what Mr. O'Brien said, that they are gutless and appalling.

Mr. Speaker the Metis nation - the Premier went out and campaigned and promised the Metis Nation that, oh yes, we are going to deal with you, we are going to work with you. Now he has gone and has changed his mind completely.

I guess the biggest thing that I found appalling in the Budget was the part that they announced new RCMP officers for Labrador. Mr. Speaker, the RCMP was approved by the Liberal government almost a year ago.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what is most appalling about this? That this government went out and spent $150,000 on a wasted report. Do you know what they did to the people on the North Coast of Labrador?

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, for the Member for Trinity North, I can tell you what your government did. You turned around and cut $140,000 to take four Aboriginal constables away from the North Coast of Labrador. Mr. Speaker, that is gutless.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ANDERSEN: That is gutless, Mr. Speaker. I can say to the Member for Trinity North that if he stood more and spoke for his people, and showed he was a man, then he would not be referred to - the center fold for trust magazine that he is so affectionately associated with.

Mr. Speaker, this government took $140,000 out of their Budget and took four Aboriginal constables from the North Coast of Labrador.

I can say to the Member for Trinity North, you can shake your head all you want, because I can guarantee you that neither you nor anyone over there should be proud of what the government just did

The Voisey's Bay monitor, the Combined Councils of Labrador - and I can say to the Minister of Natural Resources that the Combined Councils of Labrador and the Town Council of Happy Valley-Goose Bay wanted the monitor at arm's length from government. By the way, Mr. Speaker, the sitting Member for Lake Melville was promised a job as monitor last year but he declined to take it.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, an office given to the people in Labrador, torn apart, and so far seven jobs have been taken from there, right where the Member for Lake Melville sits, in this House, in his district - seven jobs already gone.

Mr. Speaker, we saw the children in Labrador who wanted an auditorium. Up until February, the town council and the people in Happy Valley-Goose Bay were told by the minister and this government that the money was in the account. I listened with great interest today, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Health and Community Services said, well, you cannot transfer money from one account to the other. Then, if the money for the children to build that auditorium was there in February, where did they transfer it? Where did it go? Another broken promise, another way that this government here have turned their back on the people.

Mr. Speaker, there is no talk in this Budget of retention and recruitment. When we look at the isolated communities of Newfoundland and Labrador, that have a hard time in attracting nurses and teachers and other professionals, Mr. Speaker, to know that this government had nothing in the Budget shows that they have no concern when it comes to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It shows that this government, by not putting in any bonuses for retention and recruitment, have no concern and are gutless when it comes to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest as the Minister of Finance gave his Budget and he made this comment. He said: We are going to provide health care services to all people in Newfoundland and Labrador, within driving range of their home.

I will repeat that again, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance said: We are going to provide health care services to every person in Newfoundland and Labrador, within driving range....

Well, Mr. Speaker, I challenge any member on that side of the House to tell me how someone from Nain or Makkovik are going to drive to Happy Valley-Goose Bay to have an X-ray or to see a doctor, that most other people around here take for granted. I challenge them, Mr. Speaker. Again, talking of one part of the Province and forgetting parts of Labrador and certainly the rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, they talk about the $2.2 million for the courthouse. It is ironic that last Friday in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, I took pictures of the courthouse that the Liberal government and I, as the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, helped put out a press release that we were going to build. I took pictures, and this government turned around and took credit for it.

Mr. Speaker, this government outlined that they were going to hire additional social workers for Labrador. Yet, the Minister responsible for Human Resources, Labour and Employment cannot tell the people in this Province and in Labrador where they are closing their offices. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot tell the people where she is going to close these offices. So, how can they turn around and say they are going to hire more social workers when they are going to close those offices down?

By the way, Mr. Speaker, they had in their Budget $500,000 for additional social workers in Labrador. Well Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, when I was the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs we entered into an agreement with the federal government where they asked us if we would hire additional social workers for the Aboriginal communities in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, the agreement is signed, it is there, that they will reimburse the Province every cent for salaries, for travel, and for office space. Now, if this government put in their Budget $500,00 for additional social workers and if they are hiring them for the Aboriginal communities, then this is $500,000 that they put in their Budget, Mr. Speaker, just to cook the books. Because, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ANDERSEN: No, I will tell him again. The previous Liberal government entered into an agreement with the federal government where we would hire additional social workers for the Aboriginal communities in Labrador, at which the federal government would pay for the salaries, the office space, the travel, everything that is required for these people to do their jobs. So, if these are the same social workers that this government is talking about, where the government has agreed to pay for 100 per cent of all the expenses - they put $500,000 in their Budget - than, Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee you, they are cooking their books.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that, I guess with the people in Labrador, we feel very disappointed with the Budget. We feel very disappointed. As I outlined, Mr. Speaker, the previous government gave people -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, I do believe on a point of order.

MS E. MARSHALL: Yes, a point of order.

I wanted to address an issue that was raised by the hon. member with regard to the additional funding for the social workers. Yes, that is fully provincial money and we will be working with health Labrador to determine where those social workers will be assigned.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the member speaking to the point of order or continuing debate?

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my debate because I am sure that I will ask questions on that in the House of Assembly in Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair rules that there is no point of order, but a point of clarification. The Chair asks the member now if he will continue his debate on the Budget.

MR. ANDERSEN: I will go on, Mr. Speaker, because it is pretty difficult for me to understand how a government is going to close HRE offices across this Province, and they don't know which ones, yet at the same time they are going to go out and hire more for Labrador when they are going to close some offices in Labrador.

I guess it just goes to show that -

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

The hon. the Minister.

MS BURKE: A point of order or a point of clarification, that the Human Resources and Labour Employment offices that will be closing do not hire the social workers for Labrador. That is from a different department.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, there is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Torngat Mountains to continue with his debate.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite obvious to the people who are watching today about this Budget.

Mr. Speaker, for me, I find it very difficult when the past government could do things for my riding.

I want to talk about the schools that were built on the North Coast of Labrador. We built four schools up in the riding of Torngat Mountains. I can say to every member here, that if you had walked into these schools prior to them being built, then I can say to you that there are school boards on the Island that would not have used these schools for a storage shed let alone a schoolhouse.

Mr. Speaker, I guess -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has now expired.

MR. REID: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, very briefly. As someone who was born and bred and a proud Labradorian, just as people on the other side are proud Newfoundlanders, I am very disappointed with the Budget. It outlines nothing for Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I honestly fear for rural Newfoundland and Labrador and particularly for the rural communities in my riding. I hope that we can get the ministers, I guess, to certainly address some of the major issues that we see are going to confront us.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I will have time later on, and I thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as often as the phrase, honour and privilege, may have been used in this House over the years, I can honestly say that it has never been felt more sincerely as I stand here today and say that it is, in fact, an honour and a privilege for me to stand here as the representative of St. John's North to give my maiden speech, to which I am sure all members will listen attentively.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: I come here, Mr. Speaker, with a varied background, having spent some eighteen years in education, during which time I spent some time in universities down through the United States and here at our own Memorial University, probably only to learn that there is no place as accurate for language as here in this Province, because we would say that I pitched in those universities in the States for a short time and that is an accurate statement, in fact, of what happened. It was just pitching.

My experience in teaching was varied as well, having spent a couple of years teaching on the west coast of the country, out in British Columbia. On the other extreme, I have spent three years in the district of my colleague from Burin-Placentia West, as a school board supervisor, and travelled from Lamaline to Terrenceville, and even had the pleasure of visiting remote schools - I am not sure if they are still there - out in Southeast Bight in Petit Forte.

From there, Mr. Speaker, I spent some thirteen years in the business field and then spent three years as an assistant to one of our Members of Parliaments, so I come with varied experience to this position but I believe that to be a good thing because a variety of experiences - if, in fact, we learn from them - serve you well and give you a better understanding of the concerns that your constituents will, in fact, bring to you.

As I stand here, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is a surge of a variety of emotions from, I guess, opposite ends of the emotional spectrum. On the one hand, there is a feeling of pride at having accomplished a personal goal and, on the other hand, I find it to be a tremendously humbling experience. Humbling because, as a representative of the people, you have been put here, naturally, by those who voted for you but also by those who work for you, and you only hope that you can live up to the faith and trust that those people have placed in you.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the members of my campaign team, those who worked hard for me. As some may know, my campaign was a little longer than most; but, to those who worked on my behalf and who gave me their support and encouragement during that time, I extend my heartfelt thanks.

I would also like to congratulate all the members of this House on their election or re-election, and wish them all well during this term of office. I would also like to thank my wife and two children for their support as well.

I would especially, Mr. Speaker, like to offer my gratitude to the voters of St. John's North, for their overwhelming support and their vote of confidence which they gave me. My commitment to them is to work hard on their behalf and to provide them with good - no, Mr. Speaker - with excellent representation, because they deserve nothing less.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, as we listened to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor deliver the Speech from the Throne approximately a month ago, and as we saw the Budge Speech being delivered, it was clear that the challenges that face this Province and this government are indeed multiple and in some cases monumental. Rather than feel daunted or overwhelmed by those challenges, I personally was encouraged by the clear vision to recognize these challenges, the willingness to face them, and the commitment to do something about them.

Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest over the last few weeks, and during the discussions and the debate that have been held in this House, that oftentimes members on the other side would say that was their initiative; it was an initiative of their Administration. While I normally would not purport to speak on behalf of my thirty-two colleagues over here, Mr. Speaker, in this circumstance I feel confident in saying that if - and indeed that is a very big if - there were any of the courses of action that have been outlined in the Throne Speech or any pieces of legislation that we are enacting were originally conceived by the previous government, then I say with some assurance that we are delighted. We are overjoyed to be now in a position to act on those initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, the District of St. John's North, as with most districts in the Province, is a district that contains people from right across the social continuum, in terms of age, income, beliefs and the various other social criteria. While there are those who enjoy the luxury of wealth, and I am sure the problems that come along with that wealth, there are also very many families who work hard from payday to payday to maintain a household, or who live on a modest or fixed income. Unfortunately, there are many also who depend in part or entirely on social supports for their housing and/or for their income or the other basics of daily living. It is for these people, Mr. Speaker, for whom I would like to speak briefly at this time.

When I listened to the Speech from the Throne, I was heartened by the fact that this government recognized that poverty is such a significant concern and made it a high priority for our term of office. Likewise, Mr. Speaker, when the Budget was read, I was heartened to see that provision was made for those whose single family income or family income is so low that they just cannot make a go of it. We have made provision that they, as of the 2005 tax year, will pay no provincial income tax. This is indeed a positive note, but the real tragedy is the fact that poverty, especially child poverty, is still such a significant issue on the national and even more so on the provincial level.

Some may recall the promise that was made some years ago by the federal government, when they made a commitment to substantially reduce or even eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. Not only has this target been missed by a wide margin right across the board, but for the people here in this Province, as was pointed out in the Throne Speech, what is truly alarming, truly scandalous, and a cause of shame right across the board, is the fact that according to the National Council of Welfare, Newfoundland and Labrador's level of child poverty is the highest in the country.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that St. John's North has its share of those children, and my personal guarantee, my personal commitment, is to work hard on behalf of those children and those families during my term.

Mr. Speaker, the children of this Province are the poorest in Canada, while our federal government spends upwards to $2 billion because they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the fact that their gun control was ill-conceived and unmanageable. In the most recent fiasco, Mr. Speaker, they have spent upwards to $100 million to line the pockets of their political friends and supporters.

My intention, Mr. Speaker, is not to target our federal government as being solely to blame for the fact that there are so many children in this Province who live in poverty, because I am sure that right here, at home, various governments have, on occasion, spent recklessly or selfishly the public funds, the funds of this Province. I listened a few minutes ago to the Member for Torngat Mountains refer to a list of expenses that have been made by Progressive Conservative governments over the years. I am sure that members on this side of the House could point over there and say that expenditures were made by Liberal administrations likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I would say at this time that the people in this Province are fed up with the blame game. They want government to get on and spend wisely, spend judiciously, spend transparently, act on their behalf, and to stop pointing fingers at each other and playing the blame game.

The point must be made, Mr. Speaker, that we are a part of the Canadian Federation. We have a right to be there. We are fully entitled to a fair and equitable treatment as a Province: a Province that did bring, and is bringing, a great contribution to the table of Confederation. We deserve to be at that table, enjoying the meal, and not sitting on the floor like some household pet begging for the scraps that someone else might decide to throw our way.

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing for a government not to be able to provide adequate services because they do not have adequate finances. It is quite another thing to have the money but to simply lack the will to do the right thing. Unfortunately, I am not sure that the will presently exists in Ottawa to make money available for some of the real needs of the people of this country. I say the will is not there because there has been a consistent refusal to re-examine and revise the formulas that are presently in place to determine the allocation of funding to the provinces. Not only is the will not there, but the exact opposite seems to be the case. Just a few months ago the federal Finance Minister, Minister Goodale, was heard to speak in terms of popping the champagne and celebrating because the economy of Ontario, its fiscal capacity for the year 2003 was down and therefore that the government in Ottawa would not have to pay out as much in equalization funding to the provinces. This is hardly the attitude that should exist in a co-operative federation, a federation in which the parts, regardless of their size, should be valued.

We need only look to the most recent example, when the same Finance Minister at the federal level put $150 million more into the equalization fund and our share in this Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, regardless of our need, was a mere $4.8 million, roughly 3 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, this Province has been one that has lobbied hard and strenuously for a change in the five-province formula for equalization, for that formula to be changed to include all ten provinces. This would be a move towards eliminating the imbalance in the formula and, for Newfoundland, that would mean an additional $150 million on an annual basis. What a difference that would make not only to the people of St. John's North but to the people throughout the Province. Such an adjustment would drastically change the end result of equalization. It would, in fact, produce a result much more in line with the goal of that whole process, namely to equalize or bring the so-called have-not provinces closer in financial terms to those provinces which are fortunate enough to be deemed the have provinces in our federation.

Under any existing formula, whether it be equalization or the other transfer payments, for Newfoundland and Labrador, as long as such a formula is based on population, it will be a formula for failure, a recipe for ruin. Mr. Speaker, this recipe for ruin is a simple one. As a base, you have a constant use of our non-renewable resources with little or no return. You add to that a heaping number of people forced to move because they cannot find employment, thus reducing your population which, in turn, triggers further reductions of the funding from Ottawa. Certainly, I would not want to be as cynical as to say that this formula for failure, this recipe for ruin, has been deliberately devised by our federal government as a method of holding this Province back or keeping us down and making sure that Newfoundland and Labrador remains in a distinctly, unmistakably, disadvantaged position. However, Mr. Speaker, again, one has to wonder about the will that exits in Ottawa to change, especially if such a change might have some negative effect on one of the larger provinces; provinces that have been responsible, in large measure, for giving the governing party in Ottawa its seat of power and returning them to office. Perhaps it is one of those unfortunate cases of politics taking preference over people, but, Mr. Speaker, sometimes I believe that if politicians had the convictions to do the right thing, to focus on the needs of the less powerful and the truly needy, then good things in a political sense might naturally follow.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that most hon. members are familiar with section 36(2) of the constitution of our country, but it is at the core of this argument that I make today, and it is so important that it does warrant repetition. Article 36(2) reads as follows, "Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments has sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation."

This is the constitution, Mr. Speaker, of our country. It is not something written on the back of a cigarette package or on a napkin in a restaurant. This is what governs us, Mr. Speaker, what we live by. But, I would submit, this is one clause in the constitution that is either being ignored or badly misinterpreted because the truth, which is glaringly obvious, is that the present method of equalization leaves Newfoundland and Labrador painfully disadvantaged while still having a higher level of taxation than many other provinces. Likewise, Mr. Speaker, in the Atlantic Accord we are guaranteed to be the principal beneficiary of our resources. Yet, on a regular basis, on a daily or monthly basis, we see over eighty cents of every dollar going off to the federal coffers.

Mr. Speaker, I have clearly focused most of my comments today on the federal government, but I do not want to imply that we are doomed and will always be dependent on Ottawa for our survival. As a matter of fact, I was delighted yesterday to read in The Express a column by Avril Baker. I guess this is a sign of changing times. Last week we had the Mayor of Placentia, former mayor perhaps, complimenting the Tory government on an initiative. I stand here as a life-long Tory commending Avril Baker on her column yesterday, but she did, at the time, take issue with an editorial in a national newspaper that had painted Newfoundland and Labrador as being bad for the economy because we are dependent on Ottawa and the have provinces. We are, said the editorial, employment insurance repeaters. I say: Way to go, Ms Baker, for reminding that editorialist that the EI rules were changed six years ago to accommodate, not the seasonal workers of this Province, but to accommodate the auto workers of Central Canada. She further reminded that editor that this Province exports three times more per capita than any other province.

This, Mr. Speaker, is the attitude we have to see more of in this Province. There are plenty of people around to tell you that you are somehow less than perfect; that you are too short or you are too tall, or you are too much of this or not enough of that. If you care to listen, you will always be convinced that the naysayers are right; that you are just not worthy enough. If we, as a people, are inclined to listen to the put downs and the constant dumb Newfie characterizations, we may as well always stay in the classification of a have not province. But, Mr. Speaker, we do not have to do that because, as I have said, we brought and still bring a lot to the table of Confederation. We deserve a seat at that table, not under it. So I say to Ontario and Quebec: If you do not mind, move your chairs, make room at the table because we are coming to sit down for the meal.

Mr. Speaker, the contrasting attitudes that I have outlined this afternoon are well illustrated in a recent article in The Sunday Independent newspaper, where the hon. Leader of the Opposition is quoted as saying that Quebec will never reopen the Upper Churchill contract or allow us a power corridor through its territory and that we should stop tormenting ourselves by trying. The hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, had a list of reasons to justify this conclusion: Anything from Quebec will not voluntarily change; to the courts have decided the matter; to you will never get financing. I would much rather listen and think like Geoff Sterling, who is quoted in the same article and said, that to give up on the Upper Churchill contract would be absolute nonsense; or our own Minister of Natural Resources, who said that we are morally obligated to the citizens of this Province to continue every way we can to seize an opportunity if it exists.

Mr. Speaker, we do owe it to the people of this Province. They deserve our best efforts and I know that there are many needs in the District of St. John's North that can be satisfied by our taking control of our destiny and by fighting for our place at the table of Confederation.

I would like to conclude my remarks today by quoting briefly from a piece called: The Penalty of Leadership, written by Theodore MacManus many years ago. He talks about having the courage to lead and to risk being assailed and scorned by those in, what he calls, the little world of jeolousy and envy. I will not read it all, obviously, but I will quote a couple of lines that I think are pertinent to the occasion. He says, "The reward and the punishment of leadership are always the same. The reward is widespread recognition; the punishment, fierce denial and detraction. The little world continued to protest that Fulton could not build a steamboat, while the big world flocked to the river to see his boat steam by. The leader is assailed because he is a leader, and the effort to equal him is merely added proof of that leadership. Failing to equal or to excel, the follower seeks to depreciate and to destroy - but only confirms once more the superiority of that which he strives to supplant. That which is good or great makes itself known, no matter how loud the clamor of denial."

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the member that his time has lapsed.

MR. RIDGLEY: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, and hon. members, we have all been elected to this hon. House because we are, in fact, leaders. We have the ability to improve our Province, to make it a better place, to get closer to our rightful place within the Canadian federation so that St. John's North, and all districts, will be better served. We just need to have the courage to step up, ignore the naysayers, think outside the box, risk denial and detraction, and do our job of being the leaders of this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. T. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I wish to deal with some remarks made by the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains. I was not here but I did hear him on the television. If I heard him correctly - if I did not, I apologize - but I refer to the remarks in which he said that the government was taking $140,000 out of Coastal Labrador in terms of policing. Of course this is not correct, as the hon. member well knows.

The government was advised by the RCMP that, for occupational health and safety reasons, they would no longer have one person at detachments anywhere in the country. In order to keep the detachments from closing in both Rigolet and Makkovik, the government agreed to fund additional RCMP officers in both communities. So, while it is true that the government could no longer afford to fund the two community policing officers in those two communities, we are funding additional RCMP officers to make sure that the detachments in both Makkovik and Rigolet do not close.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains, to that point of order.

MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, to the point of order. I am sure the minister is well aware that when we do RCMP officers, there is a formula that is used where the Province pays so much and so does the federal government. The constabulary program was an agreement that was negotiated between the Province and the communities of Makkovik and Rigolet. It was separate from any agreement that the Province has with the federal government for policing, and it was taken from the people of Labrador. It was a separate agreement. And you know that too, Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair rules that there is no point of order, it is a point of clarification.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me to get up today to speak to the motion before the House. I think, as the Government House Leader said, it is a motion to approve this year's Budget. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you right up front that I certainly will not be voting to accept this Budget. I think that everybody in the entire Province believes that this is the worse budget that anyone can ever remember presented to this House of Assemby. I can say again, I will not be supporting this Budget and I will not vote for it at the end of the day when it comes for the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of things I would like to say today about the Budget, but because I am the Education Critic I will try and confine my remarks to the Education Portfolio.

I listened with interest the other day when the Minister of Education got up and waxed eloquently about the great things that were happening in education. I was spellbound because I couldn't believe what the hon. member was saying, especially in light of the fact of what he said when he was on this side of the House last year in Opposition, when we talked about teacher cuts and things like that. I was completely spellbound because I was thinking about the transformation that had occurred in the members opposite, especially the Minister of Education. I found it somewhat hypocritical for him to get up and talk in that way. I hesitate to use the word hypocritical because I have a great deal of respect for the member opposite, the Education Minister. I think everybody in this House would agree that he is a nice guy, but you know what they say about nice guys, Mr. Speaker.

The unfortunate thing about it is that while he may have the children of this Province at heart, his voice is not being heard in the Cabinet of which he is a part. It is sad to have to get up here and say that, as I said, about an individual I have a great deal of respect for. I hesitate to call it hypocritical, but I don't think that the Premier and the Minister of Finance listened to him when he made the case for education in this year's Budget. Neither do I think the Premier and the Minister of Finance listened to anybody opposite. It is obvious, in sitting here in the last three weeks, that many of the ministers are now finding out about things in their own budgets that they didn't know were there prior to the Budget coming down. I guess it is like the speech that the Premier gave to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians back in January when he announced the wage freeze, and members opposite, in his own government, found out about it the same time that the rest of us in this Province found out about it, in the Premier's speech on TV. It is obvious that he does not consult with his ministers nor his caucus.

Mr. Speaker, when I talk about the transformation that has occurred with the Minister of Education, and the hypocrisy associated with that transformation, I do not do it without proof. I would like to take you through some of the comments that the members opposite, led by the Minister of Education, have made in the last little while, especially in the last year.

Just prior to the election last fall, I had the School Boards' Association come to me, and one of the questions that they were very interested in - as the Member for Marystown would know because he was a member of a school board at the time. He was one of the assistant directors, I believe. He happened to get out before they cut all of the positions down there. The main question they wanted to ask me was what I felt about school boards and whether or not, after an election, a government that we were to lead, would they still be in existence? I had no problem, in fact, in telling them that they certainly would be there. I think the Member for Marystown was probably in Gander last spring when I addressed the School Boards' Association and told them point blank that we support school boards and we intend to keep them.

When he came to the Tory caucus and met with the now Minister of Education, and other members across the floor there, guess what these members told the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards' Association? They told them categorically that yes, after an election, your school boards will still be there, all eleven of them.

That was not bad enough. Then in January, as my colleague from the Bay of Islands said in the House yesterday, the now Minister of Education was on the West Coast giving a speech and, when questioned by a reporter out there about whether or not the school boards would exist after the Budget, he said categorically: We will not cut the school boards. We will not amalgamate the school boards.

That is twice in the last few months, but that was not bad enough, Mr. Speaker. I talked to an individual from my own district last week and I was informed that the Minister of Education met with the Gander and area school board, the school board that represents my district, just one week before the Budget came down, and he told them categorically at that meeting that there would be no cuts coming to school boards this year. Don't worry about it, there are no cuts coming this year.

One week before the Budget he said, there will be cuts coming to hospital boards. We have not seen that yet, but we know they are coming in the next few months. On three different occasions, the Minister of Education went around the Province and told groups of individuals, groups who were elected by the people of the districts around the Province who sit on school boards, not to worry. Then, one week later, bang, without any consultation with anybody. In fact, I think the Chair of the Avalon East School Board said yesterday that they were not consulted. Nobody was consulted. I do not know if the member from Marystown who sat on a school board was consulted or tipped off back last October that his job would no longer be there, so it is time for him to leave that position and run in politics if he wanted to secure a job into the future, but with no consultation with anyone the school boards were wiped out, Mr. Speaker.

Let me talk about the school boards. In 1997, we brought a bill before this House to change the education system in our Province and we reduced the number of school boards at that time because we had three different sets of school boards, based on religious lines. We had twenty-seven school boards and we reduced them to eleven: ten regular boards and the Francophone board. We also made a point that these school boards had to be elected by people who represented the students and the families in the particular geographical area.

We were concerned at the time that eleven school boards was a rather small number. I guess the Minister of Education today thought it was a very small number when he assured school board members around the Province that he would not cut them this year. Then he went and, with the stroke of a pen - or, I should not say he. The Minister of Finance sat down with the Premier and officials from Treasury Board, because I do not think any of the other ministers had an opportunity to sit at that table and discuss this issue - they were slashed, no consultation whatsoever - slashed.

What happens, Mr. Speaker? Now we have four boards and the Francophone board and here - the board in this particular area of the Province now it is going to go from St. John's to Grand Bank to Bonavista. Just imagine the geographic area, and it is going to take up approximately 50 per cent of the students in our Province and it is going to be administered by one board, I think, with ten members on that board.

To add insult to injury, they have notified the elected representatives in the Province, who sit on these school boards, that their services are no longer required and they are going to appoint an interim school board. I read with interest today, an article in The Telegram by an individual who sits on the board here in St. John's, who talked about an anti-democratic movement on behalf of this party to eradicate the elected representatives on these boards and to appoint their own. We all know what will happen then. They will pick their -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: No, no advertising. They will pick their own political cronies to organize these boards around the Province so that they can push through their agenda, and their agenda is to centralize and take from rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador any vestige of control or any vestige of democracy that these people are left with so that they can control everything from Confederation Building. That is very unfortunate.

They talk about how they are going to save money by eliminating these boards. Well, I ask, how is any board -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask that the member be heard.

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are not very polite opposite. Every time I try to speak in this House they heckle me. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, they are trying to throw me off my train of thought here but that will not work.

Mr Speaker, they are talking about saving money, but I do not know how one board, for example, for all of the Avalon Peninsula and the Burin Peninsula and the Bonavista Peninsula, will save money for anybody; because all that will happen is that you will put a group of individuals in an office somewhere on the Avalon Peninsula who will have to travel such a great area - and that is not just here. It is the same all over the Province, so what money will be saved on the positions that they are going to eliminate will certainly be spent on hotels and travel.

The thing that is being forgotten about all of this is, the role of that school board is supposed to be for the benefit of the students in our Province. Well, I do not think that they were even considered when the hon. members, the Premier, the Finance Minister and officials in Treasury Board, just slashed and chopped, and slashed and threw it all out the day before the Budget, because no one else on the other side - and I challenge any of them to get up and say that they had a conversation about it prior to the Budget coming down. I challenge any of them. Anyway, that is talking about the school boards.

Another thing I would like to speak to, Mr. Speaker, today is when the Minister of Finance stood last week and thought he was eloquently speaking in the Budget about revitalizing our education system. Two days after, I heard the Minister of Education talking about the superlative education system that we have in the Province and that we want to revitalize our already superlative education system. They wanted to revitalize it.

In the same voice, he chopped the school boards from eleven to five and he eliminated, with the stroke of a pen, 475 teaching positions in this Province. Four hundred and seventy-five teaching positions in the Province, and to say about the savings. Yes, the savings. We will talk about the savings, because the minister and his group across there - I do not know the appropriate word to call them over there; highwaymen, I suppose - when they were in Opposition they talked about every cent that was ever to be saved in education was going to be reinvested. It says it right in the Blue Book. Any money saved through redundancies in education would be reinvested in our youth.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education has said that on numerous occasions prior to the election and prior to the Budget, but he walked through those very doors down there yesterday afternoon, stood in front of the cameras, stood in front of the media of this Province, and do you know what he said? When asked a question: Are you going to reinvest the savings from the slashing of these school boards back into the education of our youth? Guess what he said, Mr. Speaker? He said: No, we are not going to reinvest it in our youth in the Province, we are going to invest it in our debt! Now, can you believe that? After all of the times that the members opposite stood in this House, all of the times they paraded around this Province, in front of every picket line, in front of every demonstration, and they talked about reinvesting money back into the system because the government prior to them had not done enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I will get to that later.

Then, to walk out of this House yesterday and so callously stood in front of the media and said: No, we are not doing it! We are not investing in the youth of our Province. We are not going to take the funds that are going to be saved from the slashing of 475 teaching positions. We are not taking the money which that is going to save. I think that will net you somewhere in the area of $100 million for 500 teachers. No, that is not going back into the education of our children. That is going to stuff away to look after the Finance Minister's perceived Budget deficit - and I say perceived because they inflated it. So nobody really knows what it is today.

Let's talk about the impact that 475 teaching positions taken out of the system is going to have on our children. Let's talk about that. We established the Sparkes-Williams Committee back, I think, in 2001 and we asked them to come up with some kind of a formula that would allow us to take some teachers out of the system as enrolment declined, and they came back with a formula.

Well, the first year, our leader right here today - the first year when he was presented with the figure, I think, of 378 that could come out of the system - when our leader was the Minister of Education, when he was asked to take out the 378, or said he could take out the 378, he said: No, Minister of Education, I am not doing it. He left the 378 in. He considered the impact that it would have on small, isolated, rural communities in the Province. He knew that all it would mean is that we would have to double up on classes, we would have to bring in more computer monitors to take the place of teachers, and he did not do it.

The following year my colleague from Grand Bank had a number that she could have taken out of the system, 378. You took what, 200? We left those in there. Last year the same people in the formula said that I could have eliminated, when I was minister, an additional 378. What did I do? I took out 160. What happens this year? A minister, who has only been there three or four months, a minister who condemned me last year for taking out 160 teachers, a minister who said that one teacher removed from the system was one teacher too many - he said it on numerous occasions, sitting in that seat right there, Mr. Speaker. Guess what he did? In one stroke of the pen he eliminated every teacher that we had left in the system in the last three years. Eliminated everyone of them and more besides, because he is taking out 475 positions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I cannot stand here and look at the Minister of Tourism looking over at me, pointing fingers and laughing at the fact that they are going to eliminate 475 teaching positions. A minister, I might add, who was a teacher in rural Newfoundland and Labrador!

AN HON. MEMBER: Exactly!

MR. REID: I find it insulting!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I find it insulting to have to look at you while you are doing it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: He thinks it is a joke.

MR. REID: It is a joke, an absolute joke, like they think everything is a joke here. We are here talking to the worse Budget that was ever perpetrated on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the members opposite, all they have to do is sit there, laugh, poke fun and interrupt because they do not want to know the truth.

I do not mean to be angry here, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon but I have been sitting quietly here for the last couple of weeks listening to those people opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: There you go!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Even your own caucus are laughing at that. Even your own caucus are laughing that you have been sitting quietly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They like to do that. They like to interrupt and throw you off your speech because they do not like to hear it. I have watched this happen for the past three or four weeks. One of them over there - I will not name him now - I think he is up now to seventy-nine points of order in the last two weeks; seventy-nine points of order. When we are on to a good topic - like he has done with me, throw me off my train of thought. He does that by jumping on his feet looking for a point of order. He is not going to throw me off, Mr. Speaker, because I have lots to say.

Let's talk about these classrooms around rural Newfoundland and Labrador. He is slashing 475 teaching positions but the nice thing that he had in the Budget, he talked about $500,000 for computer monitors for Distance Education in rural areas of our Province; like the Minister of Tourism's district, I might add. He has them up there, lots of them. All it is going to do now is take more human bodies out of the classroom and put more computer monitors in front of these students, in the minister's district, in my district and in every district in this Legislature, I would add, except for those maybe on the Avalon Peninsula. I find it very distasteful, Mr. Speaker. I find it despicable.

Let's talk about the size of classrooms. I know what the size of classrooms are in the Province. I, like the minister today, travelled around this Province, talked to a number of rural schools and had the pleasure of doing so. But, Mr. Speaker, when I was minister I realized that you could not take all of those teachers out of the system because I knew - even the 160 that I took out last year, I fought tooth and nail with my government to leave them all in there. Unfortunately, we had to take out 160. I will guarantee you, we would never have taken out 475 with me as minister because I would not have sat around the table and permitted it; I would have resigned.

Then, the minister today, to get up and talk about the superlative education system and eliminate these teachers. I find it - the word again - hypercritical; even though I do not want to use it against today's minister because I know he is not being heard in his Cabinet and he is not a bad fellow.

Mr. Speaker, before I go on though, I would like to just ask - the minister is not in his seat right now, but I would like to ask him what he has in mind for these necessarily existent schools, necessarily existent small schools?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member and remind him again - he knows the rules here very well - not to refer to members who are not in the House.

MR. REID: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Members have reasons to leave the House for all kinds of duties, and I ask that he not refer to a member in that way.

MR. REID: I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker. When I had it half out - I said he was not in his seat, but I did not indicate he was not in the House. I apologize. I did not mean to do it.

Anyway, we want to talk about the necessarily existent small schools. We have a number in rural areas of the Province. They are small but they are necessarily existent because they cannot just jump in a car or in a Metrobus and drive across town and attend the school. They are isolated. They cannot go to other schools. I would like to know from the minister and the government opposite what they propose to do with these schools this year, because they said last year they were not going to eliminate any teachers in the Province this year but they just took 475 out. I guess I will wait until we go through the Estimates to find out what he is going to do with them.

Let's talk about post-secondary education. I can honestly say that I am proud to stand in this House today and say that I was part of a government that reduced tuition at Memorial University for three years to the point of 26 per cent compounded; 26 per cent reduction in tuition at the University. The Minister of Finance, when he sat over here, used to jump up and down and say it was not enough. It is not true. There are others lower in the country. They gave everyone the perception that when he became the Minister of Finance, because we all knew he was - I am sorry, though; there was another one over there we thought was going to get it. She is now the Minister of Health. The perception that he gave people in the Province was that if he became the minister, they would even slash tuition rates lower. What does he do? He comes into the House and very proudly jumps up and says: We are freezing tuition at Memorial University. We are freezing tuition at the College of the North Atlantic campuses around the Province, but the freeze - no reduction, no elimination of it. They were even talking about that last year when they were talking about the Irish model. They even went far - and I think the House Leader over there even mentioned that one time. He talked about the Irish model and no tuition. So, what did they do? They froze tuition, but the kicker there, Mr. Speaker, is that people realize they have asked both the University and CONA to save $2 million each this year by - what does that mean? They either have to cut services or they have to raise fees. We will see what will happen at the University and the (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that his time has expired.

MR. REID: Can I have a few more words to -

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the new Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde the other day, and she talked about how proud she was that she had been working on the mainland of Canada, and how proud she was that the Tory government brought her home. I have a bit advice for her. She is now on the back bench looking at the front bench. She is elected. She probably got elected on the coattails of their Premier, but she is going to have to get re-elected on her own. The piece of advice is that she should stand and talk to her Premier and the Minister of Finance about the impact that this Budget is having on the constituents in her district. She talked about how proud she was that this government brought her home. Well, I would like to know what she is going to say to the people in Northern Bay, Old Pelican, Heart's Content and those students who come this year -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I rise today to participate in our Budget Debate and to speak for the very first time in this House of Assembly, I am once again reminded of the honour and responsibility that has been granted to all of us, as representatives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I offer my congratulations to all hon. members in this House. I would like to particularly congratulate our colleague for Waterford Valley on becoming the first elected Speaker of this House.

The opportunity to serve the people of this Province is indeed a privilege. I thank the people of my district, Virginia Waters, who have proven to be generous with their support and remarkable in their enthusiasm. I pledge to honour that enthusiasm with equal passion and commitment.

Virginia Waters is one of the fastest growing areas in our beautiful capital city. My mother has often remarked to me that, as a young woman in service here in St. John's, on her days off she and her friends would often take a taxi off into the country for a picnic. That country picnic ground is now the most densely populated district in our Province.

One of the reasons why Virginia Waters has grown and prospered over the years, Mr. Speaker, is because people from all over Newfoundland and Labrador and from all over the world were welcome here. As a result, we have a large dynamic and diverse community. It is a very exciting place to live. Again, I am deeply honoured to stand here as their member in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my family. I have many blessings in my life, but the greatest blessing of all is the love and support I receive in such abundance from my family. They truly make all things possible for me and I want to honour them and thank them in these my first words in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: I also want to thank my campaign team for their efforts on my behalf during the election process, and for their continuing support. I pledge to be a strong advocate for our district and for the people of our Province and to do my very best to make a positive contribution to our way of life.

With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, I was truly delighted to be given the opportunity to take on the portfolio of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. This department has a crucial role to play in government's plan to enhance the economy of this Province. Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is the primary vehicle for developing and implementing a provincial economic and employment generation agenda, especially for our rural areas. In partnerships with individuals, communities and businesses and other levels of government, this department is responsible for creating and maintaining a competitive economic environment that encourages and supports private sector businesses and encourages and supports long-term sustainable employment opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. An important part of creating that climate, Mr. Speaker, is ensuring that government's own fiscal house is in order so that business people and, indeed, all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, can have confidence in their investments and have confidence in their future in this Province.

We all talk and dream, Mr. Speaker, of bringing fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians home to live and work with us here again. I share that dream. Both my children live and work in Ontario. I am reminded everyday that life is too short to live it apart from the people we love, but I also know that if we do not take the necessary measures outlined in our Budget that soon the question will not be whether we can bring people home but it will be whether or not we can stay here ourselves. I, for one, Mr. Speaker, along with my colleagues on this side of the House, intend to stay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: To do that, we need to grow and diversify our economy and build healthy, viable communities right across Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the very first things I have undertaken, as minister, is to determine if the existing programs and services, right down to the structure of the department, are accomplishing the goal of effective economic growth. We are currently in the process of undertaking a complete departmental review, including extensive staff and stakeholder consultations that have already proven to be an excellent means of determining what works and what needs to be changed.

Ten years ago government was investing over $20 million a year directly into business development in this Province. Since that time, former administrations have slashed that budget to about $2.5 million a year. This was taking place, Mr. Speaker, when in rural areas of our Province we had, and we still have, the highest unemployment in the country. We saw thousands and thousands of our people displaced from the fishery, migrating to other parts of Canada and the world because they could not find other work here in Newfoundland and Labrador. While all this was happening, Mr. Speaker, we were being told by the government of the day that there was nothing unusual happening in our rural communities; that we had a history, as a people, of leaving for other shores; that it was a cultural thing. Mr. Speaker, did they really believe that we did not know the difference? They said that our GDP was growing and our economy was in better shape than it had ever been before. While that was true for some areas of the Province, Mr. Speaker, it was still pretty rough going in a lot of places in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have listened to members opposite in this House, over the past few weeks, trumpet their success in growing the economy of this Province. According to them, things were never so good as when they formed government. One wonders, despite the daily flow of rhetoric about rural communities, how much they really understand about the reality of people's lives.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: And a booming economy usually means that the government's own Treasury is in very good shape.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: The burning question that never gets answered, Mr. Speaker, is if they truly believe what they say: How do they explain the financial mess they left behind? A financial mess, Mr. Speaker, that now severely constrains our ability to increase direct economic development funding.

Mr. Speaker, we know we have to do more with less, and we are prepared to do that. We have an abundance of resources in this Province, in our waters and on our land, and we have no shortage of ability in our people. Mr. Speaker, I was born and raised in Burin. My husband and I raised our two children there before moving to St. John's in the 1990s. During the years I lived and worked in rural Newfoundland, I was involved in all aspects of community; everything from social work to education, from municipal government to social justice issues.

During the Cod Moratorium I had the opportunity as a member - and later as Chair of the NCARP appeals committee for fishers - to travel the length and breath of our Province. I heard and saw first-hand the devastation visited on fishers families and communities by the failure of one of our greatest resources. All of this, Mr. Speaker, has given me a broad understanding of the issues and challenges facing rural people in our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I also know the joy and strength that exists in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The people of this Province have existed for hundreds of years on our natural resources, and through a combination of determination and skill we have managed to thrive in all kinds of difficult circumstances, and we will again.

There are many organizations and agencies in this Province who are committed to building local and regional economies. I have already begun a Province-wide consultation with stakeholders throughout the Province to build partnerships, identify common priorities and strategies, and focus our mutual resources so that together we can harness the innovation of our people, create sustainable industries, capture new employment, new investment and new markets.

Mr. Speaker, despite absorbing our share of the budgetary reductions that have been essential to get our government's financial affairs in order, our department has continued to support some of the better programs that were already in place and have started several exciting initiatives in accord with our blueprint for the future. We will continue to support the two remaining programs that will provide direct financial support to business: the Small Business Seed Equity Capital Program, which will receive $2.1 million, and the Business Market Development Program, which will receive $500,000.

The department will continue to contribute to the core operational funding of the Province's twenty Regional Economic Development Boards in the amount of just over $1 million. Despite the federal government's withdrawal from various federal and provincial agreements, we will nevertheless continue to fund the Ambassador Program and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Business Service Centre. We have enhanced funding for trade and export development to new and emergent markets for the Province's small- and medium-sized exporters, for a total budget of $2.2 million.

In some instances, Mr. Speaker, we will be reviving, reinvigorating and acting on some of initiatives that have been languishing on the books during the previous Administration. This includes working with Aliant to establish a (inaudible) task force to attract new IT work to the Province. A formal announcement on the task force initiative will be made shortly.

In partnership with Memorial University, we have finalized the criteria for an Industrial Research and Innovation Fund, which is designed to encourage research in clusters of excellence such as: marine technology, pharmaceutical research, biotechnology and the oil and gas industry.

In an effort to continue building partnerships between business, labour and government, my department will fund a Strategic Partnership Initiative with $300,000 in operational funding in 2004-2005. In addition, approximately $100,000 will be provided to the initiative to fund research on issues to improve the competitiveness of the provincial economy.

In keeping with the Blue Book, the department has budgeted $300,000 for a review of the regulatory burden for business, especially for small- and medium-size business.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to inform this House that even though I have only been in this position for a few short months, and despite our budgetary restraints, my department has been living up to its new name of Innovation by starting several new initiatives.

The department will establish a branch of Advanced Technologies to focus on opportunities in information technology, marine technologies, biotechnology, environmental technologies, and defence and aerospace. We are hiring a new Assistant Deputy Minister of Advanced Technologies to lead the new branch, who will also serve as the Chief Innovation Information Officer for the Province, responsible for ensuring that the provincial government's IT requirements bring maximum benefits to local IT companies.

Under the leadership of the new ADM for Advanced Technologies, the department will work with private and public sectors to develop an innovation strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador. A special budgetary allocation of $200,000 has been earmarked for this purpose. To help provide the infrastructure to make this new innovation thrust effective in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, $1.2 million is provided in the Budget to assist community and regional groups to leverage funding for broadband expansion in support of local economic development.

The department will also be implementing a new supplier development program. We will organize a number of initiatives to stimulate greater use of locally produced products and service. Actives will include bringing together various departments, agencies, suppliers, and large companies, and will involve the input and assistance of provincial industry associations such at NATI, CME and NEIA.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to report that in keeping with my fervent belief in the importance of integrating social and economic development, government has created a new Rural Secretariat which will report to me, as Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

Mr. Speaker, economic and community development are interdependent and must be linked in the development and implementation stages. The Secretariat will build on the work of the Strategic Social Plan, integrating an equal emphasis on economic growth and the integration of social and economic development. The Rural Secretariat will ensure that all government departments and agencies co-ordinate their support for rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, as a new government we have many challenges before us, but we also have a great passion for this place we call home. We have the energy and the commitment to find long term solutions to our present circumstances and we will continue to build a strong vibrant Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to voice my comments, and the comments of thousands of other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out there, about this Budget. I will make it known upfront that I will not be speaking in favour of this Budget. This Budget has done nothing to help honour the three commitments that are made in the first page of this booklet.

It starts off, "First, to balance the budget on a cash basis in four years and restore sound fiscal management." Well, 4,000 people going out the door is not going to help this Province in any way.

"Second, to expand the economy and create jobs." Four thousand people out of work is certainly not creating jobs. It may be filling openings in Ontario.

"And third, to ensure that our health and education systems meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and are sustainable into the future." Mr. Speaker, I can assure you the people I have spoken to in the past couple of weeks, who have had the chance to listen to some of the dialogue that has gone on around this Budget - even though, very conveniently, it is being pre-empted by the largest strike in our public sector.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development speak a few moments ago, and, while I congratulate her in her new portfolio, she most certainly has set the bar for herself. I say to her, that the economic guru who occupies the deputy minister's office in her department certainly did not do anything to shake the economic foundations of rural Newfoundland and Labrador some ten years ago.

I, myself, wish her well and I wish the government well. There is nothing more I would rather see, as a Newfoundlander and a Labradorian, than to see this Province prosper and move forward. It is unfortunate today that I cannot speak in favour of this, because there is nothing here that is going to make that happen.

As we stand and look around, and we walk in through here everyday, and we see the 20,000 people out there demonstrating with their placards, how many of them have stopped me and said to me: I cannot believe that this is happening. The Premier, the Leader of the Opposition at the time - it says here: Setting the record straight. A Danny Williams led government is committed to job creation and a quality public service. The very first headline. You can only come to the conclusion that a quality public service - that there must be something wrong with the 4,000 people who are being dismissed and sent out. That is the assumption you can make. If you are going to establish a quality public service, what are you doing eliminating jobs?

The real fact of it is, the Progressive Conservative blueprint for the future makes the following real commitments to the people of Newfoundland and the Province: Employ more doctors and nurses in under-serviced areas of the Province.

Well, in reading between the lines, there is an old saying that the devil is in the detail. In reading between the lines of this Budget, and getting down through the Estimates and the rest of it, which I look forward to in another week or so, I guess, I think we are going to see that the nurses themselves are feeling threatened. There are not many doctors out there now who are very happy with the government that has said to us that we have mismanaged - mismanaged - the finances of this Province.

Well, a large part of the finance of this Province was giving the doctors a raise last year - a raise that they demanded. The Opposition at the time, when you sat over here, said: You have to do something for the doctors. They are not getting enough money.

Lo and behold, what happened? As soon as we stepped over, our roles changed. All of a sudden, our giving money was mismanagement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, you had your twenty minutes. Allow me to have mine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Whatever you want to call it. I did not heckle you - and the Member for Trinity North, he as well. I afforded each and every member over there their twenty minutes, so if you would be kind enough to allow me my twenty minutes without the laughing and the insults and the heckling, I would certainly appreciate it.

The other part of it, limit the waiting times for diagnostic and treatment procedures to meet standards deemed accepted by our physicians. Well, Open Line program after Open Line program, people are complaining about the long waits. Nothing has changed in six months, and I do not see anything in this Blue Book - and it is blue for a reason, because blue represents doom and gloom, there is no question - there is nothing in here to show where those long waiting lines will be decreased.

Here is another one: Provide 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.

Well, I can certainly tell you that what is mentioned in here - my colleague from Grand Bank, her constituents certainly are not going to be accessible to primary health care. Her project is cancelled. The one is Gander, the cancer clinic in Grand Falls, cancelled. The long-term care facility for Carbonear, not mentioned, even though it was deemed to be as equally important and necessary as the one in the Premier's district - which the Premier says is going to go ahead. That is different. That is different, because it is in his district. I do not envy the people in Corner Brook, on the West Coast, for getting a new facility. That is great, but the people of Carbonear, Harbour Grace, Bay Roberts, Spaniard's Bay, they are no less important. They have the same entitlement to a long-term care facility as anyone else in this Province.

Health care is of primary importance. Right now we have people - I will go back to the labour strike that we are having right now, the labour dispute - who haven't been out of bed in four and five days. Seniors. Mothers and fathers of our constituents out there, who are lying in bed four and five days, who cannot get out of bed. Now, they haven't been taken out. It is insulting, actually, to the people. When you set off to set the record straight and then you go and you twist the record, break the record with this Blue Book, 2004 Budget, something that spells doom and gloom for our seniors, our young people, our middle income earners, everybody in the Province except - guess who is not impacted in this book? - our corporate community. The corporate partners. The Water Street merchants, as we called it back in the 1930s; my parents called it in the 1930s. The Water Street merchants. That is who is running the government. I call upon all of you, all of you from around rural Newfoundland, in particular, to stand up and be counted when it comes time to vote on this Budget and do the right thing and vote for the people of rural Newfoundland; the poor people, the children who are finding themselves in September without teachers, who are going to be left in front of a computer screen.

Here is another one, "Re-assign redundant teaching units to cap class sizes in the primary grades at 25 students..." Page fifty-one of the Blue Book.

Then there is a little glib here about taking a closer look: It is time for the people of the Province to take a closer look at the facts. Unfortunately, the people looked at what they thought to be true. What they thought to be true. They were misled, believing in a great leader, somebody who was successful in business, somebody who was going to take us out of this big tailspin of poverty that each member, and the Minister of Finance, in particular, who got up and kept saying: You can't do that. You can't do this. But, in the meantime, he never ever - and I have driven through his district - said: No, I do not want that money for my district. I do not want that. There was not one member over there last year - nobody over here for that matter - who said: No, I am not taking that money. I am not taking it because it is going to affect the deficit. They are not saying that because it is our responsibilities as MHAs, elected representatives of the people, to come in here to this great House and to serve our people. Not to serve them this way, a contradiction between this Blue Book and this great blueprint that was circulated during the election.

When we start looking at - I am not off my first part here yet: The Danny Williams' team has clearly stated that under a Progressive Conservative Government there will be no layoffs in the public service and we will not reduce the public service by 25 per cent, contrary to allegations by our political opponents. Well, lo and behold -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he did not say that!

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, and signed, right here a little personal note: D-a-n-n-y. Picture and all. A little personal note to the people and the voters of this Province: There will be no layoffs.

Out there this morning there were fifty or sixty public servants who said: George, when you go back into the House today ask my member, who sits across from you: Where is he?

Another lady came up an said: When you see my member, ask her: Where is she? They are not speaking up. They have all become phantoms. Last year we could not get on Open Line at all because they had the lines tied up all night, and what happened? They have all disappeared. They have gone quiet. There are so many people out there swallowed up in the sense of betrayal and frustration.

Here is another one: Danny Williams and his team -

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that while you may hold a note in your hand you are not allowed to use it for display purposes, and I ask you to refrain from doing so.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Danny Williams and his team stand for job creation and a diversified and revitalized economy. Now, where is the job creation? Where is the revitalized economy?

I was at a car dealership the other day and the salesman said to me: You know, George, January 5 - you know that speech the Premier gave? I do not know if he realized it or not, but people just stayed home. Their bank accounts got to be building up, saving up for something. It must be a strike. It must be a strike that they are saving up for, because he said: I have not sold a car. I have worked for 118 hours. I am a commissioned salesperson;118 hours and I have not made one cent in 118 hours. That is the diversified economy, the revitalized economy, the economic tiger. Well, the economic tiger has gone somewhere. It has run under a tree or out in the woods. No, there is something gone. There is something missing. No wonder there are people frustrated. People out there do not trust anyone; do not trust government anymore. It is hard to come to grips with that, when you are faced with that kind of situation.

There is another comment: There is only one leader in this election campaign who has been part of a government that laid off thousands of public servants, and that leader is not Danny Williams.

My, oh my, oh my, what a difference six months make. My, oh my, oh my. Six little months and all of a sudden it is not thousands. Again, I say that the devil is in the detail, because somewhere in this book that 4,000 in the next four years - because it says very aptly that this economy cannot be changed in the first Budget. So, we can only come to assume that there are going to be more budgets that will bring bad news. I think, by the time attrition takes place and the layoffs take place, we are going to be held out to dry on over 6,000 public servants.

MR. JOYCE: School boards (inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Wait now, I say to my colleague from Bay of Islands, school boards is another issue. That is another issue, and I am glad the Minister of Education is sitting there listening intently to me, because it is quite interesting to note that the school board in St. John's was making a decision to close, I think it was St. Mary's School, but because they had made the decision to close it and now the school board is not going to be in existence any more, the decision has been stopped.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) merchant in St. John's.

MR. SWEENEY: Exactly, my friend. Because it is in St. John's, different rules apply to it.

My school of St. Joseph's in Carbonear, a decision made by a school board that is not in existence right now, an elected school board, by the people, they cannot reverse their decision. Minister of Education, I call upon you today to get that decision reversed, to allow St. Joseph's to open, stop bussing the 300 or 400 students next year, and apply the same rules to rural Newfoundland, to Conception Bay North, as you are applying to St. John's.

In particular, I say to his Parliamentary Secretary, because he was at the meetings, I say to the member, you know the frustrations. Don't smile and laugh. It is very serious. You were not smiling and laughing last year when you were out there trying to stick a knife up my ribs. Don't say that. Don't laugh.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: No, no, there are more people who stick knives than you. Don't worry about that. I say to the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, use your position now and tell the people in my district that you are working on their behalf, as a Parliamentary Secretary to the minister, and that you are going to try to save the school and set up some alternative means other than what was decided upon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: The other thing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SWEENEY: Madam Speaker, if I may continue

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Madam Speaker, the other thing that was said in this great newspaper ad that was signed by today's Premier was that the current Liberal government has a proven track record of breaking collective agreements and rolling back wages.

Well, there are 20,000 people out there today who say to me, and say to the public, that Roger Grimes was only a pup compared to this fellow. There is no danger with Roger Grimes and we wish we had him back. The signs out there, the placards, say: Bring back Rogers Grimes.

AN HON. MEMBER: You knew what you were getting.

MR. SWEENEY: We knew what we were getting. We were getting straightforward truth and honesty every single time that there was a commitment made. We went into negotiations and we negotiated, instead of all these little silly games that are being played right now with the public service.

A classic case yesterday where the Minister of Finance said that he was going to call Leo Puddister, the President of NAPE, and ask for a meeting. Twenty-seven hours later - I am not sure if the meeting is going on now. I hope it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: It has been going on for an hour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: That is good.

We go further. We can open up this book here, the Budget. I will start with the Budget Highlights first.

MR. GRIMES: Low lights. Budget low lights.

MR. SWEENEY: No, no, I am going to do the highlights first, because it starts about the Budget overview and the economic performance. It starts off with 2003-2004 and it says: Real GDP grew by 4.7 per cent, led by growth in exports and consumer spending. Offshore oil production grew by 17.9 per cent.

Employment increased by 1.8 per cent to $217,800 on an annual average basis, the highest number of people working in this Province since Confederation. As a matter of fact, someone told me that there were more people working last year and the year before than there were people in this Province when Newfoundland came into Confederation.

"Real personal income grew by 1.4 per cent and real disposable income increased by 1.1 per cent."

Then I have to go down and I will start on the low lights, because then the projections start, 2004-2005.

MR. GRIMES: That is the new crowd.

MR. SWEENEY: That is the new crowd now, right? The new approach.

We start with that doom and gloom. I am going to spare the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that today. I do not want to hear it. They will see it themselves and experience it, but it was a government who had no faith in themselves. That is what this Budget is all about, a government who has no faith in themselves. To come out, take 4,000 people and say you are going to go home because we want a quality government, the public service.

AN HON. MEMBER: A minimum.

MR. SWEENEY: A minimum of 4,000.

We cajole, laugh and ridicule and drive 20,000 people out on the streets, send them out there with their picket signs, stand around old smokey barrels, and it all comes down to a mind game between the President of NAPE, the President of CUPE, and, of course, the stubbornness of the Premier and the Minister of Finance.

When we get into the Budget, you know this whole Budget is based upon the Coopers report. This whole Budget is based upon the report of one Mr. Gourley.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SWEENEY: By leave, Madam Speaker? I haven't started my speech yet, Madam Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SWEENEY: I understand.

Thank you very much.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of information, Madam Speaker.

We have no problem giving the hon. member leave, as we have done with everybody, but, as we said before, it is an opportunity to clue up what we have to say, but not an opportunity to take another twenty minutes, because there are lots of opportunities to have twenty minutes, I say to the member. If you need a few moments to clue up, by all means we will give you those few moments.

MR. SWEENEY: Madam Speaker, I thank the Government House Leader, and I would like to clue up by saying to the members opposite, and the members on my side, to do the right thing. When the vote comes down for the Budget, vote against the Budget, look after rural Newfoundland and Labrador, protect the people who supported us and put us in here as members.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is a real pleasure and privilege to be able to stand here today and make a few comments about the Budget. Unlike some of the speakers opposite, I will be proud to stand and support this Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I want to zero in on a couple of significant points. I have sat here for the last few days listening to members opposite talk about the Budget and various aspects of the Budget, criticizing this government for some of the initiatives that it is moving forward with. I want to zero in on a couple of them.

Firstly, I am going to start with health care. We have heard members opposite talk about the plan to restructure health boards. We have heard members opposite stand and talk about a plan to look at how we deliver services. They have stood here and talked about it in a very cynical way. They have been critical of what government is introducing on a go forward basis to look at our health care system. They have been highly critical of what we are proposing to do.

Madam Speaker, I just want to point out something. I just want to read a couple of things that came from a document called A Strategic Health Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador. Madam Speaker, this is a document that was released by the members opposite in September of 2002. They released it in September, 2002, and the Minister of Health and Community Services of the day held this plan up as being the future and the blueprint for health care in this Province. They were going to start moving forward with it because this was going to be our future, but what they chose to do was to do absolutely nothing. They sat on it for over a year. Until an election was called, they had not done anything with it at all. So, they took this plan and left it on the table not actioned.

Now, we come in and identify some of the key things they had in their document. I have to acknowledge that some of the things that they acknowledged and put in their document in September, 2002, reflect some of the initiatives that we have said in our Budget we are moving forward with, because they were reasonable things to do. It was reasonable for them to have suggested that it should be done in September, 2002. What was not reasonable, Madam Speaker, was they ignored the health system for quite some time. They ignored moving forward with any of these actions. Just let me read a couple of them, because these reflect some of the criticism that our government has taken in the last couple of days from members opposite.

They, somehow or other, suggested that the notion that we have put forward, that if the health system continued to go the way it is today with increased spending annually, it was not sustainable. The critic for Health and Community Services, the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, stood in the House a couple of weeks ago and questioned whether or not our statements about sustainability were accurate.

Let me read from their document: "...sustainability of health services - the health and community services systems is facing increased costs during a time of fiscal restraint. Higher costs will continue to occur with new technologies, pharmaceuticals..." costs and "...challenge government's ability to sustain the system unless continued efficiencies and new models of service delivery can be achieved." Those are their words. In September, 2002, they held this up and said: This is the situation we are in. This is the predicament the Province finds itself in.

Yet, today, when this government gets up and acknowledges the statement they made was accurate, what do we got? Criticism. Because they are suggesting somehow or other that the system is sustainable.

Then, Madam Speaker, we talk about the initiative to re-evaluate board structures, we have heard members stand in this House in recent weeks and criticize this government for its proposal to look at the governance structure of health boards in this Province, and here is what they said last year, "The current structure sometimes makes it difficult to operate in the interests of the client or patient, provide flexible services without artificial organizational barriers, and administer the system with greatest efficiency. Therefore, there is a need for additional consolidation of health board structures."

In September, 2002, the members opposite, when they were in the government, suggested they were going to consolidate health boards to create greater efficiencies. Today, continuing with their suggestion, we have proposed the same thing in our Budget and what do they do? They stand in this House and criticize us for wanting to move forward with a new government structure providing for a greater efficiency in how we administer our health system.

 

What a hypocrisy. How can they stand in this House today and criticize this government for moving forward with an agenda that they introduced in September of 2002, but, for fear of what the general public may say at the polls when an election was called, they chose to do absolutely nothing. We wasted a year or more in reforming the healthy system because they were interested in their political hides. As it turned out, the fear was for naught because they were being abolished in any event.

The third issue, Madam Speaker, that I want to talk about here is their reference to, "A new approach for determining the location of health and community services in the province will also be developed. A new set of location standards will be established through a planning exercise that will include discussions with communities...".

When we introduced in our Budget that we were going to be looking at how we deliver, it is not just the structure of boards, not just how we administer the system, but how we deliver services, the kinds of services that will be provided, and in what location they will be provided. Primary health care reform is a classic example, Madam Speaker. We announced that initiative in our Budget as well.

These are things that this party opposite brought forward as new initiatives in their strategic plan but chose just not to action them. Today, when we stand here and suggest that we are going to move forward with some of the good things, we have to acknowledge that the Opposition, when they were on this side in the governing party, did introduce some valid points with respect to how we should reform health, and we acknowledge that. We are going to take from the strategic plan that they developed - because they developed it. One of the things that we need to keep in mind, they did develop it in consultation with the stakeholders that we would also talk today. So, if people in Western Newfoundland or people in Labrador or people here in St. John's made suggestions two years ago to the government opposite and they chose to ignore it, then it is still a valid statement that they make today. Those recommendations are equally valid today.

The difference, Madam Speaker, is, we are going to listen to them. We are going to take some action. We are proposing to move forward with those recommendations and move forward quickly with them. That is the significant difference.

I find it a bit hypocritical on their part as they stand in the House and, speaker after speaker, criticize us for what we are about to do with health services when all the people of the Province need to do is to look at this document that they introduced in September, 2002, as being the blueprint, and now we are just doing what it is they have suggested.

I caution members opposite as they stand in future and debate this Budget, as they criticize our strategy for moving forward with reforming the health system, that many of the things we are moving forward with were in their particular strategic plan - because they recognized they were solid recommendations that came from the system and chose to do nothing about it. So I caution members opposite, as they stand here in an almighty fashion and criticize us for moving forward with -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. WISEMAN: - what is basic fundamental reform of our health system, when every jurisdiction across this country is saying the same thing. The health system is not sustainable if we continue to go the direction we are headed. We need to make some very fundamental systemic changes in how we do business in health care. Unless we do that, we will not have a system for the future and the future generations.

I spoke in this House two weeks ago and talked about making decisions and being elected to a government to make fundamental decisions. We bring down budgets. We develop plans. We move forward with actions and strategies, not because they are in the best interest of our political interest today, but in the best long-term interest of our children and our grand-children and future generations. We do not want to have people in future generations looking back at us, as we are today looking back at previous governments who dealt with Churchill Falls and other mega developments and gave away our resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: We are not interested in protecting our political re-election. We are interested in making sure we have a sustainable population, and we are able to look at - and our children and grand-children as they walk through our museums and walk through these great halls in this Assembly, seeing the names and the pictures of people who sat in this Legislature in 2004 and being able to say proudly: That was my father, or that was my grandfather. They did the right things for the future of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: They had my best interest at heart. They were not interested in getting themselves re-elected. They were not interested in political expediency. They were interested in what was fundamentally right. Whether it is a policy that was put out by a former Liberal government or a new initiative of this party and introduced in our platform, we are going to do the right thing because it is the right thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The people of Newfoundland and Labrador said: We want you to make some major changes in our health system. We want it sustainable. We want to have access to it. Unlike the Member for Torngat Mountains today, who stood in this House and said that the Minister of Finance stood and said they want to have health services within an hours drive. We did not say an hours drive. We said we want to make sure that health services are accessible to people, in a reasonable fashion, when they need it. That is what we said. We are not talking about making sure that everybody can get access to every single service that is possibility available within an hours drive of their house. That is not realistic. That is not the real word and that is not what the people told us and told the members opposite when they had some consultations around this Province of what it should look like.

So, I want to remind the members opposite, be cautious of what you are saying because it is your own blueprint that you are criticizing and we are just the people who are moving forward with implementing it. You had your shot to do it. The people of the Province said we do not trust you to do it. We want some other people to do it. That is why we are here, and we are going to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The other thing that I want to comment on, Madam Speaker, is I have heard several times in this House today about the wastage, and picking some things out of our Budget that are suggested as being a colossal waste, a waste of money.

I have stood in this House - well, I have been here for four years now. I have been a part of this caucus here for the last two-and-a-half, and this is the first time I am going to mention this standing in this House. Each time I have heard members opposite talk about a waste of money and talk about spending for political purposes, I have had to bite my tongue, because members opposite will fully realize and acknowledge that over the last couple of years, and during their mandate, their sole focus was positioning themselves for re-election.

I heard the Member for Torngat Mountains today talk about a waste. I could not help but think of how, in the last couple of years, members opposite build into their annual budgetary process an allowance for Liberal government members. An allowance of some $30,000 per Liberal government members to use at their leisure and their will to position themselves to be re-elected. A colossal waste of money. When you think about the twenty-five or thirty members that they had, what is the math on that? What is twenty-seven times thirty? Like, $700,000 or $800,000. So, for the last couple of years as our deficit has been increasing, our debt has been growing, our annual operating deficits have been going up, what has been happening? Seven-hundred thousand dollars or $800,000 on an annual basis has been there, not for members of this caucus, not for all MHAs in every district in the Province, but there solely for the pickings of individual Liberal members of caucus to use throughout and buy votes, position themselves, make donations to groups and organizations who will advantage their re-election chances.

Madam Speaker, it galls me to sit in this House and listen to members opposite talk about wasting money on a Labrador ferry service; wasting money on a valuable service to the people of Labrador, and, as the minister stood here today, a service that is to the benefit of the greater number people in Labrador, and members opposite standing and talking about it as being a waste of money. A waste of money to serve the greater good of a particular region of our Province when they stood in the last two years, stood in this House, and asked members of this Assembly to endorse a Budget that had hidden in it, camouflaged, there for no one to see, funding to allow each of those members to use a pot of money to position themselves for re-election. When I listen to that and think about that, and listen to members opposite talk about waste, it galls me to know that happened and contributed to the deficit that we have today.

AN HON. MEMBER: And do not forget the Premier's slush fund they had over in Municipal Affairs.

MR. WISEMAN: I am reminded by my colleague that -

AN HON. MEMBER: I was told directly by the Premier.

MR. WISEMAN: The Premier, himself, it was characterized as a slush fund at the Premier's discretion, to use at that individual's will and whim as to how it would be spent, not a line budgeted item that was approved but clearly one to use for political purposes. That is the kind of thing, Madam Speaker, as we look at wastage, that we have had to listen to.

We have talked about education. I heard the Member for Twillingate & Fogo today stand up and talk with some great passion and in an almighty fashion, as if last year he was the great saviour of the education system, as a minister. He stood here today criticizing this government for its reform of education, and what it was doing.

I have to remind the member opposite and the people of this Province, as I said two weeks ago when I did an interview with The Packet in Clarenville, this whole process of education reform started with a focus on the students in the classroom. That is where the focus has been. The Minister of Education did not start out with an exercise of how many boards can we cut? How many directors can we eliminate, or how many assistant directors can we eliminate, or where should offices be? He did not start out with that part of an exercise. He started out with an exercise and said: How many students do we have in this Province? Where are they located? What schools do they attend? What is it they are going to need for the future?

They are going to need to have some sense of stability in an education system. They are going to have to have an education system that is structured in a fashion that gets us the best utilization of the resources so that the resources can go at the classroom level, not in board structures and not in administrative costs but at the classroom, and start building from that up. We have an education system now that has a focus on the students, and from that we will build. You build it with students in classrooms that are in school buildings. Those school buildings are in communities, and those communities are collected together under an umbrella of one administrative board structure. That is how this structure was built. That is how that proposal was put forward.

I say to the member opposite, when he talked about - he gave us a history lesson today, about how education reform started many years ago. That is a process, and as you recall back then, I say to the former Minister of Education and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, he was a part of an administration when introducing that, and I remember it well because I was at the time a member of a school board, a chair of a school board, and the Leader of the Opposition was then the Minister of Education, and he talked passionately about the need for reform of education. This was the start of a process. He, himself, was describing it back then as a start of a process, not an event that was going to be permanent; not an event that now was going to structure the system to reflect what was going to be needed in ten, fifteen, twenty years, but it was a start of a process of reform, one step at a time.

What we have done today, Madam Speaker, what this Budget has done and what the Minister of Education has done, is introduce the next step in that process. Education is an evolving process. The education system changes. The times change. The demands of the system change. Student requirements change. Technology changes. What we are proposing now is a change in the structure of the system that reflects that ever-changing system that we find ourselves in.

I do not think the minister ever stood here in this House in the last couple of days and said this will be the system of all systems. It will be the system that we will need today, tomorrow and in twenty years' time. What he said is: This is the system that reflects the current day reality and as we forecast into the foreseeable future this is what best positions the system today to be sustainable in the future, provide a quality education and ensure that the resources that we allocate to education reach the people it is intended to reach, and that is the students in the classroom.

I stand here and commend the Minister of Education for bringing in this initiative because it reflects a forward-thinking minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: - it reflects a forward-thinking government. It is looking to the future and focusing on the students who are intended to have these services. That is the difference.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) four hundred and seventy-five teachers, school boards closing in your home town.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Madam Speaker, I just want to comment about the Member for Twillingate & Fogo when he talks about: What am I going to say to the people in The Packet or the people in my district when they talk about the school board office closing?

I say to the hon. member, these decisions are not about politics. Unlike when the members opposite were in this government, who made decisions in what was politically expedient for them to protect their re-election, we are going to make decisions on this side of the House that are in the best interests of the people of this Province whether it is the students in our classrooms; whether it is all of the population of this Province who need access to health services; whether it is in Municipal Affairs looking at municipal infrastructure; whether we are talking to the Minister of Transportation and Works with respect to our transportation networks. We are going to make decisions on this side of the House that have the best interests of the people of this Province at heart.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I will not ask for leave because I know there are many other people who want to make some comments. I do want to thank you for the opportunity to make those few comments about our Budget and about the platform our government has laid out. I stand here, as the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde did last week, and say that she was very proud to be able to stand as a part of this government to introduce this Budget to this Province at this time in our history because it paves the way for a vibrant future, and I look forward to being a part of that prosperity and growth.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I take great pleasure as well in taking advantage of this opportunity to rise and make my comments with respect to this particular Budget as I see it.

Maybe for new members, so we are clear on the rules, it is understood that a leader of a party like myself is actually entitled to one hour to speak to issues like this, as with any bill. I may or may not take the hour. It depends on how many times I am interrupted in the proceedings.

In any event, it is a significant event, a Budget presented by a government for the people of the Province, Madam Speaker. This particular Budget, with the significance it has, as well, attached to a first budget for a new government - a change of government the first time in fifteen years - deserves additional scrutiny and comment because of the very nature of it.

Just let me comment with respect to the unfortunate remarks made by the Member for Trinity North about special slush funds and so on. For his information, and I would not want his story, which he has concocted for himself, to get confused with the facts. The facts are that there was a budget item in the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs under a heading called special grants and special assistance, which was available to all Members of the House of Assembly. They were used by the current Premier, the Member for Humber West; used by the current House Leader; used by the current Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; used by the Leader of the NDP. None of these people were in the government at the time. They all had access. It is a program that was available for special grants and assistance and you had to go to the minister. The current minister is there. I haven't look to see the details of the Estimates this year as to whether that particular budget line is still there and whether there is still money in it. He is nodding his head, it is still there and there is still funding in it. I do not know if it is the same amount as last year or not.

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is making a point with respect to special assistance. There is a sub-head in the Department of Municipal Affairs for Special Assistance. Some may consider that it may have been abused, as the Member for Trinity North mentioned. The amount allocated in last year's Budget was $4.266 million. This year it is cut back by $2 million.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order. A point of clarification.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Again, the issues I wanted to point out is that there is a program that has been there. Just like they have reduced the amounts in other departments, like certain parts of the Department of Health, a lot of the parts of the Department of Education and other program areas. There has been a reduction in that line, as well, but the program still exists and there will be people availing of it this year.

A couple of things before I talk directly about the Budget, comments that I want to make, Mr. Speaker. A couple of things about today and the fact that we have an Opposition that have been led to believe a certain story, that they have brought into it. One of the things that happens is they do not want the facts to get in the way of a good story. They are comfortable with believing certain things. That makes it easy for them to support the kinds of unconscionable things that are in this Budget.

Today, for example, we had the Minister of Health and Community Services, and to great applause and to the great amusement and entertainment of the members opposite who do not know the difference, made a comment in Question Period, when being asked about the fact that the extra $1.7 million that is in the Budget of the Department of Transportation and Works, and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, in that department: Is there - and it just happens to be $200,000 more than the $1.5 million that it would take to actually add Aricept to the provincial drug program and provide coverage for Alzheimer's patients. Her quick answer and retort - trying to be smart, I suppose, and trying to let people know how brilliant she was as the former Auditor General - was: you cannot transfer money from one department to another. That is true, but it had nothing to do with the question. The question was: Did she knowingly participate in a budget debate where the Cabinet decides what goes in each department in the first place?

The fact of the matter is that she sat at a Cabinet table - I guess she did it knowingly, I hope she did it knowingly - and instead of fighting as the Health Minister for an additional $1.5 million to go into the drug plan so that Aricept could be added to the list, and Alzheimer's patients could get the relief and the help that they need, she voted for a Budget in the Cabinet, that instead added $1.7 million to a ferry budget for an optional, alternate choice for people. Not a necessary service. Not an essential service, but a choice.

Today, to be cute, and the crowd in the back who do not know the difference, they applauded that. They thought it was wonderful. Oh, she put that member over there in her place. She told her, as the former Auditor General, you should know - you used to be a parliamentary secretary - that you cannot transfer money from one department to another. We know that. We know that, she knows that. Again, trying to be cute and mislead people. Avoiding a very serious question, instead of standing up and answering the question which was asked, that you, as the minister on behalf of all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, are expected to go into the Cabinet and fight for the issues in health care. Now, you may not win. You might not win and there are choices made, and there are compromises made, but certainly, surely goodness the people of the Province expect the Health Minister, of all people, to stand up and say: Come on now gang, come on the rest of the Cabinet, are you really going to go out and ask me, and ask all of us to defend the fact that we should put an additional $1.7 million in for a ferry that we do not need? For a ferry that is going to just provide an extra choice, an extra option, and we are going to say no to the Alzheimer's patients? That is what she did, and that is what we saw unfold in this Legislature today. It is about making choices, it is about standing up for priorities, it is about what you believe in, in your heart and soul, instead of trying to be cute, trying to be coy and trying to play with words. Maybe she is learning from her Premier who is pretty slick with words most of the time.

Basically, what she did do, Mr. Speaker, is she voted, she participated in a Budget Debate where she voted extra money for an alternate service provision for ferries and didn't fight for the extra $1.5 million for Alzheimer's drugs. I think it is something to be ashamed of, rather than proud of. I am sure she will think about it again tonight and next week and the week after, because I wouldn't rest too comfortably knowing that I had participated in that debate, that I had a chance to influence the decision and I stood up and supported an optional ferry run for some people so they could have a choice instead of supporting Alzheimer's drugs for less money.

The Minister of Transportation and Works today admitting that, oh, he didn't play the full politics he wanted to, because if he played the full politics, brother, he would have put the whole thing back in Lewisporte: Oh, no, I didn't play the full politics with it, I only played a little bit of politics with it.

Here is the Health Minister having to be embarrassed in front of the people of the Province and saying: Oh, yes, that is okay, spend that on the ferry and don't spend it for Alzheimer's patients.

Again today it was interesting to see the Premier, unfortunately again, I guess, not always having all of the Cabinet and all of the Caucus into the loop in the discussions. There were questions asked today about the future of the petroleum pricing commissioner and the office and regulating of fuels and gasoline and so on in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: No future.

MR. GRIMES: The member just mentioned no future, which is not what the minister and the Premier said. There is a real future. The Minister of Transportation, the Member for Lewisporte, did say, no future, but that is beside the point. I know he was just in jest because he knows there is a future.

Now, the problem today was this: We got to the future without the minister either knowing it or wanting to tell us. There was a question asked about the future of the operation in Grand Falls-Windsor. Mr. Speaker, those that follow the file closely know that the office was established there three years ago, it was established in May month. The first commissioner was hired on a three-year contract. It terminates at the end of May. That commissioner is going to make one more adjustment. We will find out, as the minister said today, in the middle of next month, whether or not there is going to be a new commissioner. That is neither here nor there; that is their choice to make. They will either renew the contract of this commissioner or they will hire a new one. The issue we were getting at: Is the office going to stay in Grand Falls-Windsor?

The minister was asked that question, and said: Well, we will let you know in a month's time. Here is part of the problem. Why would anybody want to leave that question dangling for another month, instead of just giving the answer? We have a Premier who says: I want to open. I want to be accountable. I want to be up front with the people. The minister gets up and says: Stay tuned. No, that was another minister who said that, though. The same message, stayed tuned and I will give you the answer around May 15.

I asked the Premier, across the floor, Mr. Speaker, because we often chat with each other informally across the floor.

AN HON. MEMBER: A friendly chat.

MR. GRIMES: Usually on very amicable terms, too, I would make sure you understand, Mr. Speaker.

I said: Is it going to go to Corner Brook or is it going to go to St. John's? Because those are the options that have been presented to us. He said: You will find out. I said: No, no - and someone mentioned Gander. I said: Oh, it is going to Gander. I had not heard that before. He said: No, no, it is not going to Gander. I said: But it is going somewhere. He said: No, no, it is not going anywhere. It is staying where it is.

A couple of minutes later, I said to the Minister of Government Services, who is responsible for it: So, what about it? Is it staying where it is? She said: You will find out in a month. I said: Sure, the Premier just told me it was staying in Grand Falls-Windsor. Has he told you yet?

The issue now is that we should have the ministers on the same wavelength, the same page, as the Premier. The Premier wants to be open. The Premier wants to be up front. The Premier wants to be accountable. The Premier wants to deal with the people on a factual business-like basis, and I am sure he does not want the ministers up being coy and saying: Oh, wait a month. We will leave a big question dangling out in Central Newfoundland as to whether this office is going to leave or not. Because I tell you one thing, they are out there right now pretty sure that the school board office is leaving. They are out there now pretty sure that the health office is leaving. You have a government leaving those kinds of questions and clouds hanging over people for months and months and months on end.

It is like many things. It is the uncertainty, Mr. Speaker, that really deals people and deals with their psyche and puts them into a negative frame of mind more so than dealing with the issue. If they could only be told about the school board reorganization, for example. We know in Central Newfoundland, where there are now three or four boards, there is going to be one. There is not going to be a school board office in Grand Falls-Windsor, and another one out in Gander, and another one some place else. We know there is going to be one, so why doesn't the minister now at least go ahead and say it is going to be in Gander, or turn around and say it is going to be in Grand Falls-Windsor, or turn around and say that maybe it is going to go out to Lewisporte? Because now you have the circumstance where everybody out there feels they are going to lose something. The same thing with health boards. At least we are going to get an answer before September from the Minister of Education.

In health it a slower, more painful process, Mr. Speaker, because we have some reviews going on that are not even going to be in the hands of the minister until November. This is the torture treatment now. You are going to get a little review come to the minister in November to make some recommendation about where we reorganized these health boards. Then people are going to say: Well, it is pretty clear there are two, sort of, health boards that operate out of Gander, Central East and the Health and Community Services. There is one operating out of Grand Falls-Windsor, which is Central West. There is only going to be one. Is the one going to come out of Grand Falls-Windsor? Are the other two going to come out of Gander? Is it all going to go into Lewisporte? Is the whole thing going to Glovertown? Is it all going to Gambo? It is certainly not going to Clarenville, in the District of Trinity North. There is nothing going out there. We know some things, but it is this uncertainty, Mr. Speaker, that is in this Budget that is really going to have a negative pall over the people and their mindset and their frame of mind for months and months and months to come.

Mr. Speaker, one of the commentators who is fairly well known in the Province, I think he appears occasionally on a panel on CBC, I believe, he supports, by the way, the government. A Mr. Fenwick, I believe. He supports the government because he - listen to this - supports the absolute right-wing, Tory Conservative agenda. Do you know who he ran for in the last election? The Alliance.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. GRIMES: No, maybe it was the Reform. What was it called then?

AN HON. MEMBER: Reform Party.

MR. GRIMES: The Reform Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Canadian Alliance.

MR. GRIMES: No, the Canadian Alliance.

Anyway, he loves that stuff. Slash, burn and cut it out. He said: Listen, a great Budget, a fabulous Budget. Get rid of the 4,000 jobs, but the Premier and the government made one mistake. They should have gotten rid of them all in the one day. Because he described it like a time release capsule, like Contact C. He said: Instead of getting it all over with and slashing 4,000 of them - which he agrees should go - in the one day, he said it is going to be drip, drip, drip, drip. He said there are going to be so many go this month, so many go next month, so many go the month after. He said, we are going to be tortured by it. I cannot understand why they would be so politically stupid, as to turn around and torture themselves with a layoff this month, twenty layoffs that month, another thirty out the door the month after. He said: Why didn't they do it? They were on the right track.

Now, I will tell you one thing. I will leave politics the day that Peter Fenwick agrees with me. You can mark that one down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: You can mark that one down, because I -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: I had better retract that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Stand up and say it.

I might have to retract that comment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): A point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am going to do my level best between now and next Wednesday night, and I am going to invite him to stay tuned to next Wednesday night, if the panel is on, and then I am going to come in, if Peter Fenwick agrees with him, and I am going to rise on a point of order, and I do not think you or the people of Newfoundland will rule me out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: To the point of order, I think the Government House Leader has very little to fear from the possibility of the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Fenwick ever agreeing. We feel quite certain that is wishful thinking on his part, because I guess the Leader of the Opposition has been the government's worst nightmare since October 21, and any circumstance that could get him out of here he would be very pleased with.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair rules that the commentary is fairy interesting, highly speculative, and therefore is completely out of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me do a quick clarification on a retraction in advance. I will consider leaving politics if Peter Fenwick ever agrees with anything that I am doing.

I think people understand the point that I am making, that in fact his advice to this group was, that you are on the right track but you did not handle it that well politically. You should have sort of just said: Listen, we are Conservatives. We think we have too many. The Minister of Finance believes there are too many public servants. He believes that there should be 4,000 people taken out of the public service, even if there was a surplus. This has nothing to do with deficits or managing it or controlling it. He personally admits and believes, and states publicly, that he is convinced that we have too many people working for the government in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is like Ralph Klein. Ralph Klein has a surplus. As a matter of fact, in another year in Alberta - we should be Alberta east, by the way - in another year in Alberta, they will not only have surpluses every year; they will have no debt. They will have their debt paid off completely. Do you know what Ralph Klein is still doing? He is still closing the hospitals; he thinks they have too many. He is still laying off public servants, because he is a conservative and he believes they have too many.

Now, that is a philosophy, and I admire and respect people who have that conviction, believe that is right, stand up for it, defend it and do it. The problem we have here is that we have a group hiding behind the Budget, because they do not want to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we really believe there are too many of you working for the government anyway. They go out and say: We do not want to lay any of you off but we have no money.

Now, the Minister of Finance does not say that, to his credit. The Minister of Finance, to his credit, says: I believe that the percentage of the public servants of the workforce is too big. It is the biggest percentage of a workforce in a public service anywhere in the country. There is just too many of them. I give him credit for that. I disagree. It is not something I agree with, but I fully respect the man, as an MHA and a public figure, for standing up, saying what he believes in, and then getting in a position to do something about it. He is true to his beliefs. Unlike saying: Well, we really do not want to do it but we are sort of forced into it. You have to make up your mind what it is. That is the point I want to make about the Budget, Mr. Speaker.

One other thing, before I get into a bit of the detail of what I wanted to say. I have a concern as to whether or not this is the actual Budget. Let me give you a couple of examples. I listened closely to the Minister of Finance read the Budget. I have read it a couple of times since. I have looked through the supporting documents in terms of the Economy, the Estimates, the Departmental Salary Details, in preparing to make sure that I understand fully what is contained here, and on pages ten and twelve there are some distinctions made. On page ten there are words talking about:, " We will delay opening The Rooms for one year for a savings of $2 million." Note the word, now, it is a delay and everybody understands it is going to happen next year. It is just off for one year. In the other vein, though, in very different language, "We will cancel...". That is a different word, when everybody understands it. Everybody here is nodding their heads. They understands the difference between that. One is delayed, just not going to happen now. It is going to happen next year. Cancel. We will cancel work on the West Coast Exhibition Centre. My understanding is that this means the West Coast Exhibition Centre is not on the radar screen for this government at all. They are not going to talk about it. It was cancelled. Do not waste your time talking about that guys, we are just not going to do that. That is not a priority for us. We are trying to get the deficit under control. It is cancelled.

Then you turn around, on page twelve, Mr. Speaker, and it is says: We are canceling. We are canceling. It does not say deferring; it does not say postponing; it does not say delaying. "We are canceling several health projects, namely the extension to the Grand Falls-Windsor hospital..." Canceling "the James Paton Hospital redevelopment in Gander..." and cancelling "...the health centre at Grand Bank." As a matter of fact, upon questioning - I believe that the public record shows that the Minister of Health and Community Services has confirmed, and I believe the Minister of Works has confirmed, that it does mean cancel because in Grand Bank they are going as far as to take down the steel. The steel, they are actually going to take it down. It is not delayed so you may as well take the steel down because it is cancelled.

Now, in the mean time, the Premier in his little tour of the Province, when he went on a tour - all these rock groups and so on put names on their tours, this tour and that tour, with a van going out to sell his new CD. The little tour that was done: Bash anyone who dares to disagree with the Danny tour. Remember that one? Corner Brook and Gander: go out and bash the daylights out of anybody who dares to say anything against the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Well, at least that is what went on the news, but there were other things that were said in the speeches. Interestingly enough, in Gander - listen to this, Mr. Speaker. The Budget document read in this House, what we are asked to vote on said: James Paton Memorial Hospital is cancelled.

The first paragraph: the Premier insisted, despite what was said in the Budget Speech - interesting language - that redevelopment at the James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander has just been put on hold, not cancelled. So, what are we being asked to vote on here? Are we being asked: Are you voting - or all of us - to cancel Gander? Are we being asked to amend this? This is what we are voting on? This is what - and remember the process now. We are asked to support the budgetary policy of the government, and the Minister of Finance, just like a minister introducing any bill, stood up and gave the first speech about why you should support it. He said: You should support it because of the fact that we are cancelling several health projects. We are cancelling the new elementary school, and so on. We are cancelling the West Coast Exhibition Centre.

Now, that is what we are all being asked to vote on, as I understand it. But, the Premier of the Province goes out to a speech in Gander, where they do not like the idea that their hospital is being cancelled and says: Despite the Budget, do not listen to what you heard read in the Budget. It is not cancelled, it is just put on hold. If it were just put on hold, why doesn't this document say it is deferred? The one right before it said it is delayed. Now, what is it? I hope somebody in the debate - on the other side, before this concludes - is going to explain to me personally, and to my colleagues and to the members opposite, because I think they were sitting there assuming Gander was cancelled. Because I can tell you one thing, Grand Bank is cancelled. They are taking down the steel. It is not deferred. Grand Falls is cancelled. They are not doing anything about it. It is not being discussed anymore. The Minister of Health and Community Services has been instructed to not bring it back to Cabinet with a further request and ask for it because it is cancelled. Just take it off the list. Bring back the ones that are still on the list, because there are others still on the list; this one is not. Corner Brook is still on the list. They are supposed to bring back Corner Brook and talk about it because it is still on the list. They are supposed to bring back Clarenville and talk about it because it is still on the list, but they are not supposed to bring back Gander because we were asked - and the minister who read the speech, to explain to us what we were asked to vote on, said it is cancelled.

Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification on that. I think that it is important for the people of the Province to have that clarified; or is it that we have a Premier who is no different now than he was prior to the election, in which the pattern was this: No matter who you were speaking to, no matter who you are meeting with, no matter where you were, tell them what they want to hear. Tell the West Coast farmers that you agree with them. Tell the chicken farmers on the West Coast that the government was awful to you; that government mistreated you; that is terrible what they have done to you. I believe, as a matter of fact, you have a legal case against the government. Now they have been in the government for six months, what are the West Coast chicken farmers doing? They are asking the government - they did meet with them - are you guys going to do anything for us? The minister did meet with them. I ask the minister to tell me, where in this Budget is there a line item - because it is significant - that we are being asked to vote on in saying that there is going to be a grant or an assistance or an allowance for the West Coast chicken farmers? It is not in there. I have looked for it. It is not there. Now, if you are going to be honest and open and direct and fully accountable with the people of the Province, then meet with them and say: Listen, because of the unfortunate circumstance we find ourselves in, yes, we still agree with you, yes, we think you got a raw deal -

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you want me to answer?

MR. GRIMES: Not just yet. We have lots of time in Committee and elsewhere. That is fine.

Mr. Speaker, just for the purpose of those at home, the Minister of Natural Resources asked if we would like an answer right now. He knows the rules as well as I do, maybe even better, and he knows that we are going to have lots of opportunities to ask those questions in detail in the Committee stage and also in Committee here in the House, in a Concurrence Debate. There are four or five more opportunities. We will be asking those questions in Question Period. I know I have a limited amount of time left, and I am trying not to use the full hour. I know we will get an answer because he is an honourable gentleman and he will give the answer to the West Coast chicken farmers as well. I just use that as an example.

Do we still have a Premier who, even now, as the Premier six months later with a first Budget that people don't like, by the way - that people don't like! - because they haven't brought into the argument that I will get into in a few minutes. I don't think it is necessary for it to be this draconian at this point in our history.

The notion is this: Very brave to stand in the Legislature and have the Finance Minister turn to page 12 and say, we are cancelling the James Paton Hospital redevelopment in Gander. Now, he goes to Gander on his tour, meets some people who don't like the decision, and he says: Oh, no, that is not cancelled. Never mind what was in the Budget. I am telling you, I am the Premier, I am the leader of the government, ignore the Budget, ignore what the minister said last week. I am tell you, it is only deferred.

Now, the question is: When the vote is called on this, what are we voting for? Are we voting for the cancellation or are we voting for the deferral? I would like to see that clarified. I am not going to vote for either one of them. I don't believe it should be cancelled and I don't believe it should be deferred. All we are doing by deferring it, by the way, is continuing the mistakes of the past that I acknowledge. This project out there is costing about $70 million because it was started by a Conservative government under Brian Peckford. That is how long ago it started. Instead of dedicating the money to it and getting it done, for the first estimate of about $25 or $30 million, by dragging it out in dribs and drabs and bits and pieces, the costs are now up to $70 million. Now you have a part of it that needs to be done, that is supposedly cancelled - but if you listen to the Premier is not really cancelled, it is only deferred - and it is going to cost $75 million or $80 million because nobody will take the bull by the horns and commit the money in a year to finish it and do the job right.

So, the Tory government - this is how long this has been - the Tory government under Brian Peckford committed to that redevelopment and the one in Grand Falls-Windsor, both of them at the same time. The one in Grand Falls-Windsor was finished about three or four years ago, and cost way too much because nobody put enough money in, in any one year, to do it right. The same thing in Gander. Gander is still having the agony prolonged. Not any more if you believe the Budget, because the rest of it is cancelled so you do not have to worry about, but prolonged if you believe the Premier who said: Ignore the Budget. Listen to me. I am the Premier and it is only deferred.

Mr. Speaker, on the larger scene - I will spend a few minutes on this - here is the difficulty that we have. We have a group of people in the Cabinet and the caucus on the government side who will stand and support this motion at the end of the day, to support the budgetary policy of the government and support this Budget because they have been led to believe a certain story. Now, there is another side to the story. There is always at least two sides to any particular story. Sometimes they are many-faceted, and sometimes they are much more complex, they are not that simple, but the story in the comfort zone is this: It all goes back to the last three or four years of being in Opposition where this started to arise.

The Auditor General of the day, and there have been two of them in that period of time, would confirm every year to the people of the Province, through the public accounts, that everything that was stated in the public accounts was right and proper and reflected the state of affairs of the finances of the Province. The Auditor Generals, both that we have had in the last ten years, also recommended that the government should think about reporting it, for accounting purposes, in a different fashion. The argument was not over the accuracy of the numbers. It was over how it should be reported. It should be stated this way on a ledger instead of that way on a ledger. That is what the argument was about.

The Official Opposition, led by the current Finance Minister as Finance critic, took that and aid: Oh, because the Auditor General is saying we think you should report it a different way, that means you are mismanaging the affairs of the Province. That means that you are wasting money and all those kinds of things. They took a little argument, used it, crafted it, repeated it in all of their speeches, put it out in the public, so much so - they said it so many times - that guess what happened, Mr. Speaker? They started to believe it. They created a story that had no factual basis at all and repeated it so many times that they talked themselves into believing a myth. They created a myth and talked themselves into believing it.

They have some new members today who do not know the difference because they have never heard the other side of the story. They have only ever heard one story, and they believe with every bone in their body that it is right, it is the only one, and these are the facts.

Mr. Speaker, let me just give the other side of the story for a few minutes or so. It all goes back to November 6, the day the Cabinet was sworn in. At that point in time, the government decided that they needed to be able to say that the books were worse than they thought even, even though the Finance critic, the now Finance Minister, had been saying for years that the deficit was $750 million. Read Hansard. Go and read Hansard. It is there 100 times.

MR. REID: I would say 1,000 over the last few years.

MR. GRIMES: It is probably there 1,000 times over the last three years.

He said no, no, no, we have to do some things here. Everybody who was running for office, who had any experience, knew you would have to make some decisions, there would have to be some restraint measures, and you would have to grow the revenues because there was a deficit and it had to be brought under control.

That is the fact of the matter, but it is how you decide to go about it that is the whole issue. They decided that they would go and get this outside study done. A new approach, by the way. Let me talk about the new approach, the exact same approach taken in British Columbia when the government changed. My good friend, Gordon Campbell, went out and got an outside agency to say that the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Liberal government?

MR. GRIMES: He is a Liberal. He is a Liberal in British Columbia. They took over from an NDP government. They said: Boy, it is shocking. It is worse than we thought. They got an outside group to come in and say it for them.

Guess what happened in Ontario where a Liberal government took over from a Conservative government very recently? The same thing, an outside agency, they came in and what did they say, Mr. Speaker? Oh, it is worse than we thought. That crowd - there happened to be a bunch of Tories in there, by the way. A bunch of Tories had been in there for ten years. They came in and said: Boy, this is shocking. They mismanaged the whole thing. This is worse than we thought. We have to cut the daylights out of this. We have no money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: No. I am not saying that at all. I am just pointing out that we were promised a new approach. Do you see anything new about this yet?

Now, you are in Quebec, Jean Charest, a Liberal taking over from the Parti Québécois. Now you have Liberal governments, Québécois governments, Tory governments and NDP governments. They are all in it, every political stripe. What did everybody do when the government changed? Get an independent auditor and say it was worst than we thought.

In Newfoundland and Labrador we were promised a new approach. We were not going to go with those tired old political tricks. Political Science 101. That is even in political science in high school, not even at the university level. That is in that old democracy course. Change the government; blame it on the other crowd. To give it some credibility, bring in somebody from outside and say they said it. It was not us. Because if it was us saying it, sure that would be politics. No, bring in somebody. Bring in somebody from outside and let them say it. So, we got our good buddy from Ontario - but never mind, everyone in the Province knows about the phony report. I have never said it is a phony report, but the public sector unions and others sure believe it is. There are a whole lot of other people in the Province who have a lot of questions about it. Never mind the fact that it was changed a little bit, just a tad, from the interim one. Of course, there is always an explanation. Oh, there are some things changed. We have some updated numbers, you know. Because you had an interim report that was going a certain way and that did not look so good. You see, that did not fit the myth. That was no good, so he had new updated information, brother, and now we have one that looks just like we want, and away we go. Now you make all your decisions based on - you had a myth created. You got everybody believing it. You had some information that looked like it might be a bit - if you change that, get back to the story you created, do not get off track and away we go. So, we did not see a new approach at all. Then we go to January 5, and then we did see a new approach. Then we saw an unfortunate new approach.

I understand there is a book that I have been told about now that is in the humour section of some of the stores: How not to negotiate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote that?

MR. GRIMES: I am not allowed to say who the author is, Mr. Speaker, because you are not allowed to name members by their name, but it is an author in this House. As a matter of fact, it is co-authored, two of them. The Premier and the President of Treasury Board are actually the co-authors: How not to negotiate. Mistakes not to make in negotiations. It starts off with: Promise to consult and then turn around and do not consult even with your own Cabinet and announce a wage freeze. Do not do that one, it says. Do not do that one. Then it says: Promise to respect the process and then go around and negotiate publicly and threaten people that it is either a wage freeze or 2,000 layoffs. That is the kind of stuff that is in it.

Basically it goes on after that and it says: Promise respect for the people involved. Then go around the Province and lash out against anyone who dares disagrees with you. Lash out at them, after promising to respect the people and respect the process.

Then is says: Promise integrity in the process. Go out and visit the picket lines and then try to break up the union. Try the oldest trick in the book. I have been involved in labour negotiations for twenty-five years - the oldest trick in the book. Talk about a new approach, to go out and try this divide-and-conquer tactic.

Then, talk about defending people's right to speak out, but absolutely castigate and criticize and condemn anyone who dares do it because they disagree with the governments point of view. So, it is a new one. It is in the humor section but it is really not very funny, and the people of the Province do not find it very funny.

Then you have a whole Budget built around it. The people on the streets, the workers, the people being denied the service, are all supposed to then believe we are doing this because we have no choice, because we believe in the myth.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the other side of the myth. Here is something that I bet you the people on the other side probably have not heard before, that most of them have not heard before, particularly the new members.

In five of the last six years, the government - and I led that government, Mr. Speaker, for three of those years - actually outperformed its fiscal targets five out of six times, because we devoted ourselves to an agenda of growth. I see some people shaking their heads at that, as if they do not believe it, because they have been so indoctrinated with the myth and they have never heard this before. They find that unbelievable, because they have never heard that before. They have only ever been told the exact opposite of that.

Here is the sad reality. Here is how sad it gets. In the Economy itself, I think it is on page eleven in the Economy - and this even became an issue during the election. It took a long time but, because of dedicating yourself to growing the economy and creating jobs and creating opportunities, we had actually gotten to the point, for the first time in twenty years, that we actually had population growth, and for the first time in a decade that we had in-migration. It was not a lot, but every other year we had out-migration and population decline. It is even in their document. It admits it. It is right here on page eleven. Last year, for the first time in over a decade, the Provinces population grew by over 300.

Of course, they made a joke of that during the election. I remember the speeches made by the Premier: Oh, at that rate, sure, it will take 100 years to bring them all back. Well, guess what great hope is in this, Mr. Speaker? Guess what great hope is in their document? Guess what is going to happen this year? Guess what is in their own document saying it is going to happen? We are going back to out-migration. The population is going to decline. That is how much hope, that is how confident they are, that their plan is going to work. In their own document, after repeated long, hard effort for many years that finally slowed down out-migration and turned the corner - what are they going to vote for? What are they so proud of in terms of the plan laid out in the Budget? We are going to go back right away, by their own projections and predictions, to out-migration.

They applauded the job cuts and all that on Budget Day, because I guess they were told in the caucus room that they better get up and give a standing ovation and make it look good. Gotta show support, you know.

What we did in the last few years is we outperformed because we did this, and it is very telling - let me make this point, Mr. Speaker, because I wouldn't want to run out of time before making this point. It is all about choices and priorities and it is all about page 1 of the Budget. Page 1 of the Budget says this, "I would like to focus today on three major commitments." I guess this is still there. I have not heard any speeches publicly from the Premier saying this is cancelled or this is changed. I think this is still okay, as far as I know. This still stands, as far as I know.

Here it is and listen to the order, Mr. Speaker. "First, to balance the budget on a cash basis in four years.."; first priority. "Second, to expand the economy and create jobs. And third, to ensure that our health and education systems meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and are sustainable into the future."

Now, here is the difference between right wing Tory Conservative agendas and budgets and Liberals. We, by the way, had the same three priorities and the same three commitments and believe in the same three things, but we would propose this: Number three should be number one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: The first priority for a government is to ensure that the health and education systems meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and are sustainable into the future. That is the first priority for a government. The second one should be to then make sure that you grow and expand the economy and create jobs so you have enough money to pay for it.

In five of the last six years the Liberal government outperformed. Last year the deficit was suppose to be $286 million. What it really came in at was less than $200 million, because we have already had the debate about the $220 million for the student loans, a one time expenditure that could have been done this year or next year. It was chose to put it there. What happened on a cash basis is that the work that was done last year, again revenues to the government exceeded what was expected by a hundred and something million dollars because the outgoing Liberal government always focused on trying to grow the economy, create the jobs and generate the revenue, knowing that we had a shortfall.

What you do then, if you are successful in number two, over time you do balance the Budget, because you grow the economy and you get the money. It is right here. It could never be more telling in terms of political philosophy and approach and conviction and belief than in the statement of those three commitments and the order. What you have is, you have the new approach which says, never mind the services. We are going to see it in education, we are going to see it in health care a little later and we are going to see it in all public services with 4,000 people gone. We are going to see a reduced level of service.

We have always believed that we should not have -

MR. O'BRIEN: Right on!

MR. GRIMES: Right on, says the Member for Gander. Right on, he says, lets have a reduced level of service. At least that is probably what he believes and I admire and appreciate that. I disagree with it, but I respect him for being enough of a person to say, that is what I really believe. I am sure he will go to the voters of Gander the next time and say: I think there are too many of you working for the government anyway, we should not have this amount of health care in Gander, we should not have a school board office here anyway, because I think there are too many of you working for the government. Then we will see him getting re-elected because I am sure the majority of the people will agree with him when he says that.

So you deal with this issue, Mr. Speaker, and you deal with it in the other order. It is not a matter of people having wildly different views, but the fact of the matter is, what do you want to concentrate on? What we wanted to concentrate on, in the last few years, was committing all of our time and effort to growing the economy.

The only bright news that is in the current government documents, and the only good news that they have been able to announce in the last few days - we have people who got up and condemned the White Rose agreement. Now they have people on that side getting up making member's statements and minister's statements about the great employment prospects associated with White Rose, the great addition to the economy, the creation of the jobs.

By the way, my colleague who spoke before me, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, talks about these statistics, talks about the number of people working, a record number of people working in the Province. Meanwhile, that does not fit the myth story, you see, that it is desperate times. The fact of the matter is, the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador has never, in its history, been stronger. Your own Premier will admit that. He knows it. I have had the personal conversation with him and he will attest and verify that that is the fact. It is more diversified than it has ever been.

Tourism: Bigger numbers than ever in the history of the Province. Information technology, a sector that had a handful of people working in it seven or eight years ago, now has thousands of people working in it and, I hope, hundreds and thousands of more to come. Aquaculture and the new fishery: Back to over a billion dollars of value to the economy, the highest numbers ever, but what did the group do in the last year, the last two years? They downplayed all that. They did not want to talk about that because that did not meet the myth of mismanagement, no money, we are all paupers.

By the way, the credit rating agencies are saying: We do not give A ratings to a province on the verge and brink of bankruptcy. The Premier today, you see, he would like to, in my view, get up and get on with the message of hope and get on with the message of growth and get on with the message of doing what is right for Newfoundland and Labrador, but he has himself boxed into a corner with the co-author of the how not to negotiate book. If you are going to do that, how can you turn around and convince these people out there that you have to have a wage freeze? Four-thousand of you have to go out the door. You see, you cannot, unless you are willing to really come out and say, like the Member for Gander and like the Minister of Finance, that this has nothing to do with money, folks. We are Tories. We are right-wing conservatives. We are not social conscience people. We believe, just like we put in the Budget, that the number one thing you do, no matter who it hurts, no matter who it impacts, no matter what the negative consequence, is balance that budget. Now, let the chips falls where they may. Let the people go without the aricept.

In the meantime, you see, it would be ringing true with people if we did not have the contradictions that we see here about the Labrador Marine Service. It would ring true. Why are people cynical? Why are people looking at the new government, the new Premier, Mr. Speaker, and saying: Well, are we broke or not? I am out here on the picket line, they are saying. I am supposed to say I have to take a freeze because we have no money. Four thousand of us are going to lose our jobs because we have no money.

The Alzheimer's patients are supposed to do without Aricept because we have no money. Then, the Minister of Transportation and Works stands up and says: Oh, for a small little investment of $1.7 million more than we need to meet the transportation and freight needs of these people, we are going to have an alternative for people. The Member for Labrador, Lawrence O'Brien, who was saying: we were wrong last year and they in the Opposition were right. He is outraged! He said: How would the people of the Island feel if Marine Atlantic - who have jacked up their rates, by the way - jacked up the rates for the service from Argentia and Port aux Basques to North Sydney? They jacked up the rates. He said, how would you feel if they turned around and said: oh, never mind that, we are going to jack up the rates? We are not going to have as many runs back and forth to North Sydney because we are going to take the ferry once a week or so and send it up to Montreal. It can go there, never mind there is a road. Never mind there is already a road. Never mind it is not needed. Let's give them a choice. Let's give them an alternative. Let's give them an option. It does not wash, you see, Mr. Speaker. That is the problem with it.

Consistency is what people want; consistency people will respect; consistency people will believe in and vote for. I am living proof of it, because in 1993, having been the leader of the Teachers' Association and union before going into politics, I went into an election in which every single teacher who worked for me in 1989 followed me around the streets and voted against me in 1993. But, I tell you what? The people voted for me - other than the teachers - because they believed that Premier Clyde Wells and the government that we led did not have a choice; because we were consistent. When we said no to Alzheimer's patients we also said no to alternative ferry routes. We did not say no to Alzheimer's patients and say yes, let's have an option going to Lewisporte. We were consistent. It is a matter, Mr. Speaker, of being consistent, because you cannot create the myth, you cannot create the story and then only use it when it is convenient. It is either true or it is not. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that it is not true.

My great friend, the Government House Leader, will get up and talk about 1990 this, and 1990 that, and 1989, but let me tell him again this, and tell the people of the Province, everybody understands what happened. People believed it was time for a change. People believed in the new leader. People believed that he had the sense to go ahead and take the right approach, to grow the economy, make the Province successful like he had made his own companies and businesses successful. That he could, in fact, bring a new approach to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. So far the whole thing is seriously derailed, seriously off the tracks because they created a confrontation with the public service unions that cannot be supported because of inconsistency in decision making. You cannot make the commitment. You cannot stand up out of one side of your mouth and say I cannot do this because we are on the brink of bankruptcy and then turn around and say, but with that ferry, which is not needed, we have the extra money but we cannot have the drugs for the Alzheimer's patients.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that I might have a few minutes remaining that I can use on another day. For now, I would suggest that maybe we are close to adjournment time and I could adjourn debate. If I have a couple of minutes left, I might just make a couple of comments again about the Budget when we resume on the next day of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can inform the hon. member that I think he has about seven minutes remaining in his speech. With that I believe we can put the motion to adjourn debate.

All those in favour of the motion, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, nay.

The debate is adjourned.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to provide - if the Leader of the Opposition wants seven minutes more or if he wants seventy minutes more, then we intend to give it to him.

In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, and further move that it not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Just in case the Leader of the Opposition needs more time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, with that being said, I do now move that the House adjourn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that the House now adjourn until Monday, April 19 at 1:30 of the clock.

All those in favour, say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, nay.

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Monday, April 19 at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, April 19 at 1:30 p.m.