May 31, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 38


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have member's statements by the Member for Bonavista South and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to again congratulate Michael Ryder, a native of Bonavista and a rookie with the National Hockey League's Montreal Canadiens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, this season, Michael led all rookies in scoring and in assists. He also tied for the most goals scored by a rookie.

Last week, for his impressive first season in the NHL, Michael Ryder was named The Sporting News Rookie of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, this award is of particular significance given that the winner is determined through a poll of NHL players.

Some of the past winners include such greats as: Mike Bossy, Ray Bourque, Steve Yzerman and Mario Lemieux. Many of these went on to win the NHL's Rookie of the Year Award and all went on to have incredible NHL careers.

Mr. Speaker, it is an amazing honour to win this award and to be recognized by NHL players in this way.

I ask all hon. members to join me in extending heartiest congratulations to Michael Ryder on his NHL success and this tremendous post-season achievement.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Conservation Corps of Newfoundland and Labrador for their receipt of the Community Group or Organization Award and the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Awards.

The Conservation Corps is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to providing youth with training and employment in environmental and cultural heritage conservation.

Since 1992, the Conservation Corps has established a successful track record in delivering environmental and cultural heritage conservation projects that bring youth together with provincial, national, international government, corporate, and community partners.

This organization runs a number of great environmental programs, including: the Green Team Program, the Climate Change Action Program, the Environmental Leadership Program, the Alumni and Volunteer Program, the Internship Program, and other special projects.

I would like to ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing the continued support of the environment and dedication to young people in Newfoundland and Labrador made by the Conservation Corps of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by members?

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to honour a distinguished politician, a World War II veteran, a former senator, a person who received the Order of Canada and, above all, a great gentleman, Senator Jack Marshall.

His awards include the Order of Canada, the Meritorious Service Award, the Palm Leaf by the Royal Canadian Legion and a Humanitarian Award from Pope John Paul II.

His greatest work was his tireless advocacy for World II veterans to get served proper justice on these individuals. He chaired the Senate Sub-Committee for Veterans' Benefits which yielded major improvements for veterans.

Due to this work, Senator Marshall was award the Order of Ontario. This award recognizes the highest individual achievement of excellence in any field by the Ontario government.

He served as the MP for the riding of Humber-St. Barbe before entering the Senate.

My fondest memories, Mr. Speaker, of Senator Marshall were at his drug store in Curling, as a young boy. He would let us clean his floors for a quarter or half dollar, sometimes two or three of us at a time. This was to let us have a bit of spending money for the day. This was, of course, after the building was cleaned by professional cleaners, but this was his way of helping the youth.

I ask all members to join me in recognizing Senator Jack Marshall for this prestigious award and, above all, for being a true gentleman all his life.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues, and the people of the Province, through the House of Assembly that government has reached an agreement with the Labrador Metis Nation outlining the participation of the Labrador Metis Nation in forest ecosystem management planning in Labrador. This two-year agreement essentially came about through a period of negotiations. The former government had entered into an MOU for a period of months which, upon assuming office, this government extended that while negotiations were going on. This two-year agreement formally acknowledges the LMN as a key stakeholder in the management and future development of Labrador's forest resources. The agreement will be retroactive to April 1, 2004, and continue until March 31, 2006.

Our government realizes that establishing an effective working relationship with the Labrador Metis Nation will further the advancement of sustainable forest management in Labrador. This agreement supports the development of the forest industry in Labrador and, in doing so, brings welcome benefits to the residents of Labrador, including the members of the Labrador Metis Nation and the communities in which they live.

Government will provide $200,000 in each of the two years of the agreement to assist the LMN achieve its forest management goals and objectives. This financial support will be used by the LMN to hire the professional forestry personnel needed to fulfill the LMN obligations under the forestry agreement that we signed.

As part of the agreement, Mr. Speaker, government will conduct a feasibility study into the value-added and secondary forest products industry in Labrador in conjunction with local stakeholders. This important initiative will help government and the LMN identify the market potential of Labrador-based forest projects.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Todd Russell, president of the Labrador Metis Nation, for his leadership in working with government to reach this historic agreement. This government recognizes the Labrador Metis Nation as an important stakeholder in the forest ecosystem management process in Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to also congratulate the Labrador Metis Nation on finally having a negotiated contract with regard to forestry development in certain regions of Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we were very proud of the fact that we were the first government to sign an MOU on forestry with the Labrador Metis people and nearly finalized, actually, the agreement the minister is announcing today before the election. I am proud to say that it has finally been signed and, as I understand, the terms and conditions are almost identical to what was previously negotiated by ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Metis people have made tremendous strides but certainly they have had their challenges and they have certainly felt the wrath of the government opposite when it came to the Powley decision eariler this year. Mr. Speaker, they know that you cannot always trust a word sometimes of the Premier, as it was in the case of the Powley decision, and it is important to have signed agreements, agreements that will enshrine and entrench the rights of the Metis people, whether it is on forestry or whether it is on other agreements as time goes on.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with Mr. Russell and his organization -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: - in moving forward on forestry initiatives in Labrador, in my district, and -

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has not been granted.

MS JONES: - in other regions as well

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important step to be made by the government, despite their reneging on the commitment made prior to the election regarding the Powley decision to recognize the Metis Nation as having an important role to play in the forest resources of Labrador, and the development of these forest resources, and participating in a sustainable management agreement.

I think this is something that we should hope that the government would be able to build on in the future and come to full recognition of the role of the Labrador Metis in having a say in the future of resource development in the appropriate parts of Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to advise Members of the House of Assembly and the people of the Province that May 30 to June 5 is Environment Week. Environment Week is a time to reflect on the importance of preserving, protecting and enhancing our environment and natural heritage.

Mr. Speaker, we must all work together to do our part to help create a healthier and cleaner environment for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. There are many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians all over the Province who are showing their commitment to the environment through their actions. I was pleased to acknowledge some of these individuals this morning during this year's environmental awards ceremony, which is held each year during Environment Week.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Awards Program, which is a joint initiative of my department, the MMSB, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes, honours our outstanding leaders in environmental and conservation work. The environment awards are presented in six categories, and this year's award winners are: Individual: Laura Jackson of St. John's, who is joining us in the gallery today; Youth or Youth Group: Gaia Environmental Youth Group of Bay Roberts, and they were joined by their member, the Member for Port au Grave, at the ceremonies today; School or Educational Institution: Straits Elementary of Flowers Cove; Municipality or Regional Waste Management Committee: NorPen Waste Management Incorporated of St. Anthony. Dan Patey is in the gallery today, from NorPen as well, and both the Straits Elementary School and Mr. Patey were joined by their member, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North today as well; Community Group or Organization: Conservation Corps of Newfoundland and Labrador; and, Business: Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, government is pleased to be able to recognize the hard work and accomplishments of these environmental leaders. We extend our sincere congratulations and truly appreciate their amazing commitment to our environment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone to make an extra effort during Environment Week to do something positive for our environment. All of our actions, big or small, do make a difference. We have an obligation to ourselves and to future generations to protect and conserve our environment. A healthy environment means a healthy people, vibrant communities and a better Province for all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would join with the minister in congratulating all the people who received awards today, the groups and the organizations, in this Environment Week.

It is encouraging to note that in the group of the awards there are three young people, young organizations. We all know, in major issues in our society, we only make progress when we have the great leadership or our young people involved.

Last year I attended a conference on Students Against Drunk Driving, and when you see the participation of the young people and the desire and enthusiasm of the young people - we know everything is a success when our young people are involved in such organizations.

Also, I would like to congratulate Laura Jackson, who I have known for many, many years as a great activist in terms of all kinds of initiatives in our Province. I salute her, as well as municipal groups and community groups. We sort of expect that they would be participants in this kind of activity.

My congratulations to all the people involved. Keep up the good work. Environment is not only for this week but for every week throughout the year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to join the minister and the Opposition critic in recognizing Environment Week and congratulating all of those who received environmental awards today, and acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Laura Jackson of the Protected Area Association for her dedication and long service, and representatives of the Straits Elementary and Waste Management who are also here today.

Mr. Speaker, obviously the protection of the environment is very important. Also, we look forward to this government to show leadership in establishing certain areas of this Province that need to be protected for all time. There was a commitment made some ten years ago to set aside particular areas for protection. A comprehensive plan has not yet been put in place. It wasn't put in place by the previous government. I hope this government will move quickly to ensure that we do have a comprehensive protected areas plan for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is something that is long overdue in this Province. Other provinces are way ahead of us in this regard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: I look forward to the minister making an announcement soon to do just that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers? Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks, including during the recent political polling period, the Premier of our Province has been promoting his so-called success in ensuring the future of 5 Wing Goose Bay. He toured Europe on the premise that his trip would ensure that Goose Bay would have a viable long-term future for defence training. Today, we learn that our own Department of National Defence for Canada is no longer interested in keeping the base open as a military operation, and it may become just another abandoned industrial park.

My question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker, is: When did the Premier become aware of this circumstance with the Government of Canada, and the lack of plans from the Department of National Defence for Canada, or was he just trying to keep the information from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our government is a very open and transparent government, and there was never any attempt whatsoever to keep any information from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

When I explained the trip to Europe, I think people understand there was no guarantee of success. What we are trying to do is basically try and correct the problem that we inherited from the past government, and that was when 5 Wing Goose was allowed to go on the slippery slope. We realize that problem, of course, and the Member for Lake Melville attended with me, as well as the president of the union.

What we are trying to do is to make it work. We are just trying. That is basically what we are trying to do on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are going out and marketing the base. We are trying to find alternatives. We are meeting with senior government officials. We are meeting with senior officials of the RAF. I met this morning with the Ambassador to Canada from Germany, and had a good meeting with him this morning to discuss the same issue with him. What we are trying to do is ensure the long-term viability of 5 Wing Goose for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and for the people of the region. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition has no objection to that.

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, I am sure he will confirm then, as he just did, that the trip to Europe was not expected to, and probably will not, deliver any results with respect to military training in Goose Bay. I am glad the government is so open, because the information that is in the media today only became public because the media requested it under the Freedom of Information Act, not because it was volunteered by the Premier and the government.

Mr. Speaker, again, as we indicated, the Premier has gone to Europe seeking meetings with the allies. Yet it seems, as we pointed out in this Legislature before, the problem is not in Europe. The problem is with our own Department of National Defence in Ottawa, in the nation's capital.

The question, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier, knowing that the Department of National Defence in Ottawa has studies done and is in the public media saying they have no particular interest in the survival of 5 Wing Goose Bay as a military training base. What has the Premier and the government done in Ottawa to get a commitment from the Government of Canada and the Department of National Defence to try to secure the future of 5 Wing Goose Bay instead of traipsing about Europe trying to pretend that there is some hope and some future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that we have a problem when the former Premier of the Province says there is no problem in Europe. When we took over the government the Germans had indicated that they were leaving, the Dutch had indicated that they were leaving, the Italians were about to leave at the end of the MOU and the hon. gentleman opposite says there is no problem in Europe. That is where the problem is. The allied forces are pulling out, and for financial reasons because there are serious financial problems with these governments in Europe. So what we did was we went right to source. We attended at the Berlin air show. We were there with officials of DND. We met with senior officials and the European governments. We met with the senior officials in the air force because we are trying to repair the damage that was done by this government by allowing this just to blow by. They just did not even know it was happening. The hon. gentleman opposite says there is no problem in Europe. Where has he been for the last three years? That is what I would like to know, Mr. Speaker.

Now, with regard to the federal government. The very first meeting that I had with the Prime Minister, which was in December of last year, and I keep repeating it and he obviously does not want to listen to this but one of the top five items that I mentioned of importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador was 5 Wing Goose Bay. On that same day, within an hour of that meeting, I met with the new Minister of Defence, Minister Pratt, and I repeated the problem to Minister Pratt. Subsequent to that, I attended with Minister Pratt in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, when he announced that the federal government was going to assist 5 Wing Goose Bay over the course of the next two years to try and reduce the cost to the allies in Europe; who the hon. gentleman says there is no problem with. Well, there is a very serious, financial problem with these people. The federal government have intervened to the tune of $30 million, $40 million in order to subsidize -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer quickly.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, as the result of our initiative and the initiatives of other good people, like the Member for Lake Melville, also the federal Member of Parliament, Lawrence O'Brien, plus the committee up there, plus the work of the union. A lot of people are pulling together to try and make this happen. Again, I cannot understand why you are so against progress. It is okay if you are doing it, but it is not right if this government does it. It has happened because of your inaction, and that is why!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier likes to rant but misses the point completely. The fact of the matter is the fundamental problem that we have with respect to 5 Wing Goose Bay is in Ottawa, in our own nation's capital. How do we expect allies to make a commitment to train in Goose Bay when our own Department of National Defence is commissioning studies to say we do not want to do training in Goose Bay anymore, let's make it into, maybe, an industrial park? It comes out under Freedom of Information, information we assume the Premier already knew if he had done his homework in Ottawa.

The question is this: Does the Premier now understand, finally, that it might be time to get a real, rather than an imaginary, commitment from the federal Government of Canada in Ottawa about the future of 5 Wing Goose Bay? Because the media reports today and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: - the studies show that they have no plans in 5 Wing Goose Bay. They had always committed to 2006. What commitment is he going to try to get now in the midst of a federal election about the future of 5 Wing Goose Bay from the Government of Canada, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what I understand is that if the problem is with Canada, and the problem is with Ottawa, which is part of the problem, then you go to the leader of the government. You go to the Prime Minister. I met with the Prime Minister. I do not know if the hon. gentleman opposite is just not hearing what I am saying, but when you have a problem with the government, you go to the head of the government. I went to that particular person. I have also spoken to him on several other occasions and I have had other meetings with him where I brought it to his attention. If you are dealing with a specific department in Ottawa, you go to the minister of that department. I have met with him. I have attended with him on the site. I have had discussions with him.

The difference, though, between this government and that government is we have a relationship with Ottawa. We can go and speak to the Prime Minister. We can go and speak to the minister. We can go and speak to the Liberal Members of Parliament, unlike the hon. gentleman opposite who, as I said before, burnt every single bridge between Newfoundland and Labrador and Ottawa. He was at loggerheads with Prime Minister Chrétien. He was putting words in the Prime Minister's mouth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He was at war with the Member for Labrador. He has a personal history with the new Minister of Natural Resources. He does not get along with anybody, Mr. Speaker. The difference with us is that we are co-operating, we are collaborating, we are working with Ottawa and we will get results for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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.

Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador is looking forward to the results rather than the rhetoric like we just heard.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this, last week in this Legislature the Premier admitted that his Minister of Transportation and Works had given misinformation to the House about when he wrote the current Prime Minister, Mr. Martin. The Premier indicated that he wrote Prime Minister Martin within the last couple of days. This was stated on Thursday and he committed to table the letter. Would he table the letter now so we can see whether or not there is a commitment requested, in that letter, to the current Prime Minister for 5 Wing Goose Bay? Yes or No?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have already given a commitment that we will table that letter in the House today.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of the Province would like the people to trust him, as he just indicated, and we will get results. That is what we are all waiting for. Well, people trusted him before the election and people had trusted him before the Budget. In each case, Mr. Speaker, the results are ones they do not want and that we hope we do not get this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are getting to the point where we are having very lengthy preambles to supplementary questions. Some of the exchanges are of some length, a minute to a minute-and-a-half. I ask members if they would reduce their preambles, get to the questions so we can keep our exchanges down to fifty seconds or thereabouts.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question for the Premier is this. Rather than talk about a wonderful relationship and some results in the future, what we have are studies conducted by the Department of National Defence showing that after 2006 they have no plans, as the defence department, for 5 Wing Goose Bay.

When is the Premier going to stop worrying about having a wonderful, huggy, kissy- face relationship and actually getting some concrete results? Would he not agree that now is the time to get some commitments during the federal election?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have, in fact, gotten results. We have, through our negotiations, through our conversations with the Prime Minister, we have in fact gotten $40 million for 5 Wing Goose Bay. Those are significant numbers. That has been the result of our exercise.

Again, I cannot understand why the hon. gentleman opposite would be against us working in partnership with the federal government, with the municipal government in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, with the local member, with the federal member, with the union, as a strategic joint working committee to come up with a new approach for Happy Valley-Goose Bay, because that is exactly what we are doing.

Old-time measures, former measures, do not work for that base. We need to have a whole new outlook on how to approach it. There is tactical transport that is now important, unarmed vehicles are now important, supersonic flight is important, chaff and flares are important. There are all kinds of alternative maneuvers that need to be made available at that base; so what we did was, when we met with the allies overseas, we said: Tell us what you want and we will see if we can fulfill the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In order to satisfy a customer, you have to find exactly what they want. We have been discussing with them. As well, we have been working with officials of DND at the very highest level, who attended with us at the air show in Berlin. They are working with senior officials of the allies. Everybody is working together.

I know you cannot understand that, and that was your problem when you had this government.

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.

My questions today are for the Minister of Transportation, Works and Aboriginal Affairs.

Can the minister confirm for me that the cost of operating the terminal and onshore operations at Lewisporte alone to service the Labrador ferry will be approximately $700,000 this year? Can he also tell me if that money will be coming from the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot confirm for the member what the cost of operating the Lewisporte facility is. I will undertake to get that information for her and provide her with it, but I cannot confirm it for her here in the House today.

As she is well aware, the cost of providing services, the Labrador Marine Services, does come out of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, so on that one, I guess, whatever the cost is, I would to have to say yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I will just say to the hon. minister that the Budget Estimates will show that it will cost that amount of money to operate the terminal alone.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again today: Is he setting up his constituency office for himself in the Lewisporte area in the terminal facility?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That question was asked of the minister last week here in the House, and I understand that the answer was provided. I am not aware that indeed is the case, but I am sure, Mr. Speaker, when the minister returns from his deliberations in Ottawa, that answer can be provided to the member again, Mr. Speaker.

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, when the previous government relocated the marine services from Lewisporte to Cartwright there was an Economic Development Fund given to the Lewisporte area of $150,000. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is less than a year later and the government opposite has reversed the decision and now decided to put the ferries back in Lewisporte and to take the full cost of that from the Labrador Transportation Fund.

I want to ask the minister today if he will now request that the Economic Development Fund given to Lewisporte area less than a year ago, that they be asked to pay that money back, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister as well: What compensation does he intend to give to the people of Labrador for the loss of service and the loss of economic development that is happening in their area, Mr. Speaker, or do you just plan to let the Labrador communities and Labrador people go hungry while the people in the minister's district drain all the money out of the Labrador Fund?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member indicated last year when they were the government, they did provide the Chamber of Commerce in Lewisporte with some economic development money. To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, that money - a portion of it at the very least - has been spent.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Labrador Marine Services will not be based permanently out of Lewisporte. There will come a day, in the not-too-distant future, when Lewisporte will not be the terminal, the southern terminal, for Labrador based freight and ferry services, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we made a decision on Labrador Marine Services that took into account the needs and wants of all of the people in Labrador: the North Coast, the West Coast, Western Labrador, Central Labrador and Southern Labrador, Mr. Speaker. That is why we have a ferry service and a freight service configured such as it is, so that it can meet the needs of all of those people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Government Services concerning the automobile insurance reform issue.

Minister, we have gone from a Blue Book promise of a cap to a deductible scheme, and it seems clear from the draft legislation that this deductible will be subject to a Cabinet decision regarding the amount. Minister, given the about-face and the wishy-washy manner in which this Administration is dealing with the insurance issue, how can the general public and the insurance consumer trust this government to do anything, rather than you making a definitive commitment in the legislation regarding the deductible?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the legislation for the automobile insurance will be tabled here tomorrow for debate. We are indeed bringing in reforms that are going to benefit all of the people in this Province with savings on their premiums. We will have ample time tomorrow to debate those issues.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Minister.

Notwithstanding the fact that this matter might be debated in the House, I do not believe, Minister, that it is uncommon to ask questions that are of importance to the general public. Perhaps if you have the answer that you are so willing to give tomorrow in a debate, you might be prepared to share it with the general public who have these questions today.

I ask you again: If you are now moved from a cap to a deductible scheme, why don't you at least have the intestinal fortitude to say in this piece of legislation what the deductible will be, rather than leaving it blank and for the public of this Province to trust it to yourselves and your Cabinet colleagues to decide that amount? That is a fairly straightforward, simple question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the deductible will be in the legislation tomorrow. If the hon. member would like to know, it will be a $2,500 deductible.

I would like to say to the hon. member that this file was on the go for eight years and nothing was done. All the discussions held were completely shelved, on the shelf, done absolutely nothing, only talked about it. I have taken action, as minister. seven months in this office. I am now bringing in reforms tomorrow for debate.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Well, I strongly suggest to you, Minister, that before tomorrow you read your own legislation because there is nothing about $2,500 in this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Unless you are going to bring in an amendment tomorrow, when you only brought in the bill itself on Thursday.

My final question, Minister, regarding this issue again -

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised. The hon. the minister has been recognized. I ask the minister if she wishes to raise it now or wait until after Question Period is over.

MS WHALEN: (Inaudible).

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my third and final question for the minister is - Minister, your party committed last summer, 2003, to 20 per cent or more savings on all types of insurance. In your bill that we have today, that we see, we see all sorts of numbers, none of which add up to meaningful savings to the consumer. For example, we get 9 per cent on public liability, which everybody has to have, whereas we see other provinces like New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Alberta - which we have all been watching in the last six months - getting savings in the range of 20 per cent to 30 per cent. Why are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians not going to get the same type of breaks on their costs for insurance as these other provinces have gotten with their legislation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, all of my information is based on actuary studies, the information that this legislation is being written on. We also know what the rest of the provinces have done, as well.

I would like to say to the hon. member that tomorrow it will be here for debate, to talk about all of the numbers in the legislation. I would like to just say to the member that the deductible that he is talking about, there are regulations to be written with that, but I would like to tell you up front what the deductible is.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Will the Premier acknowledge that the insurance reforms introduced in his legislation fall far short of what was promised by him last August? That, in fact, there is no protection for age, gender and marital status discrimination; that there is no 20 per cent reduction in rates; and, in fact, the only savings are to the insurance companies, by reducing compensation in the hope that they will lower the rates.

Mr. Speaker, will he admit, will he acknowledge, that they are far short of those expectations that he created, and far short of what the public expects, and certainly far short of what would be received under a public insurance system?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are quite pleased and quite proud of this legislation which we have before the House. What we have done is, we have spent a great deal of time actually looking into it. We have also canvassed the actual experience in the other provinces, in the Maritime Provinces, spoken with the Premiers of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, seen what their experience is with their legislation, been told by them what the flaws and what the problems are with their legislation.

Rather than just bull forward with a position and not listen to anybody else, we have listened and we have consulted. We have consulted with the industry, we have consulted with stakeholders, and, as a result, we have looked at the original proposal and we have decided that modifications needed to be done. As well, there is a further safeguard, that besides the legislation that is before this House, and is going to be debated before this House - and we welcome the debate, we look forward to the debate. Just as we participated in the Freedom of Information debate, we had very value contributions, and we look forward to good contributions from hon. members opposite.

What I was about to say is, after the legislation is in this House, and if it is approved -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the legislation is approved by this House, then there are going to be hearings that are going to take place after a closed claims study is complete, because we have the Closed Claims Study now. If I remember correctly, it is probably about seven or eight years old. It is back, I think, in the mid-1990s.

We are going to get all the available information, then we are going to have a comprehensive omnibus hearing that is going to deal with automobile insurance and home insurance and commercial insurance and marine insurance. We are going to look at all of it, and at the end of the day we are going to do it right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that this government proposes to have the PUB conduct those hearings sometime in the fall. If he really had looked around the Atlantic Provinces, Mr. Speaker, he would have noted that his counterpart in New Brunswick, Premier Lord and his government, established an all-party committee of their Legislature to look into public automobile insurance. They produced a report in April recommending just that very thing, based on what they want in New Brunswick.

Will the Premier also consider having an all-party select committee of this House to look into and study the feasibility of a public automobile insurance plan for Newfoundland and Labrador? Will he do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh !

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there have been all-party select committees of this House. The former government's committee reported in 1998, if I remember correctly. That was left on the shelf until they lost the government. They did absolutely nothing.

I would like to think that the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi would like to have a good public consultation process. We have already done it within the House. There have been all-party select committees. They have made their reports. We do have the benefit of that information.

What I think you would agree with, though, is a full consultation with the general public, whereby there is a full hearing, whereby people can make representation, people can make submissions, hon. members opposite can make submissions, and the government will be party to it. Everybody will have an opportunity to come up with the best possible piece of legislation in the entire country.

That is our goal as a government and we will deliver on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has time for one short supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The all-party committee in New Brunswick consulted widely with the people of that province, to determine what kind of public auto system they wanted. Why should the people of Newfoundland and Labrador not have that opportunity to influence all members of this House to come up with a plan that is good for Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, no consultation could be done with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador until we had the best available information to place before them. This is why I have said before that the Closed Claims Study that is now presently in existence is antiquated. It is old information. It is not the best available information. As well, we had to wait for the actuarial reports that came from the Public Utilities Board. We also had to wait for a report that was commissioned by this government.

What we are trying to do is get all of the information available, put it out in the public domain, let people have a look at it, let people consider it, let people test it, let people ask questions about it, and then we can have a complete hearing. I cannot see how the hon. gentleman opposite could have any objection with an open and transparent process like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Tourism, or the alternate.

A couple of weeks ago we heard a glossy indicator report by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I decided, Mr. Speaker, to do my own survey and call some service providers around the West Coast. Here is what I got for indicators.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Fees are skyrocketing for tourist items such as vehicle insurance, business insurance, gasoline, ferry rates, park fees, and bed and breakfast registration. The list is never-ending and rising every day. The rate to licence a food premise, the hallmark of our tourism industry, is going from zero dollars to as much as $300, Mr. Speaker. This past weekend, a camper on the West Coast was passed by the campers in a lineup, and when it came to pay he had to pay $20 for his car, $20 for his motor home, and $13 for his campsite. How can the minister honestly stand in this House and say that he is promoting Island tourism to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the document that the Member for the Bay of Islands refers to - saying about the Tourism Minister - that he conducted his own survey, I wonder, at some point throughout the day, would he be able to table his survey so we can find out exactly how scientific and unbiased that survey really is?

The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: This government is very committed to tourism. The budget process proved that. We invested more than $1 million over and above, in this year's Budget, to enhance tourism, to promote Newfoundland and Labrador, to increase business opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The fact of the matter is, that is exactly what is happening. The official, unbiased, report shows that tourism indicators are through the roof. That is what the member is not acknowledging.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is time for one very quick supplementary.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, to the Government House Leader, I do not have to table it because it is included in the 150 fee increases that your government just implemented. I do not have to include it. If you want me to give you a copy, I will give you a copy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying: Charity starts at home. What this government is saying is that the increased fees start at home. To advertise in the Newfoundland and Labrador Travel Guide, rates have increased for some ads almost 250 per cent, in their own documents. This is the same tourism guide in which the Minister of Tourism invites the tourists to visit The Rooms in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. JOYCE: These costs have to be passed on to consumers, tourists, and these costs are hurting the small rural businesses of Newfoundland and Labrador. How can the minister say that these outrageous rates, which are tabled by his own minister, are not hurting tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, time for a very short reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Stay with me for a second, Mr. Speaker, and all hon. members. Can you see the survey that was done by the member? He went home the weekend, consulted friends and family, and said: What do you think about A, B, C, D, E, F and G? The fact of the matter is, he said that he did his own survey. I would like to know who he surveyed.

The truth of it is this: Tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador is on the rise. This government recognizes the importance of it, both for outfitters in the Province or people - for outfitters in terms of depending on national and international business, and we have committed - the fact of the matter is this. There are two facts that the member must acknowledge: One, that we have committed way over and above what the former government did, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer quickly.

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

- and we are committed to having the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador tourism industry have more funding than what a brewery had for promotions.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, and most importantly, tourism indicators show clearly that tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador is on the rise and what this government has committed to can only enhance that rise.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting reports by standing and select committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to table the 2003 Annual Report for the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling further reports?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I rise in the House today to table the 2002-2003 annual performance report for the Department of Health and Community Services.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling further reports?

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to table the 2002-2003 Annual Report for the Department of Environment, and also to table the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board Annual Report for 2003.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling further reports? Notices of motions? Answers to questions for which notice has been given? Petitions.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people in my district with regard to the Williams Harbour access road, Mr. Speaker.

The people in this community were very hopeful this year that they would get a road connection to their community. The engineering work is done, the environmental assessment is completed, but, Mr. Speaker, the government opposite have decided: No, we are going to put that particular piece of road on hold. So this community, which is eighteen kilometres from the main highway, from the main Trans-Labrador Highway, will not be getting a road, Mr. Speaker. Instead, the money will be used to operate a ferry into the minister's own District of Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable. It is absolutely unbelievable, when you look at the fact that every municipality in Labrador, sitting at the Combined Councils meeting of Labrador, passed a motion, supported a motion to have money spent out of the Labrador Fund to build a road to Williams Harbour. There is $107 million in this fund. It grew by $4.5 million last year, in interest. But, Mr. Speaker, the custodians of the fund today, the minister for Labrador, the Minister of Transportation, the custodians of the fund have said: No, we are going to, instead, use this money to put the ferry into Lewisporte.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the situation. This is the situation and the people will not believe it. The people of Williams Harbour will go without a road. The people in my district will not have snow clearing on their road, Mr. Speaker. That was the announcement in the Budget. We will not snow clear the eighty-three kilometres of road from Red Bay to Lodge Bay because there is too much snow there. That is the situation opposite. But, Mr. Speaker, they have no regrets with taking $700,000 out of the Labrador Fund; stealing the money out of the fund to take it and operate a terminal facility in the community of Lewisporte and to keep eight people on the payroll this year, to have freight services put into Labrador, when the people in Labrador - that was not what they asked for, Mr. Speaker. I know, because I have met with them all. I have met with almost every town and every municipality and every chamber and every zonal board up there. That was not, indeed, what they wanted.

Mr. Speaker, just to add insult to injury now, not only did the minister go and take the Labrador Fund money to open a terminal in Lewisporte but now he is going to move his constituency office into the terminal facility. I know it to be true, Mr. Speaker, because the minister said it in the Estimates Committee. The Minister for Labrador Affairs, and Fisheries and Aquaculture might not know, but the Minister of Transportation and Works admitted that he was putting his office in the terminal facility in Lewisporte. Yes, indeed he did. That is being done, yet the people in Labrador cannot access money to have snow cleared off their roads, to have a highway built into Williams Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, what makes matters even worse is that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up my comments?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has leave of ten seconds.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think what makes matters even worse is that the public has learned today, Mr. Speaker, that $150,000 that the previous Liberal government paid out to Lewisporte for economic development was done when the marine services was taken out of the community. Today, Mr. Speaker, not only have all the marine services been reinstated to Lewisporte but they have still maintained the $150,000 economic development fund. The Labrador Transportation Initiative will pay for the cost of operating the boats and running the terminal, and the people of Labrador are getting no job creation. They are losing economic development. They have lost the marine services and now, Mr. Speaker, they are going to pay the subsidy to continue to operate it in Lewisporte. While all this is done, the people in Williams Harbour continue to go where the highway access is only eighteen kilometres from their community. It is shameful! It is almost too shameful to stand up here in this House and talk about.

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to today to present a petition on behalf of people all across Labrador. It is a plea for the auditorium that is so badly needed to service all of the people in Labrador, especially the youth. Mr. Speaker, I guess it is a little due - bad in Labrador. The Premier jumped on the bandwagon to address issues on George Street. I have asked him to address issues on the North Coast. He said he would look at it but it is not important enough to do what he has done for St. John's.

I challenged the Minister of Transportation regarding the motor vessel that goes to the North Coast of Labrador a month ago in the House, re the plight of the people on the North Coast for a further fourteen day service. Over a seven day service, he would consider. We have not gotten back to him. I understand, though, that the government is going to do some work with The Rooms so work can be done. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador do not have an auditorium and it is our young people who are hurting.

Mr. Speaker, in February the Minister of Municipal Affairs said that the $2.4 million was still there but this government chose to take it away. What they are doing is they are depriving the people in Labrador, especially our young people, of having different meetings there where they get together for the drama festivals and so on. People all across this Province are booking groups to put off plays in different communities, except for Happy Valley-Goose Bay because they do not have an auditorium.

The federal government has committed funds of over $300,000 and if the invoices are not in place by this fall, then the people up there stand to lose that money. Most important of all are the children in Labrador who are being deprived of a facility. That money was already allotted for - for the sake of $2.4 million. For this government to turn around and deprive the children in Labrador, I do not think it speaks very highly of this government and of the priorities that they have; priorities that elsewhere, they will take a look at it. Nine chances out of ten they will do it, but when it comes to Labrador, it is hands off. You wait. You are second fiddle. You wait until next year. If we go beyond June or July then it is going to be too late again and it is going to be another year wasted. Because of the short construction season in Labrador, if something is not done before the end of June, then it is going to be two years before a building is going to be completed.

Where else in this Province are you going to stand and know that children in schools are deprived of their right to go out there and show off their culture, their heritage and their pride and to perform the way students in the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador can do and all across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, again, today I ask this government to stand on its feet and do the right thing and give to the children in Labrador the auditorium that every other community -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. ANDERSEN: - in this Province takes for granted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be back tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition today on behalf of the people from St. Paul's to Bellburns concerning the level of health care in the area.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in Legislative Assembly convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS through a leaked report prepared by the Western Health Care Corporation for government, it was learned that two options relating to the closure of rural clinics have the clinics in Parsons Pond, Cow Head and Daniel's Harbour up for closure; and

WHEREAS the majority of area residents are seniors who are on a fixed income, the expense of transporting patients to health care facilities would be borne by other governmental departments as well as increase the usage of ambulance services;

WHEREFORE your petitioners are opposed to either of the possible options and urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to consider that removing clinics from rural areas will not make a real difference in eliminating budget deficits and to keep the rural clinics in Parsons Pond, Cow Head and Daniel's Harbour.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just add that there have been no decisions made on the closure of those three clinics and that this leaked report will not be the basis for any future directions for the health care provided in this area.

People are concerned in the area. Any lowering of the level of health care in the area is very much a concern of people, and in expressing that concern, I am very concerned and will do what I can to see that we continue on providing the same services that we have. One of the important things that was pointed out to me is that with a number of the seniors - as I mentioned in the petition, the fear is that they will not get the level of health care that they are getting now. The clinics are in their communities, they can get there in a timely manner, and their health care concerns will not escalate out of control and then be an added cost. So they look at it - having this service in their community - as a savings to government in the long term, and the health and well-being of their parents, in particular, to continue on having a healthy lifestyle as they had in the past.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

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

Before I move to Orders of the Day, I want to table the letter today that the Leader of the Opposition requested from the Premier, the one written to Prime Minister Paul Martin. I am happy to be able to do so, Mr. Speaker, but to note that the issues that were raised in this letter deal with oil and gas, equalization, transfers, fisheries management, hydro power, highways and fixed link, and, yes, military training in Labrador. I want to table, on behalf of the government, on behalf of the Premier, that letter which was written last Tuesday, May 25, 2004, to the Prime Minister of the country.

Mr. Speaker, before we move to the actual Orders of the Day, I do move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not close at 5:30 p.m. today. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Motion 6 and Motion 7, move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, with that -

MR. SPEAKER: Can we put those motions now and then we will come back to you?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader has moved that, pursuant to Standing Order 11, the House not adjourn today at 5:30 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, nay.

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader also has moved, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Monday, May 31, 2004.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 2, a Concurrence Motion, Government Services Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2 has been moved, the Concurrence Motion for Government Services Committee debate.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise and speak on the Concurrence of the Budget today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off, I guess, with a couple of things because when we were going through the Estimates Committees there were a number of things that we requested of government departments that be tabled in the House before Concurrence on the Budget. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I know some of the information that I requested, that I felt was important for me to have and review prior to voting on this Budget, I have not received. I am disappointed to say I have not received it. I can only hope that the agreement of the ministers and of the departments to forward that information will be met and that it will be forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk today a little bit about the operations at 5 Wing Goose Bay. I think to say that any of us were shocked, I suppose, when we seen the front page article in The Telegram today on 5 Wing Goose Bay, and the fact that the writing is on the wall by the federal government and by the Department of National Defence to close down this entire base, and the fact that they are looking at establishing a federal-provincial agency which would see it more run like a business and not necessarily as a military base and so on. It comes as no big shock because in the last two or three months, Mr. Speaker, especially since Christmas, what we have seen in Goose Bay, on the ground, a downscaling of activities as it surrounds the base. We have also seen a number of military personnel who have been given notices of transfer, to be transferred to other bases within Canada; most of them to Cold Lake, Alberta, which is a base that operates similar type activities as 5 Wing Goose Bay does.

Mr. Speaker, we kind of knew, I guess, the situation that we have been dealing with over the past number of months. When the Premier and the Member for Lake Melville did their trip to Europe and met with people in Germany, in particular, I could have told them before they went that there are bases closing down all over Germany, military bases, simply because the German government no longer has the fiscal ability to be able to maintain all of these bases. I think this year alone, you are going to see seven military bases closed out in Germany. So, Mr. Speaker, to go knocking on their doors before we have a secure commitment from the federal government to have a Canadian operated base funded through the Department of National Defence, before we even have our own country and our own military personnel with a commitment to use this base for the long term, we are over knocking on doors all over Europe.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am so saddened to hear this because I have lived in Labrador, lived adjacent to Goose Bay, know full well how the military base operates and how important it is to the local economy of Goose Bay and, indeed, to all of Labrador and to all the Province. I can honestly tell you that if we are prepared today to let the federal government walk away, closing this base, downsizing it, turning it over to a private business operation, than you can be guaranteed to see that the entire economy of Happy Valley-Goose Bay will see a shift downward because the dependency upon that base and that operation is tremendous, Mr. Speaker. This is really unfortunate. I think that the time is right, right now in the middle of a federal election. The timing has never been better for the Premier and his Cabinet to take a very active, lobby campaign in this Province, with all of the parties, Mr. Speaker, that are seeking to govern this nation; with all of the parties that are out there looking to take over the walls of the Parliament Building in Ottawa, to get a commitment from them on the continued operations of this particular base to ensure the longevity of it, to ensure the stability for the local economy in the Lake Melville area and in other parts of Labrador. Mr. Speaker, that has to happen today. It cannot happen once the election is over because this is an issue that is current. It is an issue that is active.

As we speak, Mr. Speaker, in this House of Assembly today, I know that people in Goose Bay are packing up to move. I know that Canadian personnel have called in movers to pack their things and move out of the community. That is the critical circumstance that we are finding ourselves in right now. So, Mr. Speaker, that is something that cannot wait. It has to be dealt with now, and commitments like those that we have seen from the Conservative Leader, Stephen Harper, is not going to help. I was reading the letter that Stephen Harper wrote to Premier Williams. In it he was asked what his commitment would be to the activities at 5 Wing Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, there was no commitment. There was a commitment to inject $1.2 billion into defence spending, but what does that mean? We saw a situation in this Province where we had the Premier of the Province up in Ottawa meeting with the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister, he claims, on 5 Wing, and then a week later, in fact, I think it may have been the same week, Mr. Speaker, we had the Minister of National Defence over in Gagetown, Nova Scotia, announcing millions of dollars for national defence. Was there one cent coming to this Province? Not one. The fact that Stephen Harper sends out a letter saying he is going to inject $1.2 billion into defence spending in this country tells me absolutely nothing other than there is going to be money in defence spending.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen this before. We have seen it where the Premier has been sitting in the office in Ottawa, he claims, lobbying to get 5 Wing going and save the base in Goose Bay, and the next day we have seen the federal Minister in Gagetown announcing millions of dollars in defence spending, and we not getting one cent out of it for 5 Wing or for anything else. That, Mr. Speaker, holds little water with me, very little water. That is not a commitment, all that is is a statement.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that whoever takes office in the federal government will spend billions of dollars, maybe a billion dollars, in defence spending over the next four or five years in this country, no matter who takes office, but that holds very little water for me. That doesn't give me any security, as a person who is living in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and has a mortgage on my house and a car payment at the bank, and, Mr. Speaker, is driving to work at this base every day and raising a family and trying to educate my children. That doesn't give me great comfort, Mr. Speaker, because it tells me absolutely nothing.

What we have to have is a firm commitment on 5 Wing Goose Bay, and that commitment starts here at home, Mr. Speaker, in our own country. When we have the Government of Canada and the National Defence not prepared to use our own facilities, to go out all over the world and try and bring in other people from other countries, who are, in some cases, in worse financial situations in their own country when it comes to military spending than we are in Canada, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I also want to talk about a couple of other things. Last week, in the House of Assembly, I stood up on two occasions and asked questions of the Minister of Health and Community Services, with regard to health spending. We know in the midst of this federal election there have been commitments from all the parties, that there will be more money spent in health care in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that that new money coming into health care will be used wisely and to the benefit of the people of the Province. I don't want to see the government opposite take more money in, in health care, from the federal government on the one hand, and then take back their own money in their own budget on the other hand, because that doesn't do anything, Mr. Speaker. That is just substituting federal dollars for provincial dollars and it is not enhancing or improving health care for people in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the question twice and I have never gotten an answer, but we know what the government opposite did when it came to municipal affairs funding, don't we? When the federal government came down with the budget, saying that they would allow municipalities to keep some of the tax dollars that they had, to help them increase their budgets.

I was reading a commentary in the paper, actually, only today by a person from the Business Development Council. I thought I had a copy of it there but I don't have it right now. Mr. Speaker, as he was saying, these municipalities desperately needed that additional money, but do you know what happened? They were given the money in one hand and then the provincial government moved in and clawed it back in the other hand.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what is happening, and it is going to happen over the next two to three years - yes, it will - where the provincial government will claw back money from certain municipalities in this Province. I talked to one member with the City of Mount Pearl -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, the statement the hon. member just made is absolutely untrue. The Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is not clawing back the gas money that has been allocated to the -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, that is what the federal government is talking about, allocating money to the municipalities.

What the department did - and it was before this announcement was ever made by the federal government - we clawed back $5 million over three years from fourteen municipalities out of 290. It is completely misleading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The minister has an opportunity at the right time to participate in debate, in his turn.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. minister will have his twenty minutes to speak on the Budget, just like I do. The truth of the matter is that, yes, there was more money come into municipalities in this Province because of a tax break from the federal government, and the other truth of the matter is that there was $5 million clawed back by the provincial government in the other hand.

I talked to the City of Mount Pearl, and they told me that they are going to lose about $600,000 out of their budget because of the actions of that government. So there was no influx of money for the benefit of municipalities in this Province. Actually, Mr. Speaker, the victory they thought they had won one day they had actually lost another day.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, he will have his time to get up and debate this Budget, just like I do, and he will have an opportunity to speak to the issues that he wants.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that does not happen with regard to health care funding in this Province, because we have all heard the commitment for health care money in the Province. We have all heard that there will be new money. When you look at things like happened the other day, the University and the Canadian Cancer Society did a study, and the study was on how patients in rural areas of the Province and other areas of the Province are affected by chronic illness. The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: Many patients in rural areas of this Province are not accessing the treatments that they require, the medical services that they require, when they have serious chronic illness, because of the cost that is included.

I know for a fact, Mr. Speaker, that this happens. I never realized it until I read the study to the extremity that it does happen, but I am aware of it. I live in my district where I have had people come into St. John's for kidney dialysis treatments, for cancer treatments, and it is very expensive. It is very, very expensive, the airline costs and so on.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I would like to see the minister do with this new money that will come from Ottawa is to set up a fund, a fund that would be there to help chronically ill patients in our Province access the services they need. I know of situations where patients with serious illnesses have been sent home and could not buy the proper medication that they needed because they did not have the income to do so, and there was no support there for them to do it, so they went without the treatment, therefore compromising their own health further than it already was. That is wrong and that should not be happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe it took the Cancer Society and maybe it took the University to bring the message of these people to the House of Assembly and to us as politicians, but the message has been received loud and clear by this member and I, for one, will tell you that I will be working hard for these people in our Province to ensure that they have the proper access to health care services and health benefits and medications, irregardless of their income. Mr. Speaker, not every person can afford to have the treatment that they desperately require, but they are entitled to it and therefore means should be made to ensure that they get it.

Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, I also want to have a few words with regard to the marine services, because it is unbelievable the fact that right now, in Lewisporte, $700,000 of the Labrador Fund will go to keep the marine services terminal open in Lewisporte, to keep eight or ten people employed there this year, and, in addition that, there will be a fuel cost of running the ferries into Lewisporte, which the minister could not tell me the amount because they did not have it marked out in the Budget so they did not know how much it was going to cost. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you what it is going to cost. It is 1,000 litres an hour to run that boat into Lewisporte. It is forty-eight hours of steaming for each trip. Mr. Speaker, you do the math because you can figure out the cost per litre on fuel. I can guarantee you that it is going to be another $600,000 or $700,000 worth of fuel to run that boat in there this summer. All of that money will come out of the Labrador Transportation Fund.

Then, to add insult to injury, the minister has the nerve to go out and set up his constituency office in the terminal facility in Lewisporte, the same terminal facility that we are paying out of the Labrador Fund to keep open, the same facility that I do not want open, that nobody in Labrador wants open, but anyway, they are going to keep it open and they are going to use the money to do it. Do you know something? It is absolutely disgusting; that is what it is. There are two ministers on that side who have been given the privilege of being custodians of the Labrador Transportation Fund. The Minister for Labrador, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Transportation and Works, the Member for Lewisporte, have been given the privilege to be the custodians of $107 million to be spent in Labrador. Do you know what they are doing? They are paying to put a boat in Lewisporte, they are paying to keep a terminal facility open in Lewisporte, they are paying to keep a few jobs on the wharf in Lewisporte, and at the same time they are giving them $150,000 to keep for economic development.

While all of this is happening, the people in my district, the people who own the fund, have no say in it - but they own the fund, own the money - and cannot get a road built into the community of Williams Harbour, cannot get the snow cleared off eighty-three kilometers of road between Red Bay and Lodge Bay, cannot have the Labrador ferry service based in Labrador, cannot get a year-round reservation service on the MV Apollo, the ferry on the Strait of Belle Isle. Mr. Speaker, where is the justice in all of this? Where is the justice?

I have been pleading with the government opposite. I have been pleading with the minister, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the people in Labrador, to listen to the people who want to have a voice, who want to have some say and want to have some control over what is happening; but, no, Mr. Speaker, they are being completely ignored and it is absolutely ridiculous. I do not think that anywhere else in this country - and I would go as far to say nowhere else in this country - would you have a fund that is set up for people in one region of the Province and the custodians of that fund abuse it and ill-use it to meet their own political agenda the way that the government opposite have and the ministers opposite have, Mr. Speaker.

I can guarantee you that my district will suffer because of it. Labrador will suffer because of it. I did not see anyone on that side getting up saying here is a $150,000 fund for the people in Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair district because of the loss of jobs, the loss of services and the businesses that will close up there, Mr. Speaker. Nobody over there stood up and said, here is your $150,000 fund for economic development like Lewisporte is after getting.

Here we have a situation now where Lewisporte has gotten a $150,000 Economic Development Fund, they have gotten all of the ferries back, the minister is getting his nice little office up in the ferry terminal and, Mr. Speaker, they are all happy. Well, no one up my way is happy, I can guarantee you that. If they were able to come in here to this House today, you would not find one of them up there who would support this Budget or support that decision, Mr. Speaker, not one of them, but I can guarantee you now that they will pay for it, and you fellows are making sure that they do.

We have a situation now where you are not going to clear eighty-three kilometers of road, Mr. Speaker, a brand new road from Red Bay to Lodge Bay. They are going to close that road from November 1 to May 1. That is what the minister said to me. He actually put it in writing to me as well. They are going to close it from November 1 to May 1.

Mr. Speaker, when the road was built in my district, the people who owned gas stations took out their gas storage tanks. They have nowhere to store fuel now for five or six months of the year. When the road when through, Mr. Speaker, and a truck was pulling up to their business every day, off-loading freight, they closed down their storage houses and their warehouses. They sold them off, converted them to other things. It does not exist now. Where are they going to stock groceries for six months out of a year? They never dreamed, Mr. Speaker, in all their days, that they would have to be confronted with a situation like they are being confronted with now, where money out of their own fund will not be used to clear snow off their road but will be used to keep a terminal open in Lewisporte. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. That is absolutely wrong. This year, these people - on November 1, the gates will close. No one will have access to the road. The ferry will run, Mr. Speaker, until the first or second week of January, but no one will be able to access it because the road will be closed.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the narrow-sightedness, the narrow-mindedness, the level of thinking that exists within the minister's department, the Minister of Transportation and Works, the Minister for Labrador Affairs, and the Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, to make a decision with such implications to people; it is unbelievable.

I say, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bell Island might be sitting back and smiling and laughing at me today, but I can guarantee you -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

MS JONES: - that the road in my district is every bit as important as the ferry that goes into her district, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the -

MS JONES: She would not be laughing today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - if the ferry link to her district was cut.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that her time has lapsed.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to clarify it, I was sitting down having a chat with the Minister of Government Services. I do not know where the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair came up with the idea that she was laughing at something that she was saying; because, to be honest with you, we were not listening that intently to what you were saying after the first five minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the opportunity, if I could, to make a few comments on the Government Services Committee, which I had the opportunity to Chair during the Budget Debate this year. I want to take the opportunity in my opening remarks to thank the members of the Committee who served. We ran a couple of major sessions. One was with the Department of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs. We had to have two sittings to get through the total Budget Details of those specific departments, and certainly we welcome that opportunity, for the Opposition to question the minister and the staff of each department on the different issues and concerns that they have with the department in relation to the Budget Details. It is a great opportunity, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I had the opportunity many times as a member of the Opposition to partake in the Budget Debate, and certainly partake in the Estimates Committee. For those who are not aware of what Estimates Committees are all about - especially those who may be watching on T.V. - it is an opportunity for a Committee of the House that has representation from both sides, the government side and the Opposition side, to come to a meeting outside of the confines of the House of Assembly, in most cases, to sit down and go through the Budget Details, line-by-line items, and ask the minister - and the minister is present with all of his or her staff here in the House. It gives an opportunity for anybody to ask a question on the department; to question the salaries, to question the dollars being spent in that department, to question over and above anything related to the department itself. I think most people find that a useful exercise that is sometimes long and drawn out, as in the case of the Department of Transportation and Works. We spent almost seven hours, two different sittings, to get through that particular department. I think, as I said, it was a very useful exercise, especially with the many things that are going on in the Province in relation to different departments.

In the Government Services Committee we had a couple of the main departments here in government that many people out in the Province are asking questions about. We had the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, and the hon. Minister Sullivan and his staff went through the process. In the Department of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs we had the hon. Minister Rideout with his staff, who gave us an excellent briefing, I thought, on that department also. Also, we had the Minister of Government Services, Minister Whalen and her staff, who gave, what I thought, an excellent presentation in relation to the details and the concerns that are within that department as it relates to ferry services here in the Province; as it relates to the insurance that is forthcoming here in the House tomorrow, the new Insurance Act, Mr. Speaker, the insurance legislation. It certainly was a great opportunity to question and critique that as much as we could prior to the legislation coming to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I thought the three departments that we went though was a useful exercise. It certainly gives some opportunity for all members to voice their concerns, ask questions and to critique the ministers on what their departments have planned for this upcoming fiscal year.

With that, I would like to touch on a couple of things that came up in the discussions that we had. I will take one department at a time. In the discussions that we had with the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs, there was much discussion around the ferry system in the Province as it relates to the minister's department. As I say, we have sixteen different ferry services which are creating interprovincial ferry services that are operating here in the Province. A lot of these ferries are getting old now and certainly are in need of repair. There are places in the Province, I am sure, that would welcome a new ferry, if it were possible to put the funds forward to deal with that. We had the opportunity to have an excellent, forward discussion on that in the House during the Estimates meetings. The minister, I felt, came forward and laid out what they hoped to be able to, the plans, in order to address some of the concerns, understanding the fiscal realities that we have to deal with here in the Province, Mr. Speaker, but also understanding the need for good, reliable, safe transportation here in Newfoundland and Labrador, whether that is through the ferry system, whether that is on the Trans-Canada Highway, or whether it is in the different roads throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

To talk about the roads, Mr. Speaker. We had an opportunity during the Estimates also - and I seen here in the House, an opportunity to ask the minister questions and raise issues in relation to this year's Provincial Roads Program. I, as a member of the government, Mr. Speaker, was very pleased when we had the opportunity to increase the Provincial Roads Program from $23 million in the last fiscal year up to $30 million this fiscal year; an increase of $7 million. That money came from an increase in registering motor vehicles. There was some concern raised with that but, at the same time, that $40 increase will give the government an opportunity to put an extra $7 million into the Provincial Roads Program this year. Coming from the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, which I represent and live in, Mr. Speaker, that $7 million is welcome news to the people out in that district.

I had the opportunity, back a couple of weeks ago, to take the Minister of Transportation and Works to my district for a day, to tour the roads and the highways in the district, and to have a couple of meetings with different groups and organizations within the district to discuss with them the drastic need for road repair. Certainly, what we hope to see is funding allocated in this year's budget to address some of that concern. Knowing full well that we have been pretty well over a decade now without having any major work done in the district in relation to the roads and that the minister has committed to looking at that over the next four years, four construction seasons that we have in this mandate, Mr. Speaker, to address some of the concerns that people have in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's. That is certainly welcome news to my ears, and I am sure to the ears of the community leaders who are out in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's. I refer especially to the people who are down in the communities of River Head, Mall Bay, St. Mary's, Gaskiers, Point La Haye, St. Vincent's, Peter's River and St. Stephens who have been sending in petitions to me to raise here in the House, which I have done so on their behalf. I think we have a few more that are on the way now.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to it, if I could for a moment. The issue of the $30 million this year is welcome news, and I am sure that all members welcome that. Hopefully, over the next couple of weeks we will be hearing on the specifics in relation to where that $30 million is going to be spent as it relates to people who need road work done in their districts.

Another big issue that came up, Mr. Speaker, during the debate was the closure of some of the highway depots in our Province and the realignment of management. Anytime there is anything closed, anytime that there is anything rearranged or whatever the case may be, there are always concerns that are raised; there are always issues that are raised with that. Again, the department is trying to find ways to address the financial mess that we were left with, Mr. Speaker. One of the ways they are looking at that is to look at some highway depots in the Province in relation to closing down during the summertime and having them all open during the wintertime, and in relation to summer maintenance. Certainly, there has been a concern raised in my district again with a couple of depots there that I am discussing with the minister and, hopefully, we will find some way of correcting that or improving that so the people receive the service that they so rightfully deserve.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there were concerns raised in relation to maintenance. The maintenance on our highways over the past number of years, apart from the Trans-Canada, down throughout the districts, my District of Placentia & St. Mary's, and, indeed, I am sure many, many districts in the Province, is that for the past ten or twelve years the maintenance budget of the former Department of Works, Services and Transportation, now the Department of Transportation and Works, has been drastically reduced, and we see that. If you take a ride anywhere in this Province now, down around rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially in my District of Placentia & St. Mary's, which I can speak for wholeheartedly, is that the roads are deplorable based on the fact that the previous Administration just basically gave up on maintenance, gave up on maintaining those roads to a safe standard. That is why we have such a mess today, and trying to deal with that mess today is a very costly matter and one that we are trying to address, but, at the same time, we will definitely fall short of being able to address everybody's concerns for the simple reason of the amount of money that is needed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, another issue that came up under the Department of Government Services and one which will be tabled here tomorrow, I understand - it was tabled but it will begin debate on tomorrow - is the insurance legislation. I heard several questions being asked today to the Minister of Government Services in relation to the insurance package that government is putting forward. I find it very ironic that members across the way would be so quick to jump on a piece of legislation that has come forward from this government after seven months in power, when they, themselves, spent 174 months in power and failed to bring reforms to insurance forward here in this House. In the short time that we have been here we are making a first step, I understand, in that regard tomorrow here in the House.

I look forward to the Minister of Government Services bringing forward that piece of legislation and beginning the debate on what many people in the Province are hoping will be an opportunity to save dollars, but also an opportunity not to give up and not to throw away rights and privileges that they have now under current legislation. I think everybody, myself included, would like the opportunity to be able to save money, would like the opportunity to have reduced insurance rates but, at the same time, not to be put in the situation where, because we are going to have a reduction in rates, that we lose something, that we lose an opportunity that we have and lose the rights and privileges that we have under present legislation. I hope that we are able - and I am sure after talking and discussing the legislation that we are in an opportunity to spread out across the board savings to every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, and at the same time have the protection that the drivers, people who are going on the highways now, want and certainly deserve to have.

As in any piece of legislation, I am sure there will be an opportunity to put forward any amendments that the Opposition may come forward with. We, as a government, will decide whether they are worthy of including with the piece of legislation or not.

It is a first step. I am very pleased today to hear the Premier stand and state that there is going to be a consultation process carried out throughout the Province over the next several months which will look at improving - adding to or taking away from, whatever the case may be - in relation to the piece of legislation. That is something that I am sure the members of the public are looking forward to, Mr. Speaker. I, as a Member of the House of Assembly, am certainly looking forward to the opportunity for the people in my district, and the people I represent, having the opportunity to come forward and address any concerns that they have, any issues that they have, and hopefully any improvements that they have to ensure that we have fair, equitable, but at the same time something that is safe and worthy of legislation here in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it certainly goes to show the commitment that we have as a government in relation to addressing the insurance concerns. It was a major concern with people during the election campaign, not as large a concern as what the Opposition tried to make it - the former Administration tried to make it - but certainly a very important issue for the people of the Province.

Hopefully we will begin the process tomorrow of addressing some of the inequities that we have in the insurance industry in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully over the next couple of days we will get to debate that piece of legislation, move forward with the consultations throughout the Province, and hopefully be able to clue it up in the fall session of the House and be able to address the concerns that people have.

Mr. Speaker, we also had the opportunity, as the Government Services Committee, to question and to have before us the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board and his complete staff. It was a very worthwhile exercise indeed. Many questions were raised by several members of the Committee in relation to the financial situation of the Province, trying to find out where government's priorities are in relation to spending, and more, I guess, in relation to saving, where we can save necessary dollars without cutting services where possible to the people of the Province. Again, it was what I believe to be another worthwhile exercise in relation to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board's statement, and certainly their questions - sorry, not their questions, their answers.

We found ourselves in a very precarious situation this year in the Province. We became the government on October 21 of last fall and were sworn in on November 6 or 7, I believe. We found ourselves knowing full well that we had a large debt to deal with here in the Province, knowing full well that we had fifteen years of the previous Administration, and that there was not a lot of concern raised in the last three or four years in relation to the amount of spending that was going on. Therefore, we find ourselves touching almost a billion dollar debt just this year alone and trying to address that as a government and, at the same time, trying to provide services to the people of the Province. It is a very difficult task, but one that I am sure the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and indeed the Cabinet and indeed the caucus, everybody within caucus, is putting their best foot forward in trying to do.

In doing that, in addressing the financial situation that we are left with, we find that at times you will end up upsetting certain sectors of the Province. There is no doubt that nobody wants to hear of cutbacks or nobody wants to hear of reductions in services in any way, shape or form, but my district, like every other district, had to take their share of that. Certainly, we hope that over the next little while our economy will improve and find ways of bringing improvements out into the districts and indeed out into the Province. At the present time now, we find a situation that we have been left with, $1 billion this year. If there is something not done to correct it, we will spiral up to $15 billion in the long term, over the next three to four years. I think it is a very serious situation that government has agreed to tackle to the best of their ability, and I certainly believe that the people of the Province, even though some people are upset from time to time in relation to decisions that are made, I guess decisions that are made in relation to any services that we have to reduce or cut, it is something that nobody likes but, at the same time, I think the people of the Province agree that the issue has to be addressed. It has to be addressed in a way that is fair and equitable to people within Newfoundland and Labrador, but at the same time it has to be addressed for the betterment of the people of the Province and indeed for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I think that overall the Estimates Committee meetings went fairly well. As I said, we managed to finish up the department of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board within the time that we allowed, and with regard to Government Services we had the opportunity to do the same thing. When it came to Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs, we went into a second session, which just shows the importance of that department to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and certainly the commitment of the minister and his officials to ensure that services of that department are put forward.

One thing that we raise is that right here, this year, now, the minister informs us that he could use somewhere around $800 million on roadwork in this Province. There is a need from somewhere between $600 million to $800 million worth of roadwork, which includes upgrading, which includes recapping, which includes the construction of new roads, which includes repairs to bridges, ditching, and so on and so forth - somewhere around the $800 million mark - where, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, we are at a level of $30 million for Provincial Roads Program this year. It just goes to show on one hand what we had to spend on roads in the Province, but on the other hand the need and the necessity that is out in Newfoundland and Labrador in relation to roadwork. There is no doubt in my mind, as the minister put forward during the Estimates meetings, that we need a federal infusion of money into the roads in this Province. We just pretty well finished up the Roads for Rail Agreement, the Trunk Roads Agreement, as a couple of examples, and an opportunity through those programs to spend several hundred million dollars on roads in this Province. I, in my district, have seen the improvements of that. At the same time, right now, there is a major need in this Province for a provincial-federal agreement on roads, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the government can work with the new government in Ottawa, whoever they may be after June 28, and put forward - put in place - a federal-provincial roads program to address some of the concerns, not only for the people - Mr. Speaker, we all talk about the tourism development that came up here in Question Period today. I am certainly looking forward to the Member for Bay of Islands putting forward his survey that he did over the weekend. It will certainly be interesting to see. Coming from a tourism background, I would certainly like to see his report and the study that he did, Mr. Speaker, and give an opportunity to critique that and have a look at it.

Mr. Speaker, it is not only the people who are coming into the Province, that we talk about all the time in relation to the tourism development. It is the people within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people I represent here in the House, the people we all represent here in the House, the 500,000-plus people in this Province who travel over the roads time and time again. I think, as part of this Confederation of Canada, that the federal government should be putting major money forward to address some of the road concerns that we have in this Province, Mr. Speaker. I think that only by that, only by the federal government putting money on the table, and a cost-share agreement with the Province, can we begin to address some of the concerns that we have with the roads in this Province. I think it is very important that we do that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clue up my remarks and say that I want to congratulate the Committee on both sides of the House, members of the Opposition and members of the government who sat on the Committee, for their indulgence in going through the Departments of Transportation and Works and Aboriginal Affairs, the Department of Finance, Treasury Board and Government Services. I certainly wish the three ministers well, whom we dealt with, over the next year into their mandates, to try to address some of the concerns that were not only raised during the Estimates but were raised by the people of the Province now and again, Mr. Speaker. With that, I would like to say thank you once again to the members of the Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, the Chair would like to bring members' attention to some practices that are happening here in the House which are certainly against the rules and regulations of the House.

It has been a common practice this past number of days for members, in their activity in passing back and forth through the House, or exiting the House, to pass between the person who is speaking and the Chair, and that is certainly unparliamentary. It is unparliamentary for members to sit with their backs to the Chair. It is unparliamentary for members to pass between the mace and the Chair. These are common practices that have been happening. Some members are probably not aware of this practice, but I would just like to remind members and ask if they would uphold the long-standing traditions of the Legislature.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

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

I am delighted that you are setting the decorum here as it should be, because this is an hon. House and we must do our best, being elected by the people of this Province, to respect the rules of this House and represent our people well. Some of the behaviour that has been going on here of late calls into question the decorum of this House for certain.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak today on the Government Services Committee. I attended the Estimates for the Government Services and also for Finance and Treasury Board, so I want to speak on those two departments. The Member for The Straits looks like he wants to turn his back on me. I do not know why. I have a lot of important things that he should be listening to.

MR. TAYLOR: I don't have to (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: You have to look at the speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I want to talk about Government Services, first off the mark. I want to relate to this House, I was driving to my district, as I do every weekend, and a week ago Friday, saw an unusual sight. A tandem dump truck, a commercial vehicle, had stopped on the side of the road heading east - I was going west, of course - and there was an entire body of a car, from the front doors to the bonnet, out in the gravel on the side of the road, had flown off the tandem dump truck going east. Can you imagine if that half of a car, a car wreck, had gone through the window of a vehicle? There would be a tragedy on our highway. That vehicle was not doing the proper thing. It did not have any netting over the loose load that was in the top of that truck. Who knows, it was probably over the weight that it should have been carrying. That driver was not following the regulations, to have an entire body of a car wreck come off that vehicle, that dump truck, and it was on the side of the gravel road, and the driver was scurrying, with the hazard lights on the dump truck, trying to get that body of the car wreck off the road. He was the only one in the dump truck, trying to get that off the side of the road so it would not be impeding traffic.

Now that is another reason why our weigh scales should not be closed, as was ordered recently by the Minister of Government Services. I understand, and I was party, when I was questioning the Minister of Government Services in the Estimates Committee about this and I was not satisfied with her answers that night, and I do not think the general public are satisfied with them today.

I understand full well why her own colleague, the Member for Terra Nova, was upset. Issues like closing down the weigh scales, are a life and safety issue, and I think the members of the government have every right to speak out when something comes up that they are not satisfied with. They are representing their people. They are doing it well if they do speak out. I would compliment the Member for Terra Nova for having the good sense to speak up and voice his concerns about this measure taken by the Minister of Government Services. That is one of the things that came up that evening but, I tell you, there has been a lot come up since then.

I had a letter from a business person in my own District of Grand Falls-Buchans, who uses Small Claims Court on a regular basis. Do you know that if you want to register a small claims issue, affidavit, right now, that increase has gone from $20 to $100? Does that concern the members of the general public? It should, because there are lots of small businesses out there that use small claims for trying to collect money. You take, for instance, someone who might write a bad cheque or someone who might owe a grocery store some money. There are all kinds of reasons why someone might want - that have not been paid - to go and use that part of the court system which is Small Claims Court.

Now, if you are going to increase that fee from $20 to $100, that is certainly going to take most of the profit that would have, or most of the revenue, I suppose, that you would have gotten from that very claim itself. So, by just going ahead and making such a huge increase in that fee alone, what does that say to a government who is trying to be business friendly? I do not think so. That is not business friendly; that is a deterrent to business.

I had a young person give me a call, too, about motorcycle licences. They have gone up from $50 to $75 to licence a motorcycle. Now, most of those people licencing a motorcycle are probably first-time drivers, age sixteen, young people who are just going to drive a motorcycle for the first time. Who is going to pay for that? Not the young person, but the parent. That is a massive increase to put on families out there today.

Then you look at the other ones, the park fees. Everyone is talking about the park fees. My colleague from Corner Brook just mentioned a few minutes ago, when he was in Question Period, about fees that people were paying, park fees and showers and so on in a park. Just imagine, if you are in to visit somebody - just say that a family might invite some of their family members for the weekend and someone unexpectedly drops by and they want to take a shower. They have to go out now and make themselves known to the campground attendant and say: I am not with the party registered, so here is $5. I have my cake of soap in my hand and now I want to get a shower.

That is a bit ridiculous, isn't it? Is this government promoting gravel pit camping? That is what I would like to know. Is this government promoting gravel pit camping? Because our former Administration actually abandoned, did away with, gravel pit camping because it was not sanitary. We had environmental problems, traffic problems - you name it - from gravel pit camping. It was not a proper thing to do, and at that time it was an encouragement for people to use our provincial parks. By increasing those fees, and everything that goes with it, it is certainly not an encouragement to use our parks. I wonder sometimes, was this government really thinking seriously about the repercussions of increasing those fees?

A matter has come to my attention over the weekend, and it is very disconcerting to me and anyone who is from Central Newfoundland. I know the Department of Natural Resources and Tourism do look after trying to promote outdoor hunting, our wildlife package and so on, and DFO has the responsibility of our inland waters, but it has come to my attention over the weekend that DFO are now going to be reducing enforcement on the Exploits River, and I am sure every river in our Province. Anyone who is familiar with the Exploits River, it is one of the best salmon fishing rivers in all of North America. I know that enforcement was handed out to the private sector and DFO now are going to reduce eight enforcement officers on the Exploits River from Red Indian Lake to Peters River in Botwood, from eight officers down to four.

When you look at that matter, there have been millions and millions and millions of dollars spent at salmonid enhancement through ERMA in Grand Falls-Windsor at the fishway. It is treasure. People who see it for the first time are in awe when they see what they have been able to do to get salmon to come back to the Exploits River - and to see now how this is going to be downgraded, that they are going to go from eight enforcement officers to four. One of those officers is a supervisor and the other three are regular staff. I have been informed that there will be no overtime paid out to enforcement officers this summer. What a shame.

Here we are, in Grand Falls-Windsor, next year, celebrating 100 years of the community of Grand Falls-Windsor, where we revolutionized, I guess, the industrial movement, had our first paper mill in the Province in 1905, and our Exploits River has been touted all over the world as one of the best salmon fishing rivers in all of North America, and DFO are going to now reduce enforcement from eight to four officers. Even though it is not a provincial issue directly, it is indirectly, and I want to encourage this government to look into this matter and press upon DFO that there should be money set aside for enforcement. It is such a valuable resource, the fish, the salmon in our inland waters, I want to encourage this government to get some action on the go.

We saw our own Premier stand here today and talk about his action with 5 Wing Goose Bay. Now, so far it has been inaction, because even though the matter is connected through the federal government, he did not have the foresight to take a federal government representative with him when he travelled to Europe to talk about 5 Wing Goose Bay. Is he satisfied to let our inland resources, our salmon fishing, go the same way, or is he going to take action and put that on his agenda, to talk to the federal government about it? I certainly hope he does.

It is clear to see that there are rumblings within the Progressive Conservative caucus. We saw, today, the Member for St. Barbe stand on his feet and he had a petition from residents in his own district who are very concerned about the closure of rural clinics on the Northern Peninsula. He listed three communities. They were Parsons Pond, Cow Head and Daniel's Harbour. I know those communities, I have been up there several times. It is natural that people in those communities would be concerned. They are concerned. Most of them are senior population, many of them don't have access to a vehicle, a lot of them are not feeling well all the time, and if they have to have these community clinics now close and travel to a bigger centre, that is going to be reason for them to leave their own communities. Another nail in the coffin of rural Newfoundland; that is all I can say.

MR. DENINE: Is that all you have to say?

MS THISTLE: That is not all I can say, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl. I have plenty to say about other things, and I will use that time. No matter how much time I had to speak, there wouldn't be enough time to talk about this Budget and the pain that it has inflicted on people.

MR. REID: That is the fellow who said he was delighted to legislate the workers back to work. He said he was delighted (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: In fact, he is the same member who was delighted to stand and speak to the back-to-work legislation. The back-to-work legislation is one of the things that this government promised. There have been several that they have promised, and every one of them are broken promises. No layoffs! Remember that one? No massive layoffs!

Also, under Government Services, there was the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, and under Treasury Board is the Public Service Commission. It was during that evening, when I questioned the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that I discovered that the glossy ads that were in The Telegram for hiring executive personnel for the new Department of Business, and particularly the deputy minister and the information officer. That was done through the Public Service Commission. So, when you want to do something like that you give it to the Public Service Commission so it will be sort of arms-length away from the Premier's Office. But we knew what was going on. I found out that morning when I questioned the Public Service Commission. I found out that there was a private consulting firm hired to go out on a national chase to hire a deputy minister and key executive people for that new Department of Business. Can you imagine? This private consulting company was being paid $200 per hour. That was to place the ads, look over the resumes, do the interviews, make the recommendations to the Premier and then go through and monitor their progress during their probationary period and so on.

Do you know something? There was an alarming fact that came out by the Minister of Finance last week. He stood on this feet last Thursday here in this House and was pleased to stand and remind all the people in Newfoundland and Labrador that Standard and Poor's rating service affirmed the Province's credit rating at A-. Now, what does that tell me? That tells the Province a lot of things, that we were not on the brink of bankruptcy as he reported. Not at all. In fact, Moody' and Dominion bond services gave us the same good rating for the past three years, the first time since Confederation, and it happened under a Liberal Administration. So, we were not in the terrible shape that the Minister of Finance reported earlier last fall. Not at all. He did that so he could go on with his agenda to cut the jobs and bring in the bad medicine that he has done. But one thing they did succeed in, because it was already in The Telegram, and that was the report by Stats Canada that every province in Canada had an increase in retail sales in the month of March, 2004, except - which province do you think? It was Newfoundland and Labrador, the first time in four years. We did not have an increase in retail sales. Do you know whose fault that is? The Premier's fault. He poisoned the atmosphere January 5 and he has been poisoning it everyday since.

On October 21 they were elected - I almost forget that. I want to forget that date. Well, the first day of summer is coming upon us pretty soon and that is June 21. This new government will be in office eight months at that particular time. If there is anybody out there who can tell me one positive thing that this government has done to enhance the life or the well-being of residents of this Province in the past eight months, I would like for them to stand right up and tell me, because they cannot do it. They have poisoned the economy. Stats Canada confirmed it. They have done that. They are trying to poison the economy in Grand Falls-Windsor that was leading in economic growth outside of St. John's.

MR. REID: They are trying to destroy it.

MS THISTLE: They are trying to destroy it, really. I do not know why more government members are not standing up for their districts.

MR. REID: They are all afraid of him. (Inaudible) in Cabinet.

MS THISTLE: They are all afraid to stand up to the Premier and the Cabinet but, I will tell you, your voters are out there watching you. If you do not think they are, they are. They tell me.

Anyone who would move the school board office from Grand Falls-Windsor to Gander with no criteria - cannot even defend your own argument. There is something wrong here. You do not have any criteria made up for the health care consolidation. Just a whim, that is how you are planning to get by.

At least there are a couple of people here now willing - we have already seen a couple of people today and last week stand up for their constituents. I tell you, if you do not stand up for your constituents you know where you will be the next time that an election is called. You will not be sitting in this House.

There are concerns out there about health care. The Member for St. Barbe stood up and recounted about the possible so-called realignment of health care in this Province. He is concerned. He is from a rural district. Now, the people from St. John's are not going to feel it. If there are jobs lost in here you are not going to feel it but, I can tell you, one or two jobs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador is felt pretty hard.

These are some of the broken promises and false claims made by the Tories in their Blue Book. There will be no layoffs. There was massive layoffs. We will respect the collective bargaining process. You have destroyed the collective bargaining process. You made a commitment to save consumers money by implementing insurance reforms. Now, what government implements legislation and then goes on a spree for consultation? You do this kind of stuff first and you hear from the people, you hear from insurance companies, you hear from the stakeholders and then you write the legislation accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not take advantage of it. I will just be quick.

In fact, the next one was: to be open and accountable about the finances of the Province. We found that we had to go through the Freedom of Information to find out about the Province's finances. When we found out about it - all we found out from the Minister of Finance was that he, himself, was giving a false impression of the books. In fact, padding the figures. So they have not been accountable and they are not the government that people voted for.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to stand today to speak to the Budget because it is my understanding it is the last opportunity before this bill passes that I will get to speak to the Budget. But before I do, I would like to ramble if I could.

Today we are in the midst of a federal election and if you watch the national news, as I do, you will see right across the country that there is a lot of apathy with regard to politics today. Apathy on behalf of some - in fact, they feel that there is no point in voting, while others are totally disappointed, disillusioned, and, to a large degree, poisoned with politicians. Being a politician, I guess, leads you to wonder why people would be like that, but it is not difficult if you see what has happened across the country in the last little while, in that when individuals are running for office they often make a tremendous number of promises that they know they have no desire, no commitment to fulfil once they are elected. This happened recently in Ontario, with the Liberal government in Ontario, when the Premier - the now-Premier, who was Leader of the Opposition - went across Ontario and promised people the world only to come in with a Budget last week that basically striped every service that government provided to the people of that Province.

Mr. Speaker, that is not unlike what this Premier - the Premier who we have today in Newfoundland and Labrador - did for the three years that he sat as Leader of the Opposition in this House. In fact, he sat just right here. Mr. Speaker, at that time, for those three years, there was nothing that the government, of which I was apart, could do that was right. Everything that we did to grow the economy in the Province was never good enough for that individual. He could do better. The reason he said he could do better is because he was a businessman himself, a very successful businessman and lawyer, who had done very well himself in the private sector and that he had made untold millions of dollars. He certainly gave the impression to everybody out there that, given the opportunity, he would do the same for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, in so doing, and leading up to the months prior to the election, the Premier went around this Province and promised people the world. The reason why people are so disgruntled today and feel like they have been so deceived by this Premier is that since that time he has broken everyone of his promises.

I will give you an example of the kinds of things that he promised when he went around the Province. He went to Grand Falls-Windsor and said that they would proceed with the cancer clinic. He went to Grand Bank and gave a commitment. It is on record in Grand Bank. One of the reporters recorded it, where the Premier went to Grand Bank and said: If I am elected, I will build your hospital. Where is the hospital today? It has been cancelled. They are going to take down the steel. Not only are they going to take down the steel, but it is my understanding he is going to send in the bulldozers to bulldoze the footings of that building into the ground in Grand Bank.

He went to Fogo Island in my district and he basically promised them the world. In fact, at one point, not only was he not going to increase ferry rates, he was going to eliminate them. To go a step further, it is my understanding that he told, or at least the candidate who was running against me in that district, one of his candidates told people that not only would they eliminate ferry rates, he even talked about building a causeway to Fogo Island.

Mr. Speaker, some of the government members opposite laugh. Yes, that is what they did on Fogo Island because they saw that as an election promise. They heard promises like that before from Tory governments, that they never achieved.

Mr. Speaker, my point is that, when you go out and make promises, people expect you to fulfill them. Mr. Speaker, I have never made promises during an election. I do not know if you have, but I have never made promises during an election that I knew I could not fulfill. For that reason, I only made one promise. That was, that I would work to the best of my ability and as hard as I possibly could for the people of my district. When asked about individual issues, I said: I will try my best to achieve that for you. Never once did I say we were going to eliminate ferry rates. Never once did I say we were going to build you a causeway. Never once did I make any commitment that I knew I could not fulfill, unlike the Premier of the Province when he went to Fogo Island.

Not only did he make commitments like that, Mr. Speaker, in my district; he made them all around the Province. The biggest one he made, I guess, and it came up during the election, when he took out ads to say that this was misinformation by us when we were government, was that he would not gut the civil service. We got wind of this during the election that he was, indeed, talking about eliminating 25 per cent of the civil service. He came on open line shows, he took out ads, saying that there would be no layoffs in the public service.

Well, Mr. Speaker, just after being elected for five or six months he came out and said, in a television interview that he gave - the first evidence that we saw from the Premier that he was not going to live up to his commitments was when he came out and said there would be a wage freeze for two years. Obviously, nobody in the public sector wanted a wage freeze for two years. When they cried out about it, his next response was: If you do not take the wage freeze, I am going to have to lay off 2,000 civil servants. Guess what happened, Mr. Speaker? Not only did he get the wage freeze, but instead of laying off 2,000 civil servants he laid off 4,000.

You talk about commitments; you talk about this Budget. I saw members opposite stand in this Legislature in the past few weeks and brag that they were proud to be a part of a government that was doing so much in the Budget. Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me a few minutes, I will list some of the things that they are doing in this Budget. They started -

MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible) the truth.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, can you do something to muzzle the Member for St. John's Centre when he is over there telling me to tell the truth. I am telling the truth. If he wants to get up and argue with what I am saying, I will let him stand.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, not to be distracted - because they do not like to hear the truth because it hurts, especially when they were out there spreading what they believed to be the truth no longer than seven months ago, only to find out now that the people of the Province know who told the truth, and it was not the crowd opposite.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing that they did in this Budget was eliminate 4,000 jobs in the civil service. They gutted 4,000 jobs in the civil service. Therefore, anyone who is now graduating from Memorial University or a post-secondary institution cannot look to government for a job because they are taking 4,000 out of there in the next few years. They cut 475 teaching positions. They are cutting 475 teaching positions in this Budget as well. Just think about that, Mr. Speaker, because it was only a year ago, exactly a year ago, that the Minister of Education, who now talks so proudly about his Budget, was sitting right here when he told me that the elimination of one teaching position in this Province was one too many. So, one was too many but 475 is not enough for the crowd opposite. Just imagine the impact that is going to have on the students of this Province, especially those who live in small rural communities such that I represent in my District of Twillingate & Fogo. You have 4,000 public servants gone, 475 teaching positions cut and, who knows? That could double next year this time, Mr. Speaker.

They talked about how we did not do enough for post-secondary education a year ago, and this year, as soon as they are elected, what did they do? They told the University that they have to save - that they have to save. In other words they were not giving them $2 million. They had to cut $2 million from the budget over there and they had to cut another $2 million at the College of the North Atlantic. Now, that was only two or three items. The next thing they did is, they went to Grand Bank and they told the people - no, they would not go to Grand Bank because they would not have the gall to go to Grand Bank and tell the people down there. They said it, the Minister of Finance said it in his Budget, he was cancelling the hospital in Grand Bank. They are taking down the steel and bulldozing the footings into the ground.

When it came to the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor, which my colleague here from Grand Falls-Buchans speaks so eloquently and so passionately about, when they talked about the cancer clinic prior to the election, nobody ever said that there was anything wrong with building a cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor because it was needed, not just for that area but for all of Central Newfoundland, all of Central Newfoundland, of which my district is a part, and which the district of the Member for Windsor-Springdale is a part. The people in the central region of this Province have really nowhere to go for cancer treatments except for the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor. They have nowhere to go now because this government has cancelled that project, or at least - no, cancelled it outright. In fact, it was only a week ago that I saw them taking the sign down. How depressing, how sad it must be for anyone suffering from that dreaded disease in Central Newfoundland and Labrador, to actually see the carpenters up with their electric drills pulling the screws out to dismantle the sign, a commitment to the people of the central region that this government just does not care about. Haul that down. Take down any remnants of what the Liberal government put up, and erase it from their memory. They had to take down the sign in Grand Falls-Windsor, of the cancer clinic.

Then they went to Fogo Island, and when the Premier himself was in my district during the election he promised the people of Fogo Island - we have a brand new $14 million health care facility on the Island that is supposed to be open right now. The building is finished. It was supposed to be opened. During the election, when the Premier went there and they asked him: Will you open the hospital on the Island? he said: Definitely, no doubt about it. You have your hospital built and we are going to open it. Then, through his PR director, on a chance meeting in Gander with a CBC reporter, when questioned on the hospital on Fogo Island, the PR director say: Oh, no, we are only opening ten of the twenty beds.

Just think about that, Mr. Speaker, ten of the twenty beds. They are probably not going to open the chronic care beds that are so much needed on the Island, so the sick elderly people could die at home rather than have to leave the Island and go elsewhere in the Province, because they know that once they leave they will not be coming back, at least not be coming back alive. They are gutting that hospital.

Mr. Speaker, they cancelled the school in L'Anse-au-Loup, and I visited L'Anse-au-Loup and they need a school. In fact, it would have been built only we wanted to save money. Rather than go to tender, I went up there last year, as the Minister of Education, and asked if we could look at another site because the site was going to be costly to develop. I guess, in hindsight I wouldn't have done it, because I would have had the school built. Because the people in L'Anse-au-Loup agreed that, to save money for government, we would examine another site, guess what happens? Because we delayed it and they elected a PC government, that government says: We will never build a school in L'Anse-au-Loup.

They postponed school construction in Corner Brook. They postponed school construction in Learys Brook here in St. John's, a school that was build for about 350 people and now I understand it has 475. Yet, the Minister of Education goes there last week and talks about: Oh, it has a great learning environment. Well, I wonder if he checked some of the closets where students are being taught, because that is what they told me is out there. I know that the Member for St. John's North doesn't agree with the Minister of Education when he says there is a great learning environment in Learys Brook.

What really bothered me and what really galled me about all this, Mr. Speaker, is that they didn't postpone the school in the Minister of Finance's district. They didn't postpone the school in the Minister of Finance's district even though it wasn't on the priority list when Learys Brook was put on the priority list, it wasn't a priority for government when the school at Corner Brook, Herdman Collegiate, was put on the priority list, and it wasn't a priority for the school board here when the school in L'Anse-au-Loup was first proposed. One has to wonder why all of the sudden it becomes a priority when the Minister of Finance finds that there is a school needed in his district. All of the sudden everything else is postponed or cancelled, but yet the school in the Minister of Finance's district proceeds.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what you would call it, but I guess if I said what that really was you would have me thrown out of the House, so I won't say it. I honestly believe that a lot of people who are listening today know what it is, Mr. Speaker. If you are talking about political patronage, that is too light a word to call it.

Mr. Speaker, he also cancelled the auditorium in Goose Bay, an auditorium that the federal government is going to cost-share with us, an auditorium that was planned. It was only because of the lateness of the season last year that we couldn't get the footings in and the ground prepared for it, because the school was just opening. That would have been built. Anything that the Liberal Government decided they were going to do, this crowd has to eliminate, erase it from people's memories. I don't know why they have to take footings down. I guess they are afraid it will be a reminder to the people of the area that they were lied to, because that is what they tell me. The people on Fogo Island tell me they were lied to by the Premier. Those are the words they use, Mr. Speaker. I know they are not parliamentary in this House and I am not saying them. My constituents are telling me that the Premier lied to them and continues to lie to them.

Mr. Speaker, what do they do after that? They close twenty Human Resource and Employment Offices around the Province. They didn't close them in St. John's and they didn't close them in Corner Brook and they didn't close them in Gander and they didn't close them in Clarenville and they didn't close them in Grand Falls-Windsor. Where did they close them? They closed them in the most rural towns in this Province. They closed the one on Fogo Island and they are saying now that the people on Fogo Island can go to Gander or they can go to Twillingate, not to mention the fact that besides driving across Fogo Island you have to take a ferry for an hour and then drive an hour and a half to Gander or an hour and a half to Grand Falls. No, never mind the inconvenience that is caused to the people on Fogo Island or Twillingate Island or any other island in this Province because the philosophy of the Tory government is that you should not be there anyway, and if we pull the services out, maybe they will go with them. Maybe they will move. Because the plan over opposite, Mr. Speaker, is simple. Pick four or five large towns in the Province and then gut every small one that is there and force them to go into these larger communities. That is the plan of the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, the man who wrote the Blue Book for the Premier. That is his plan and I say God forbid. Watch him, I would say to people who live in districts like mine. Watch him, because if you close you eyes or turn your head or go to sleep you do not know what you might lose from the crowd opposite. I will give you an example.

We built a twenty-bed facility on Fogo Island. We - and when I say we, the Liberal government - built a twenty-bed facility on Fogo Island. Every part of that hospital was tendered out, including the twenty beds, I might add, including the twenty beds. The twenty beds came into the Province from the mainland a month or so ago. They were delivered to the hospital in Fogo Island and they were set up because the contractor on the mainland did not know that Premier Williams and his band of - I cannot say it again - merry men had cancelled ten of the twenty beds. Guess what they did?

MS THISTLE: Tell us.

MR. REID: Two Wednesdays ago on the last ferry going to Fogo Island, on a Wednesday afternoon, a van arrived, got aboard the ferry and got off on the Island. Nobody knew who they were. Nobody noticed because a lot of traffic flows to and from the Island. Do you know what they did, Mr. Speaker? They went up to the hospital after dark that night with a key from the main office in Gander and they stripped and dismantled twenty beds in that brand new facility, piled them aboard a van and were gone the next morning on the first ferry. The people on Fogo Island did not even know about it until some of the workers, who were cleaning up the building, went up the next morning and saw ten beds gone. So, when I tell the people out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, in the small communities and the isolated communities, sleep with one eye open because you might wake up to find that something else has been stripped or stolen from your community by this government.

MS THISTLE: Despicable.

MR. REID: It is absolutely despicable.

They closed the twenty-eight HRE offices. They closed the weigh scales in Port aux Basques and in Foxtrap. Why would you close the weigh scales in Port aux Basques, an area that sees 80,000 transport trucks coming and leaving the Province every year? I mean it just does not make sense, except for the fact, I suppose, that they want to eliminate Port aux Basques and drive the ferry into Argentia. Maybe that is the plan. Maybe that is the plan, to take it out of a Liberal district and shove it into a Tory district. Maybe that is the plan.

They cancelled the driver examinations. The driver examiner used to visit Fogo Island twice a month. He used to visit Twillingate twice a month. It was for the students out there in the area, sixteen-year olds. If they wanted to write their drivers test and get their licence, rather than have to spend a day or a day-and-a-half to go to Gander or to Lewisporte, they could do it on the Island at a cost that was very little. They had to do away with that because they had to move that. Now the people in my district have to drive to Lewisporte for that service, a service that we had been providing, I suppose, for the last twenty years. I say shameful, Mr. Speaker.

They also downgraded highway depots, and they did it in your district, probably, Mr. Speaker. If they did not, I would be very surprised. Then again, I suppose they could not downgrade the highways depot over in Victoria Cove. God forbid, we would not be able to travel the road. I drove down through it just last week and the roads in your district have to be as bad as anywhere in this Province. In fact, when I went to my district last week people said jokingly - but afterwards told me they were serious - the roads were so bad after it rained that the ducks were actually landing in the potholes out there. The ducks were landing in the potholes on the roads.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Tourism talks about tourism. It is fine to talk about tourism and have people come to Newfoundland and Labrador, but they better stay on the Avalon Peninsula. I hope they do not try to go down through Gander Bay, Mr. Speaker, with a Winnebago, like the Premier has. I will guarantee you, the Premier drove around the Island last year when he was looking for votes but she will not go around the Island this year. I will guarantee you, she will not go in through your district or into mine because there would be nothing left to her when she come out. Imagine! Ducks landing in the potholes. Sure you have neither bit of pavement left in your district, Mr. Speaker. I cannot believe that you are not speaking out against it.

They are going to close highway depots. They are going to postpone the opening of The Rooms. Yet, in their tourism booklet they advertise: Come and visit The Rooms, a brand new museum that cost $65 million in St. John's, Newfoundland. That have that cancelled. Who knows when that will ever open again. They cancelled the arts centre in Corner Brook, in the Premier's own district. Why? Because the Liberals promised it. The Liberals were going to build it, and that is reason enough for this Premier to cancel it.

What else did they do? Mr. Speaker, they raised the fees on 160 services that they provide to the people of this Province. Just imagine, in one fell swoop! The Minister of Finance is over there grinning at me and heckling me. Raise the fees on 160 services that government provides. How much do they charge now for a licence plate? It went from $120 to $180?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that's for a sticker, not for a plate.

AN HON. MEMBER: $140 to $180.

MR. REID: It went from $140 to $180. They have increased - in fact, Mr. Speaker, they tell me right now, this is the first time in the history of the Province that you have to pay for a death certificate. They charge you for a birth certificate when you come into the world and they even get you after you are dead, Mr. Speaker. They charge you now for a death certificate after you are going out. Then they -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The Minister of Finance finds that all very amusing. He is over there laughing away. Make no wonder we are in the state we are in, in this Province. God help us -

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

MR. SPEAKER (Harding): A point of order, the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member, I think, is getting carried away there. They were the government that taxed funerals and put a tax on it back some time ago. Now they are talking about us charging a fee for a certificate. One fraction of the cost. Probably one-hundredth of the cost of the tax they put on people a few years ago.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He has been doing that here for the last two months, Mr. Speaker. All he is trying to do is take my time from speaking because he does not want the people out around the Province to hear the truth. He has stood time and time and time again on points of order and you have said to him, Mr. Speaker, no point of order. We know that, Mr. Speaker.

Besides the highway's depots being reduced, besides The Rooms being closed and the fees going up, they cut the Municipal Operating Grants to the larger towns around the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo that his twenty minutes has elapsed.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, can I have a bit of leave now that the Minister of Finance cut me off?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. REID: I see the Minister of Finance will not give me leave so I guess I will have to sit down. He does not like to hear the truth, Mr. Speaker, and he is afraid that I might be telling it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words, at this point of the Budget Debate, on the Departmental Estimates for the general government sectors. This includes a lot of government departments, from the Consolidate Fund Services, which looks after the government's money, and the pension plans and all of that. A lot of opportunity for debate and discussion today. I have had a few opportunities to talk about the numbers as they are, the reality of the numbers as when you analyze them properly, and show that the general government debt of the Province has not, in fact, been rising dramatically; which has been attempted to be pointed out by the government.

If you look at what I call the real deficit, the money that taxpayers are required to pay back. The Total Provincial Direct Debt number, which is found in the Budget, Exhibit V in the Estimates, page xvii, you will see that the Provincial Direct Debt is about $6.5 billion. It has being higher. It was $6.69 billion in 2003. In 2002, it was higher still. It was $6.7 billion, and in 2001 it was higher than it is today. Of the last five years listed here, the only time it was lower than today was in 2000, when it was $6.2 billion. So, it has gone from $6.2 billion to $6.59 billion in five years. It has been higher and it has gone down lower. This is the money that we borrowed based on the deficits and this is where we are today.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Oh, the Minister of Finance is a great hand for the numbers, I must say. What the Minister of Finance wants to talk about is assets as opposed to debts. I think that is a good idea. I think it is a great idea, Mr. Speaker, that when we are talking about our debts we should also talk about our assets. One of the assets that we have is the Sinking Fund. The previous government decided to sell some of them off. There is actually $1 billion in Sinking Funds too. We have the $6.59 billion in debt and we have a $1 billion Sinking Fund that goes against that. Really, we should subtract that $1 billion from the $6.5 billion and we come down to $5.5 billion. If you take the assets away from the debt, it does not look so big any more.

I will give the minister his point. His point is, that number used to be higher. It was not higher last year. It was higher the year before by a couple of hundred million. It was higher by about $400 million, slightly less than $400 million, in 2000. You know, when you start looking at both of those numbers together you still do not see a heckuva lot of variation. Maybe as much as closing in on $1 billion over the five years, maybe that much, but then when you look at the little notes down at the bottom - you have to look at the little notes, too - the little notes on the bottom say, "Between the years 2000 and 2004, the Province borrowed a total of $778 million for the purpose of making special payments to address the unfunded liabilities of its pension plan." That money is still there too. It is on the books as a debt, or a reduction in the amount of Sinking Funds, but it is all there in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is there on the other side of the books in the pension plan that is there earning interest and there to provide for pensions down the road. That money is there.

In addition to that, we have an additional amount of debt called Crown Corporation and Other Debt. We have a $1.4 billion utility debt. That is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro owes about $1.4 billion. In fact, that has increased by $400 million. I believe that is the money that was borrowed and invested to bring the Cat Arm project on stream - or, I am sorry, Granite Lake, to bring Granite Lake on stream. That money is now on the books. There is an asset to go with that, I say to hon. members. Yes, we owe $400 million but we have an asset that goes with that. We owe $1.4 billion but we have an asset in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to go with that. When you buy a house, when most people buy a house, they do not come up with $150,000 or $100,000 out of their cheque book and buy a house. They go to the bank and they get a mortgage. They buy the house. They have a down payment, they get a mortgage and they own the house. They might owe a mortgage, but they own the house to go with it.

It is very important that we keep that sort of stuff in mind, but I have given that speech, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk today about another aspect of the general government sector, and that is in Government Services, because we have before the House today a piece of legislation introduced by the Minister of Government Services, and that talks about insurance reform. There has been a great outcry in this Province in the last while about insurance reform and there are reasons for it. They have to do with the premiums that people are paying for automobile insurance.

I want to review a little bit of that history for the members and those watching, Mr. Speaker. The reason that this all came about was because of the incredibly high insurance premiums that people were paying in this Province and elsewhere. In fact, if you look to what happened in this Province from 1992 to 2003, you saw that insurance rates increased in this Province by 127.4 per cent; 127.4 per cent over that eleven year period. That was an astounding amount of money. Along with that, we had a recognition that there was something happening in the insurance industry itself. In fact, after an increase of rates going over that eleven year period, in fact, Newfoundland and Labrador rates for private insurers was 63 per cent higher in one year. Across the country, the rate changes in those provinces that had private insurers hovered between 30 per cent and 65 per cent. Newfoundland and Labrador was not the highest at 63 per cent. The highest was actually New Brunswick, at 70 per cent. Alberta was there at 59.4 per cent; Prince Edward Island at 58.5 per cent; Nova Scotia at 65 per cent, a little higher than us, but we are well in there in the high end of the increases.

Going along with that, Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, there was also a certain kind of profit being taken in the insurance industry. For example, The Globe and Mail reported on September 18, 2003 - that was last fall, last September, just before the election was called - Canadian insurance companies have netted more than $1.1 billion in profits while instituting premium increases have jacked up rates by up to 70 per cent. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada's newly released quarterly analysis, the industry made $466 million in profit in the first quarter and $666 million in the second, an increase of nearly 500 per cent over last year. That was last September, a 500 per cent increase in profit.

Now, that did not slow down because on March 16 the CBC reported that Canada's insurance companies are coming off a record year with $2.63 billion in profit in 2003, a 673 per cent increase over the previous year. So, in 2003 they made 673 per cent more than they made in the year before. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker: What was the reaction of the Tory Party in Newfoundland and Labrador last August when these numbers were going around, when we had not released our policy at that point but the figures were out there in terms of what had happened to the insurance in that period of time? This information that I was just referring to on the rates in this Province is available from Statistics Canada. They looked at automobile insurance rates across the country, and you could tell the difference.

In September, the Consumers' Association of Canada came out with the same kind of numbers, showing us that, across the country, Newfoundland and Labrador had extremely high rates of automobile insurance. What is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, they compared it, and so did we, to what was happening in the public system. We have had lots of experience with the public system in this country. British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan have public systems. Quebec has sort of a mixed system, a mixed bag, so we cannot really tell a lot from that, but if you look at the public systems compared to the private systems and compared the rate increases over that same period that I am talking about, from 1992 to 2003, we have seen rate increases of an average of 3.8 per cent, for example, in British Columbia, per year; an average of 3.8 per cent in Saskatchewan; an average of 4 per cent in Manitoba. The three public systems increased by that average over eleven years, less than 4 per cent in each case, or 4 per cent or less. That compares to Newfoundland and Labrador's increase, annual increase over that period, of 11.6 per cent. So, we ended up with a total increase over that period of eleven years of 227 per cent. That is an astounding increase over that period of time. I am sorry, that is not the right figure - a 127 per cent increase. The Consumer Price Index, if you looked at 1992, is 100; it would be 227.

We have, on the one hand, enormous profit increases in the insurance company, and on the other hand we have enormous rate increases in the private sector. What did this government propose when they were in Opposition last August? They proposed a 20 per cent decrease in rates. They proposed -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not there.

MR. HARRIS: It is not there in the legislation. They proposed to get rid of the discrimination between men and women, in rates. It is not there in the legislation. They proposed to say: We are going to make insurance companies open their books. It is not there in the legislation. It did not happen. They did not even ask them.

When the Public Utilities Commission went and had a look at this, they did not have access to the books of these companies. They looked at various claims, they looked at various increases, they looked at all sorts of things, except the books and the profits of the company. The discrimination on gender is still there, the discrimination based on age is still there, and that was part of the promise that this party, in Opposition, brought to the electorate last fall, told the people that they were going to bring in and have refused to do it.

What we have so far, Mr. Speaker, is something that is going to be totally unacceptable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The 20 per cent savings that they promised is actually, maybe - their projection for the PUB is 9 per cent for the insurance that most people only have. I mean, this may be a little known fact, but most people in this Province actually only have public liability. So most people would only get a 9 per cent savings. They projected savings of 20 per cent, 23 per cent or 24 per cent, on comprehensive, the smallest part of your policy. Instead of being $100 a year, it will be $80 a year, or instead of being $115 it will be $92 or something like that. The smallest part of your policy, and most people who are insured do not actually have comprehensive, because they can't afford it. Because they are paying such a high premium on the public liability, they cannot afford to get their comprehensive and the other bells and whistles.

The other thing that happens, Mr. Speaker, in places like Newfoundland and Labrador, or other places that have private insurance, is that there are far more people who are driving without insurance. What is the solution? The solution that this government has is twofold. Number one, we are going to punish them more. We are going to make it even more punitive to drive without insurance, even though a lot of people are without insurance because they cannot afford it or they are thrown into the facility and they are stuck with operating outside the law. I am not condoning that, Mr. Speaker, I am saying that is the result of the kind of policies that we have. To make the penalties even higher is, frankly, only going to penalize those people who are already driving without insurance.

What happens in the public system, Mr. Speaker? In the public system you have very few, extremely few, people driving without insurance. There are two reasons for that. Number one, it is cheaper and therefore it is more accessible and therefore they don't have to take the risk of driving without insurance.

The second reason: In a Province like British Columbia, for example, they have integrated into the Motor Registration system and the Minister of Government Services is also responsible for that. They have the insurance system integrated into the Motor Registration system. So you cannot get yourself a set of plates. The plates and the policy go hand in hand. If there is a car out there with no plates on, it doesn't take very long before that car is stopped. You don't see cars driving around without plates, because the plates show that there is a policy in place. If your insurance runs out, if you don't pay your insurance, the plates have to be returned. If you don't return them, they will send the police looking for the plates, because you are now driving without insurance and without a registered vehicle. By integrating these two systems you have very, very few people driving without insurance, and the people who were formerly, or would be in a private system, uninsured drivers, are actually paying a premium and they are contributing to the cost of insurance for everybody. That is another way the premiums go down.

We have demonstrated, Mr. Speaker, in information that we have released to the public over the last six months, starting with the election period and the pre-election period, a projected savings of 25 per cent to 30 per cent in premiums. We have done that based on analysis of the BC model, an analysis of the history, and the trends in other provinces where this has happened. We have done that based on our knowledge of the overhead that occurs in private systems versus the public system. We have seen studies, Mr. Speaker, that show that in the private system the overhead and costs are approximately 27 per cent to 29 per cent; 27 per cent to 29 per cent because you are keeping the head offices of all these insurance companies going. You are providing for administrative services for all these offices, you are providing for office space, for staff, duplication of all of the activity that goes with insurance companies, and it is more expensive and duplication takes place. In the public system, there is a variation between 6 per cent and 8 per cent in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and 15 per cent in British Columbia where part of the cost is commissions that are paid to private insurers.

Our numbers, our understanding and our analysis of this was, in fact, endorsed. They did not endorse our party, but they endorsed our party's position back in September, when they released, in this Province and elsewhere, a study done on forty Canadian cities and ten provinces showing that, in fact, the best rates and the cheapest rates were in the public system. They made a number of findings, the key finding of which was that the public auto insurance systems offer the lowest rates for consumers. They found that the rates were consistent between Canada's public automobile systems.

Finding number ten, very interesting: Under private automobile systems, good young male drivers pay more than bad older drivers with high-priced vehicles. What does that mean? What it means, Mr. Speaker, is that under the current system, if I happen to be a very good young male driver, I am paying the same premium as a very bad young male driver, so my record is irrelevant in many respects. If you have two or three accidents, it is going to go up astronomically, by the way - astronomically! - but even with no accidents I am put in a category with other young male drivers, and I would have to pay an extremely high rate, just because of my age and because of my gender. You would pay a very high premium, a higher premium than you might have for an older driver who has a higher priced vehicle, a more powerful vehicle and perhaps with a bad driving record. That person is probably a higher risk, in many respects, but the premium is the same.

Under the public system, Mr. Speaker, your rate of insurance depends on your own personal driving history. Yes, it goes higher and there is an opportunity for it to go down, but it is a system that works, Mr. Speaker, and delivers consistently according to the Consumers' Association of Canada, consistently the lowest rates in the country.

What we really need to see, Mr. Speaker, is a kind of study - not the PUB who are going to have limited access to information - but what we need is the kind of study that took place in New Brunswick with an all-party committee of this House, so there is no partisanship involved, and that we have expertise available to that committee and a full set of public hearings across the Province like they had in New Brunswick. Let the people see the numbers, let the people see the facts and let them have some input into what kind of system we are going to have, not just the PUB making a report on four or five different kinds of insurance. That is all very interesting. I am not saying we should not do that, but if we are really serious about the best system for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we already know that public systems produce the best rates, so what we really should do is ask a select committee of this House to go around the Province, to get the expertise that they need, give them the resources to do that -

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: If I may have thirty seconds, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to conclude?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is the kind of proposal, and that is the kind of operation, that is going to produce results. It did in New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker. They came back with a final report in April describing the kind of public system that the people of New Brunswick want and the kind of system that would work for them. They presented that to the Legislature and we think that the New Brunswick government is going to implement such a system and so they should. We should do the kind of study that needs to be done here, instead of taking the assumption that somebody said somewhere along the line that we cannot really afford it in one Province, the economies of the scale are not there. If they are there in New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker, I think they are here as well. Let's put that one to rest right away and let's set up our own committee, look into ourselves and come to our own conclusions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the Government Services Concurrence Debate. That is what we are doing, I believe, here in the Legislature this afternoon. I want to look at a few of the ways this particular Budget has affected the Province as a whole and in my district in particular, because it does have an impact, more so, probably, in a rural area than you would in an urban area.

I think, first of all, of the government's desire to close a number of HRE offices. I think twenty of them were announced, and in my district we were not spared. There was an office closed, not really in my district, but in the Burgeo area, the community of Burgeo, which served the communities along the South Coast that I happen to represent, and these are isolated communities, Mr. Speaker. I know that these were closed, and then it came to closing the one in Harbour Breton.

I was listening to the Minister the other morning do an interview with Jeff Gilhooly on CBC. I think it said a lot about, not only closing it but the way in which it was done and probably the philosophy behind it. I cannot quote verbatim all of the conversation that the minister had with Mr. Gilhooly, but I can paraphrase and précis it. It had to do, of course, with when Mr. Gilhooly talked to the minister and said: You are closing the HRE offices. What kind of an impact will that have on the people in the rural part of the Province where these particular offices are going to be closed down? The minister said something along these lines: Well, you know, with increased technology and so on, we do not need the offices. We can do it now from over the computers and over the telephone and so on. Mr. Gilhooly then said in response: What about if the people in these smaller areas do not have computer systems, and what about if they do not have phones? The minister said something along these lines: Well, if they do not have the computer system and they do not have individual phones, they can complete the application over a payphone. Just think about that: The people who are on the lowest rung on the social economic ladder, who in most instances do not have all the amenities of life like many of us probably would have, and then to say to them - I know the application can be done, but the application, if it takes forty minutes or twenty minutes or thirty minutes, to say to the person: You can complete it in a phone booth, in a public phone booth in the community.

Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity in my own district, in many of the smaller communities - there are not many small communities that even have a phone booth in them; not many of them. The whole idea of having that type of an attitude toward the people who depend upon these services says a lot.

I think, as I said earlier, about the people along the South Coast, the people who are Grey River, the people who in Francois, the people who in Ramea. These are isolated communities. A person who would get on a boat in Francois and go into Burgeo to get serves from the Human Resources Department that they would need, now would have to - by boat it would have taken two hours plus and now would have to drive another two-and-a-half hours to go into Stephenville to get these services. Sure, Mr. Speaker, it is possible, but what have we done here? We have seen a complete reversal of services provided to people in the rural parts of the Province. Rather than having the service come to them, what are we now doing? We are reversing the roles completely and saying to the people, you go to the services, which is a big, big change, especially for people who live in the rural part of the Province and have to drive. That is not lost on the people in the rural parts of the Province. I am telling you, people are angry about these types of things. They know and recognize that government can provide services with technology, with computers, and they can do it with telephones, even if it is a pay phone, but they are saying: Where is the personal touch? Where is the person I can speak to, for counselling in some instances? Obviously, it is not there.

I think about, also, the commitment that was made - and I spoke about it in this House before - that has a major impact on my district, talking about ferry rates. It was in the principle, in the guide book, that the government went to the people with last fall. It says: If we are elected to form the government in this Province, we will reduce the ferry rates to people in isolated communities to correspond with what it would cost for them to use road transportation.

Lo and behold, what happened when the Budget came out? The people were told one thing. They expected one thing. They expect honesty on behalf of all politicians regardless of where you sit, Opposition or governments or whatever, and they were presented with something that was diametrically espoused to by the government before the election. We see the increase in rates of over 25 per cent. It will be more than that over five years because it is compounded, probably something like 27 per cent or 28 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, what does that do for people like us, whom the people have trust in and send us here into the House of Assembly? We can see what is happening, not only in this Province. We can see it happening right across the country. We had the Liberal Premier in Ontario saying - and I saw him sign it. I think I saw him sign it the other night on TV. I did not see him sign it there then, but it showed a picture of where he was running for government in Ontario, and he said: You have my word. There will be no increase in taxes.

Lo and behold, what did he do at Budget time? He brought in a user fee for people in the Province of Ontario, $900 a year. Who is finding that right now, as they go to the door? It does not matter whether you are a Liberal or a PC or whatever the case might be. People are saying: That is not what you promised. If you did not intend to keep your commitment, you should not have gone there in the first place.

They will hold you responsible for it. It is the same thing that is happening in British Columbia. Premier Campbell, when he got elected, he has gone - not full circle because he is back to where it was - probably 180 degrees different from what he promised, and the people are skeptical. People are beginning to see this more and more. I will tell you why people are seeing it and aware of it. They are just as educated or more educated than us - and the cynics about politics. No wonder the younger people will not get involved in political parties. They see the cynicism and they see the situation where people get up and are supposed to - and their word is their bond, where they expound to people. It does not happen.

The thing is, it is happening in this Province as well. Look at the public service. The Premier said there would be no layoffs, or no massive layoffs, and through attrition, or whatever way it is, there are going to 4,000 or 5,000 jobs less in the public service than there were when he became the Premier of the Province, but I am not surprised. I am not surprised at that because the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has said there are too many people working with government. Another one of the ministers - I am not sure who it was - said: Well, government is not the first employer. It should be all done by private business.

Well, go back to the rural part of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: The Member for Mount Pearl can speak after I am finished. I only have a couple of minutes.

Go back to the people in the small communities again. Think of Bay L'Argent. Bay L'Argent has very little - very little - commercial activity in its community where it can get taxes from its people. One of the things that they had in their town office was the Human Resources office within the council office itself. It is not in my district. It used to be at one time. The government paid a certain fee or rent for that particular community and for the council to help them operate the services in the community. By taking the office out of the community, they have also taken the amount, whether it was $1,000 or $2,000 or $3,000 or $4,000 a year that the community got to help run the community. That is gone. In many of these smaller communities you are not going to have the extent of the commercial private business taking place in all of these communities, so it was a way that government could help many of them do the things they did.

I think of one of the other things that is very important in my area. I have talked about it. I have presented petitions here in the House many, many times, and that is on the clinic in St. Alban's. It was provided for in the last budget, tenders were called, and if it had not been for the guy who was the architect engineer having an aneurism, we would have had it completed and I would not be here in the House today talking about it. But, it is not completed and I doubt if it will ever be completed, because when the government comes back in the fall with its reorganization of its health care, then I am looking to lose clinics that have been open in my area, that I know have been there since I was small boy in communities like Hermitage and down in Fortune Bay North, in Mose Ambrose. That kind of stuff scares me, but it is what will happen because the government is intent on having people come to services rather than having the services come to them. That is something that will happen.

When I think about the St. Alban's situation, every community in the Bay d'Espoir area recognizes its importance - and to see that it is not going to be done. It is not a luxury. It is an essential service that is not adequate. The building itself is not big enough and the services are not there for the people in that particular area.

The other part that would have served my district quite a bit would have been the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. I have said here in the House before, I was really disappointed as well when that did not happen because it could have served everybody from Baie Verte on the west, down to probably even Glovertown on the east. It was a catchment area, where people could go and get these services provided. If you go out to the people in the Province today, and you contact these people who are in this region, they will tell you that this particular service is essential and needed. It should be done, because you can't always be in the situation where you can hide behind the deficit and not be able to provide any essential services, or services, to the people in that region. It is something that I was really, really disappointed in. Words, in a sense, fail to explain how disappointed you are when you see all of these particular things happening.

I talked also about the community youth network, and that it is of tremendous benefit to the young people in my area. The executive director of that group was so disappointed during the Budget, when there was a cut in the amount of money that was allocated to them to run that particular community centre for the young people in the area who deserve it so much.

I think also, Mr. Speaker - and it has already been talked about by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the insurance reform and the bill that was introduced here a couple of days ago. Obviously we will have more to say about it when it comes to be debated. I think of the situation where last year, before the election, when all parties - we, as the government at the time, said that on the essential portion of the insurance that people would pay, which is public liability, we would introduce a 30 per cent reduction on that essential part of the insurance, 30 per cent. What we see now, in the bill that has been presented to the House, is that on that part of the insurance, the most costly part of the insurance, the public liability of it, they are going to give a discount of 9 per cent.

Just look at it in tangible terms that the people out there can really understand. Let's take a person who has to pay $1,000 a year in public liability - and there are a lot of people who pay that, especially in the Avalon area; $1,000. What is 30 per cent of $1,000? That is $300. Now, look at what we have in front of us today with the bill, 9 per cent of $1,000. That is $90. It is nowhere near - again, the thing is that the people of the Province, last year, were talking about reforms, and the government, when they did, said: We are absolutely ready. We are going to present to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador a package of reforms for the insurance, and gave every indication that it was ready, it was going to be presented as soon as they became government. It is eight months after and, lo and behold, today we have a bill, as I said, that is not near what the people of the Province are expecting. It is only going to be temporary, so to speak. They are going to do a further study of the insurance later on.

The thing about it is, that is not what people were led to believe. They were led to believe that this was all in place and that these benefits would come to them, as the people who have to pay the insurance, and obviously it hasn't.

I think of another section. I was looking at the bill over the weekend and I looked at the facility part of the insurance. That is not clear but again we will debate that in the House. Let me explain again, probably for the viewing public out there. If you have two accidents in a year, even though they might only be small amounts, it might only add up to $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000, the company then can refuse to put you with a preferred underwriting company. They can put you with a company that is called Facility, that all of them put money or pool into what they call high-risk people, high-risk drivers. Guess what? The legislation that is there does not tell me that I can get out of that particular facility group after one year or two years if I have no accidents.

What it says here, to me, is that the insurer, the person who does the underwriting, can go before the Public Utilities Board and ask to have me taken out. Do I have the right? And if I do have the right how many other people would be like me? One thousand, 2,000, 3,000, 5,000 people appearing before the Public Utilities Board to ask if I could come out of Facility and go back into the preferred rate? If not - I will give you an idea. Again, I had a phone call from a person who was really upset one day last week and said: I had two accidents last year, my wife and I, and it was $5,000 that it cost the insurance company to pay for the two accidents; $5,000. I was paying about $1,700 a year for my insurance premiums. He said I could not believe my eyes when I saw it the other day. He said I did not understand what Facility was all about, but I did understand the amount that I have to pay, $5,000. He said I called the company and wanted to find out what it was all about. Do you know what he was told by the company? You have to stay with Facility for six years; six years before you can get out at $5,000 a year with today's rates. That is $30,000. There is something wrong with that. I thought this type of legislation would be able to address that. That if a person, after one year, did not have any accidents over that year then he could apply or it would automatically, for him, be out of Facility and be back into preferred underwriting. These are examples that people out there really, really care about.

Then, of course, all of us who have children, boys in particular who have gone and looked for insurance. I had an example not too long ago where a person told me he wanted to find an old jalopy for his son to go back and forth to class. He said he found a particular car that would probably last his young fellow for a year or so for $3,000. Then he went to check what the liability would be; $5,000 to put liability on a $3,000 car for a young person. That is what the people of the Province were looking for in this legislation. They were looking for that, something for age, something for gender, something for the senior. Again, there is not -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not there.

MR. LANGDON: It is not there. We will be able to look at that over the next little while and it is not fair to the consumer.

Mr. Speaker, the whole idea - these are issues that need to be raised, will be raised. Our people who are out in the Province, when they see this particular bill and what it presents to them, are going to be very, very disappointed. There is no two ways about that.

Mr. Speaker, also we talk about the increase of the service fees that was introduced in the Budget. The progressive way that would have been done was probably if the Finance Minister had increased the personal income tax somewhat, because what happens here now is the people again who are at the lower end of the scale, the people who are the seniors and the people who go to the parks, you know the fees have increased substantially and these are people who cannot afford it. You know, we stuck them with - people who are at the lower end of the rung again - those service fees, and not only individuals. I had a person who talked to me, it was a small businessman, not too long ago. He had a small restaurant and a liquor licence and he said: Guess what? The service fees that the government has introduced for part of the Budget this year means an extra $600 a year for me. A $600 increase in fees for a small businessperson. I am telling you, you cannot progress and you cannot encourage people to be involved and to expand their business when they have these types of things happening. It means probably a half less position for somebody who was working in that particular situation last year.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing too, when you talk about the Budget itself and you talk about - as the Premier has talked about, the economic rung. The other part of the agenda, as far as this government is concerned. It has been eight months now and we are waiting to see some of the things that are happening. It is interesting, I was listening to my colleague, a good friend of mine from Burin-Placentia West - I think it was on Open Line a couple of nights ago - talking about what White Rose means to Marystown. I can understand, it was an initiative of the government here. I think about Voisey's Bay. One of the things that a lot of people do not recognize, the economic benefits to the Province, is the Humber Valley Development Project. All private money. It is my understanding that directly and indirectly there are probably as many as 700 people working in Humber Valley at these resorts. Like I said, it is all private money and private investment. These are good things that people are working today with initiatives that were done previous before the government came to power.

Really, in a sense, what we are looking for, Mr. Speaker, we will be waiting over the next while to see what particular projects that they come forward with to increase the level of employment for people in the Province which they so much need.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to make just a few brief comments with respect to the Concurrence Debate on the Government Services Committee and to, again, take this opportunity because I did not get an opportunity to speak at any length on the Social Services Committee; to commend all the members, Mr. Speaker, for the tremendous time and effort that was put into the committee work because it is probably considered to be some of the least glamorous, so to speak, of parliamentary work. It is done early mornings when there are no television cameras. It is done late at night. You have members of the Legislature on all sides, government members, Official Opposition, a member for the NDP, who - at a point in time, unbeknownst to many of their constituents and others - actually spend three hours and sometimes more in a committee meeting in the morning, and then they come to spend four hours in the normal process of debate in the Legislature in the afternoon, like we are doing now, then only to take a quick break for a bite to eat and come back for three hours or more in the evening. That went on, Mr. Speaker, for the better part of three full weeks.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend our own members, the members of the caucus that I lead, the Official Opposition, for the tremendous effort that they put in, but also to acknowledge the work and the effort of the government members, the Chairs, the members of the committee and the Vice-Chairs from this side and the members as well, as well as the member of the NDP, who facilitated that process, because that is where the real detail of a budget gets examined. As a result of that, we had some issues that were raised at the committees early in the morning or late at night that we then raised again during the daytime in Question Period or in debates like this one. I did want to take a minute or so to acknowledge the work of everybody and to thank them very much for the time and effort that was put in, because, as I say, I describe it as being probably the least glamourous of work. I do not know of any of the work that we do is considered glamourous or not, and maybe that is not a good expression. Certainly, there is some real sort of slogging, to use a phrase, that goes on in the Committee work, and I do want to express a deep appreciation for the great job that was done.

One of the issues I wanted to touch on in my few comments with respect to this concurrence debate, Mr. Speaker, deals with one of the very beginnings of the problem with the Budget, generally, for this particular government, and the fact that it has been one of the worst budgets - I will correct that - the worst Budget ever presented in the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador since Confederation. So, not one of the worst, the absolute worst.

It stems back to the kinds of things that we did discover in the Committees. I will give one example, again, today, to go back to the beginning. Remember the basis for this worst-ever Budget. There was a speech made to the people of the Province by the Premier of the Province, a televised speech on January 5, and the basic premise was this: We are going to have to take some very tough measures because we are just about drowning in debt, we are almost bankrupt. He gave an example, Mr. Speaker. The example that he gave - and it is being forgotten by some people right now, but it was one of the first examples of a misstatement and a misrepresentation of the facts to set in course a chain of events that we are still witnessing now; unnecessary, in our view, and based on the wrong premise.

The statement was, that of a $ 4 billion Budget, which we will vote on today, which we will conclude sometime today, having had the better part of a month now to debate it in detail and examine it, the Premier of the Province told the people of the Province and told his own caucus - and for a period of time, until we got to this kind of budget debate and examination, they believed it. At least now, the government caucus knows the difference. The issue I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, is the issue whereby the Premier of the Province said: We have to give $1 billion in cash to the banks to pay the interest on the debt. I see several of the members, again, nodding their heads because they remember that. That was the televised statement. That is what the Premier said.

He used an example that everybody at home would understand. He said: It is 25 per cent of the Budget. It is twenty-five cents on every dollar. My colleague from Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, who just spoke - we all remember it. The Member for Labrador West remembers it. The impression was clearly given to every single person who listened, that there were going to be some real problems bringing in a Budget that we are now finishing the debate on, because the first twenty-five cents on every dollar had to go to the banks to pay for interest on the loan. A lot of people, Mr. Speaker, could relate to that, because most people live some part of their lives based on credit. There aren't too many people that I know, in Newfoundland and Labrador, who pay cash as they go, who pay cash for everything, go out and pay cash for a house, go out and pay cash for a car, even go out and pay cash for your new T.V. set, if one breaks down, go out and pay cash for your washer or dryer if it collapses on you and cannot be repaired. I do not know very many people who operate on a cash basis. What they do is they operate on the basis of credit. They go with credit cards or they get loans at the bank and they manage to get the things that they need to get. Then they pay off the loan or they pay off the credit card and if you cannot pay it all in the one month, you have to pay some interest.

That is what the Premier of the Province was talking to people about. He was talking about paying interest on the loans. He said: I have to give $1 billion to the banks. In the examination of the Budget that we are completing now, Mr. Speaker - and I believe that members of the government caucus have finally understood it, because on page eight of the Budget there is a title and I will read it again, Mr. Speaker. It says: Total Servicing of the Public Debt. There is a total here for servicing of the public debt. Now, that is the money that the Finance Minister has to pay this year to the banks as interest on the loans.

On January 5, the Premier went on Province-wide television and said: That number is $1 billion, so therefore there is money that we cannot spend. We had the Minister of Justice over in Corner Brook explaining why he could not do more with client services and why they could not expand the RNC presence and why they could not do things for recovering money for women and so on, through the service that is provided in Corner Brook. His answer was: Because, you know, we have to spend the first $ 1 billion just paying off the interest on the loans.

I heard the Minister of Natural Resources making a speech. He was at a function in Mount Pearl at the Reid Centre talking to the Chamber of Commerce saying: We are going to have some problems because everybody knows the first $1 billion that we have to put in our Budget this year, this Budget that we are now going to vote on shortly - we are going to vote against it and they are going to vote for it - the first $1 billion has to go back to the banks. The place where you will find that in these documents is on page eight, total Servicing of the Public Debt.

The Member for Windsor-Springdale is there looking at page eight assuming that the number is $1 billion. I would look at it and assume that the number should be $1 billion, because the Premier of the Province would not say anything than the absolute truth, when he took the time to ask NTV if he could have an hour on television to address the people of the Province on an urgent issue. He said: The urgency is that I have to give the first $1 billion to the bank.

The Member for St. John's Centre is looking at page eight saying: Yes, it must be $1 billion, because the Premier said so on Province-wide television. Well, I am looking right at the page, and what it says is this: Total Servicing of the Public Debt, the total amount of money that has to be paid back to the bank - and is in the Budget right here, here are the numbers - this is what we have, the government on behalf of the people, to pay to the banks this year. One billion dollars, the Premier said. This number is a little bit different. Notice I am saying a little bit different. Guess how much different? The amount of money that actually has to be paid to the banks this year, according to the Minister of Finance, unless he is going to change that too before 5:30 today, is $490,382,400; less than half.

MR. JOYCE: What did he say on January 5?

MR. GRIMES: January 5, it was a billion.

Today, all of the members on the government side, I bet every single one of them, will stand up. They will stand, they know now they are going to stand. They are not going to get to vote for this Budget sitting in their seats. They are going to stand up and vote for this Budget just like we are going to stand up and vote against it.

The Member for Terra Nova, who said he has some concerns about some of these Budget things, will stand up today and vote for the Budget, because it is understood now why he has some concerns. While he does have some concerns about certain parts of it on the whole, he is going to vote for the overall Budget. He absolutely will. He will stand up and do it. I guess the people in his own district will see whether or not he was really sincere when he raised those concerns about the Budget, or I guess they really did not mean that much. It was just a way to get in the news for a day or so, to look like he was concerned, and now he is going to stand up and vote for it. I guess he has gotten the answers that he wanted from the minister. He understands now that the cost-benefit analyses that were not done still were not done. That was a concern a few days ago. It is not a concern any more now. He is going to vote for it today, and he is going to vote for it even though his Premier said this document is put together, and the tough choices like the ones he disagreed with on the HRE offices and driver examination in his own district, he does not like them but he is going to vote to support them because he believed, you see, that they had no choice because the first $1 billion had to go to the banks. Even though he has looked at page 8 and he now realizes that the $1 billion is not $1 billion at all, it is $490 million. There is an extra $510 million that the Premier said had to go to the banks, that can be spent on programs like the HRE office in Gambo and like having driver examination in Gambo, but the Premier led them all to believe that there is $510 million you cannot have, we cannot talk about it in this caucus - and they have not, by the way.

They are still trying to pretend, occasionally, they have concerns, but they have swallowed hook, line and sinker, Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest fallacies ever put before the people: that the debt of the Province is such that you have to give the first $1 billion in a Budget to the banks. They do not even want to acknowledge that on page 8, in their own documents that they are going to stand up and vote for - maybe some of them still think they are standing up and voting to send $1 billion to the banks. It is on page 8: $490,382,400 is going to the banks. Their own leader, their own Premier, misled all of the people of the Province and misled them in a caucus into putting together the worst Budget in history, because he told them and he is going to have them stand up and vote in a few minutes' time for a number that is only out by $510 million.

In the meantime, the weigh scales are closing down to save $400,000 - maybe - and jeopardize people's lives all over Newfoundland and Labrador. In this Concurrence Debate on Government Services, where the Government Services Department is, and the minister is there, there are 150 different fees coming in. A death tax for the first time ever in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. If you die, it is all bad enough, I think. That is sort of the end of it. That is a bit final, you know, death. It used to be that the family, in their grieving, could go and have that verified and get a certificate from vital statistics without a charge; but no, this crowd got themselves convinced by the Premier, through a misleading statement, that things are so bad you even had to put a fee - and what is the number now? Is it $100 for the death tax?

MR. JOYCE: No, I think it is gone up to $30.

MR. GRIMES: Okay. Thirty dollars, my friend and colleague tells me, from Bay of Islands, for the death tax.

MS THISTLE: The death certificate is $25 for each certificate, no matter how many you need.

MR. GRIMES: Twenty-five dollars for each certificate. It used to be no charge because the families were dealing with enough issues in dealing and coping with a death. They got convinced, Mr. Speaker, in their own caucus, that you had no choice but to do terrible, awful, draconian, unnecessary things like that because their leader misled them by $510 million. Now, we have said that, they have read it themselves, but do you know the problem with it? They do not care. They do not want the truth to get in the way of a good argument. They have gotten themselves now convinced and comfortable in this argument that times are really tough and we do not have any money. Some people out there in Newfoundland and Labrador who have not heard our questions and have not heard our speeches and have not heard the issue raised, they heard the Premier and they assumed the Premier would not tell anything other than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - and the Premier said you have to give $1 billion to the banks to pay the interest on the loan. Now, the Budget presented by the Minister of Finance says it is $490 million, but they are going to vote for it anyway.

The other thing that the Premier and the Minister of Finance harped on, they said: Look, we have to do these things because the bond rating agencies - I have received some letters, he said, from the bond rating agencies, threatening our credit rating. We asked him to table the letters in the Legislature. They have never, ever appeared. Today, the Premier put a letter on the Table here in the Legislature about a letter he wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada, the hon. Paul Martin, on May 25, because he had the letter. We asked for it and he provided it. He said he had correspondence and letters from the bond rating agencies that were alarming, and we asked to see them. We have never seen them because they don't exist.

As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, was up on his feet last week reading a statement saying that the last of the three bond rating agencies has reconfirmed the bond rating for Newfoundland and Labrador at an A level, the highest it has been in seventy years, and again stated that the outlook for the future, for the bond rating for Newfoundland and Labrador, was stable. Now, an outlook that is stable at an A bond rating doesn't match with the Premier again saying: I have alarming correspondence from the bond rating agencies.

Meanwhile - and here is the part that I don't understand, because I might want to convince myself of something, but I taught myself a long time ago, as most hon. members would, that you have to keep an open mind because the information you have might not be 100 per cent correct, and if you get new information then possibly you might make a different decision. We provided him with two very significant pieces of new information. My thesis and my premise, Mr. Speaker, is that the whole Budget that they are about to support is based on a totally false premise. A billion dollars goes to the banks is a premise. Their own document says it is less than half of that, it is $490 million. They have $510 million available to them, as the government, that the Premier convinced them that he had to send to the bank, and it is not true, Mr. Speaker. There is no other way to say it than, it is not true.

The Premier convinced the thirty-three other members over there. A couple of them tried to be brave for a day or two, suggested they might vote against something, but they are back in line for today. They will stand up today and vote for the Budget, Mr. Speaker. He said: We have alarming correspondence from the bond rating agencies. Since then, Mr. Speaker, we have had all three of the bond rating agencies confirm the position of the Province and guarantee the people that the bond rating agency is stable, the outlook is stable for Newfoundland, not in jeopardy, not at risk, not at peril, nothing to be alarmed about. The bond rating outlook is stable and confirmed at the best rating.

It is the same as me and you going to the bank looking for money and they say, you are a good credit risk or you are sort of mediocre or you are bad. Well, Newfoundland and Labrador is now the best it has ever been. Banks and lending agencies will give the government today more money at a better rate than at any point in our history. The Premier is trying to convince people instead that he has some alarming correspondence.

That is the part that bothers me generally, Mr. Speaker, and then you turn around and you get to the point where, because of the draconian measures that are in this Budget, the worst one in history, you have retail sales being reported, in all of Canada, increased last week again. Bond rating stable, bond rating confirmed at the highest in seventy years for our Province, retail sales in the whole country increasing, except for one jurisdiction in the country, Newfoundland and Labrador, because these fearmongering tactics, these pieces of false information, this misinformation that the Premier put before his caucus, and now, in their own way, for whatever reason, instead of using their own minds, instead of asking some real questions as to: Why did he do that? Why did he tell us that there was $1 billion when it was $490 million? They have not asked him. They are afraid to ask him. They do not want to ask him. Why did he say he has alarming correspondence from the bond rating agencies when the Finance Minister stands up and presents the document and says: Your credit rating is confirmed for another year and the outlook for the future is stable. Nothing alarming. Based on that, we have a Budget prepared that is the worst in history, and you have, as I have pointed out, the example of fees like a death tax, for the first time in history, totally unnecessary, closing weigh scales to save $100,000 supposedly here or there and jeopardizing safety on the highways when there is no need.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members if they could keep their conversations more reduced in tone, please.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the whole premise is a false one, unfortunately. That is why, on this side of the House, when the time comes for the vote - we have had a month to talk about the issues. We will speak to them at length. There are other Finance bills that will be debated tonight, tomorrow, as the Legislature continues on into the next two or three weeks or so. We will get to make our points again, Mr. Speaker, but we can make our point the best way possible in this debate by standing up for the truth and standing up for a Budget that is not necessary, a Budget that is based on a false premise, and voting against it when we stand; because this group who refuse to ask the questions, who refuse in any way to be even swayed, not even tempted to change their minds by the fact that the Premier was only off on one estimate - only off by $510 million, a very slight little mistake by the Premier, Mr. Speaker, but does it matter to them? No, they do not care. They would actually still like the people of the Province - they would like the people of the Province - to believe that it is still $1 billion because that makes it possible for them to try to defend some of these totally indefensible actions, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot say it any more loudly than that. It does not really matter, Mr. Speaker, if I said it twenty more times, thirty more times, fifty more times, in this Legislature where it is going to be decided. Our plea and our information is falling on, and has fallen on, deaf ears. They are convinced, they have themselves convinced, with something that is false. They want to believe it. They are going to choose to stand and support it, and all we can do is stand, Mr. Speaker, and point out that it is wrong, point out that it is all a mistake, point out that it is not in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, point out that it is totally unnecessary, point out that it is most unfortunate that, as my colleague the Member for Twillingate & Fogo pointed out, there is a list of at least twenty-four - I think he only got to talk about twenty of them - broken commitments. Commitments that they are refusing to keep because the Premier has told the people about $510 million that he says he is sending to the bank, when he is not sending it there. They, in their own way, are going to follow along, no minds of their own, and just blindly vote for what they know to be a false premise, false information, and a totally unnecessary Budget and break at least twenty-five commitments that we know of that they made in the meantime.

They might want to take some comfort in that, but the people of the Province have seen through it, and we will make sure that they continue to see through it. We will speak to other Finance bills as time goes on and we will speak the best way we can, by standing on our feet and voting against the worst Budget introduced in the history of the Province since 1949, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, I am going to vote against this Budget. I think if anybody throughout Newfoundland and Labrador had an opportunity to vote, as we do here in the House of Assembly, they too would vote against this Budget. It is a Budget that has been put forward by a government who - from everything I have seen - really has no heart, no understanding and appreciation for rural Newfoundland, and certainly no appreciation for those who live in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is a Budget that is full of fee increases, increases that impact on the most vulnerable of our society. It is a Budget by which most people in the Province were betrayed; betrayed by decisions that have been taken by a government again to promise one thing and has delivered something else.

When we speak about broken commitments and we speak about being able to fulfil commitments and the reasons why you cannot. It is ringing hollow, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board stand up and say: because of the financial situation of the Province they cannot live up to their commitments.

The Leader of the Opposition has just stood and said: You are talking about a difference of in excess of $500 million. If the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board cannot get their heads around the difference between $1 billion and $500 million then we are in a sad situation indeed.

I listened to the Premier talk about his visit down to the Marystown Shipyard and how impressed he was with the workforce and what he saw, and so he should be. I have known for years the quality of work that is being produced at the Marystown Shipyard. I was pleased to see that he went there, but what I found really striking was his comment on the news that he was so impressed that John Lau, the man who accompanied him, the man from Husky who accompanied him down to the Marystown Shipyard was an honourable man. He lived up to his commitment to have the majority of work done at the Marystown Shipyard, have the majority of work done in Newfoundland and Labrador. When I heard that, I thought: Why can't the Premier do the same thing? Why can't he be an honourable man and live up to his commitments, the commitments he has made in Newfoundland and Labrador? If he expects others to live up to their commitments, why does he not live up to the commitments that he made in the election?

It rings home for me, Mr. Speaker, because I think about the health care facility that is under construction in Grand Bank, or was under construction. It is a facility that was going to be of benefit to people throughout the Burin Peninsula, not just people who live in Grand Bank. It is a facility that was going to cost $17.5 million. It has been fifteen years in the making and we have spent over $3 million on that facility. The commitments that the Premier gave during the election was that the facility, the hospital complex he called it, was started in Grand Bank and it will be finished in Grand Bank. Well, little did the people who voted in the election know that what he meant by finished would be ended, not completed, but ended and would never go anywhere. In fact, what they are doing now is they have gone to tender looking for someone to take down the steel, the $3 million worth of steel and the foundation work that is in the ground there. They are even looking to bury the foundation work. Talk about living up to your commitment! Talk about an honourable person! Well, if you thought John Lau was honourable because he lived up to his commitment, then why can't the Premier live up to his and be an honourable man as well?

I am concerned. I am seriously concerned because you have people down in that area, people in the District of Grand Bank, who are very concerned about what is going to happen if someone does come to that site to take down the steel. Now, of what value is the steel once you take it down? If you are going to sell it - you are going to pay a contractor to take it down. So any value you would have gotten from selling the steel is going to be lost because you are going to, obviously, have to pay to have it taken down. It does not make a lot of sense. My fear is that, again, they are playing politics with it. It is a commitment by a former government, by a Liberal government, and they want to remove everything, any indication that there was going to be a facility there. You are going to find that the people are going to be very upset. They are angry now. They feel betrayed and they are saying that they will form a human chain if any contractor goes in to try and take down that steel and bury the foundation work. People from around the district are saying they will come together like we have never seen them before. They will form a human chain around that facility. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to see anything happen that will harm the people in my district but they are angry. It is a very volatile situation and I have written to the Premier and asked him to turn over what is there to the town. Why make a bad situation worse? Just turn it over to the Town of Grand Bank and let them deal with it. I am afraid that, again, we will get the same response that we always get from the Premier, is that: No, we cannot do that. That is too sensible. Why would we do that? Just bury it. Get rid of it. My fear is that the Premier will not look beyond his own personal thinking on this, that it needs not to be built and that we will end up with a serious situation there if anyone tries to take down that steel.

Rural Newfoundland and Labrador is not being served by this Budget. If, in fact, the measures that they have taken in this Budget are meant to revitalize rural Newfoundland and Labrador, then, obviously, they do not understand the meaning of the word revitalize. How can you close down twenty HRE offices? How can you take driver examiners out of St. Lawrence and Grand Bank and insist that the people go to Marystown to write for their driver's licence? How can you close offices and stop building a facility that is meant to accommodate people with long-term care needs and dementia patients? How can you do all of that and say that you are serving rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Look at all their fees. Look at small businesses and the increased costs that they are incurring in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have had calls from people throughout the Province, throughout Newfoundland and Labrador saying: What has this government done? They talk about trying to revitalize rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The Premier heads up his own Business Department. Well, we have yet to see what that involves. In fact, when the Resource Committee tried to question the Premier on this new Business Department that he is leading, he would not appear before us. Granted, he was out of the country but we made every opportunity. We said we would come before as a committee whenever he was available, whenever his schedule would permit. But, no, he would not take us up on the offer. To this day we have not had an opportunity to sit with the Premier and go through what his vision is, line by line, for the Department of Business.

Now, he offered up the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. I know that when we questioned the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, in her own Estimates Committee, she said herself that it was the Premier's department and her knowledge of it was limited. We did not want to sit with the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, with her limited knowledge, and try and get out of her what the Premier's vision is and what we can expect to happen in Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of having this man with all of his expertise, his business expertise, the one who is going to change and turn around the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador. We wanted to ask the Premier, like we were able to do with all other ministers who came before the various Estimate Committees, and spoke about their departments and had their officials with them. We would have liked to have had the opportunity to do that with the Premier, but he was nowhere to be found and he would not agree to make time available for us to sit down with him and question him.

I am very concerned as well about what is happening in education in this Province. I know that education is so important and I think we will all agree that you will never have a sound economy without a sound education system. My fear is that what we are seeing with all of the teacher cuts that are coming from this government, what we are seeing with fewer programs, what we are seeing with multigrading, what we are seeing with extensions not continuing with schools, like the one in Learys Brook All of this is having a negative impact on education in our Province, and how the members opposite cannot see that is beyond me. How they can sit there and take this and not take it up with the ministers responsible, again, leaves a lot to be desired in terms of the representation that they are making on behalf of their constituents. It does not matter from what part of this Province you come; education is important and we need to focus our attention and the resources we have on ensuring that we have a quality education system in our Province.

I think about the students at Leary's Brook because I know it was an issue when I was the Minister of Education. They made representation. You know, it was the first peaceful school in our Province and it is a school that we can all be proud of. The parents worked very hard with the students and with the teachers to make a difference. All they are asking is for the government to recognize the importance of having a learning environment that is safe, a learning environment that is clean, a learning environment where they have the space to accommodate the students that are there, because they are overcrowded. I think we all know, anyone who has had a chance to visit Leary's Brook knows, in fact, that it is overcrowded.

Rural Newfoundland and Labrador, I would say, of any area in this Province impacted by this Budget, has been impacted much more than any of the urban centres; because, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it is not that we need a hand out but we do need a hand up from time to time. It is very difficult. You have a lot of seasonal employment and we really need to work with all of the stakeholders in rural Newfoundland and Labrador to make a difference. We need to be on top of the issues and we need to have a government that understands those issues. From what we have seen in this Budget, that is sorely lacking. Either it is lacking or they just will not speak up. I look at the MHAs representing the rural areas of our Province, who are on the government side, and rarely do you hear them speak out. A couple have. To give credit to a couple of them, they have spoken out. They have questioned the actions of their government, and you have to applaud them for doing that. Now, they were reined in, they did not get to spend a lot of time being critical because they were reined in, but they did step outside the box and they did express concern and I have to commend them for that.

As for the others, it is difficult to understand why you do not stand up and speak for your constituents. You were elected to be an MHA, to represent their interests. I do not know how many of them believe it on the other side, but being an MHA is more important than being a Minister of the Crown. I say that because you were elected to be an MHA. You were not elected to be a minister. It is important for you to voice your concerns, to make the concerns of your constituents known so that they know and feel that you are, in fact, representing them and representing their interests, which is what you were elected to do. I am afraid that is not what is happening with the majority of the members or the MHAs on the opposite side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: You know, we talk about young people, we talk about education and the need to make sure they have a quality education. The one thing that we continue to do when were government was to promote entrepreneurship, to try and encourage our young people, particularly young people in high school, to think about working for themselves when they graduate, not looking to someone else to find a job for them to go to work with someone else, but to look at opportunities that they can build on, so that they can, in fact, start their own business and, down the road, employ others. That, for me, was a real eye-opener when you go to the Regional Enterprise Showcases that they put on throughout the Province, and see the quality of work of these young people, where they showcase their talent, those who have been involved in the Enterprise Education program in the school system.

I had an e-mail from a young man - in fact, it was a copy of an e-mail that he sent to the Premier - and it was after the Budget came down. He said: I am a person who is trying to get a new business off the ground and I will tell you that it is not easy. I am not afraid to work hard; however, the economic climate that you have created since your government has taken over is not helping. You may save your common response of having an inherited economy. I am an educated individual and have a grasp on the financial situation of this Province; however, your government's actions since you have been in power have not helped the people feel secure.

Now, isn't that telling from a young man who is looking to start his own business in this Province, who is looking to be a leader in this Province, and who is looking not for handouts from this government. All he wants is to try and get along and start a business in a Province where there is a positive attitude, where people are feeling good about themselves, where they really think they can make a living here and not have to rely on others to do it.

What he is saying is, that positive attitude is not there. People are reluctant to spend money. People are reluctant to go out and buy those large ticket items. They have been told time and time again that things are desperate. They have been told time and time again that, you know, we are not quite sure what the future holds. Again, you have a Premier who has dampened the enthusiasm of people in Newfoundland and Labrador, first by coming out on January 5 with a statement that would have put the fear of the Lord in whoever was listening; but at the same time, of course, he came out and talked about having to lay off 4,000 people, or talk about 4,000 fewer jobs. When you do that, people start to wonder if they are going to one of the 4,000. Of course, not knowing at the time whether or not they would be - and there are still some waiting to find out if they are going to be one of the 4,000 - they are trying to save as they go along wondering what will happen, and trying to save for that rainy day.

We all know how important it is to have an income, but if you are not sure you have a job, if you are not sure when the next shoe is going to drop, then you try to hang on to what you have and prepare for the future, especially if you have a family. If you are trying to raise a family, and you are not sure whether or not your job is going to be there, the insecurity that comes with that does nothing to help the economy but does everything to dampen it.

The irony of it all is that we have a Premier who is talking about growing the economy, about attracting business, about interesting people to come to Newfoundland and Labrador and start business and invest here. When you look at the mainland media commentary after his January 5 state of the nation speech, they are saying that Newfoundland has hit rock bottom. They are saying the Premier down there, Premier Williams, is saying: Newfoundland is going to have a difficult time. It is in such dire financial straits and really, you know, there is nothing that is going to happen in Newfoundland that is very positive.

When you have a Premier saying that, how can you expect business people to want to come here and invest? How would you expect people to move here, to look for work, or to work, or to invest in this Province? It is very difficult. I think what he has done is completely opposite of what he said he would do. He said he would revitalize the economy, he would turn things around in this Province, and what he has done is taken the fifteen years of work that we did as a Liberal government, when we saw the economy changing, when we saw in-migration -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: - he has taken it, turned it completely around, and we are seeing completely opposite of what we did when we were a Liberal government. The fifteen years of hard work, of getting people to think positively about themselves, of working with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a team, we have seen that go by the wayside and now we have people who are trying to pick themselves up, having been knocked down time and time and time again.

I know, in the community of Grand Bank - and I have to ask what the community of Grand Bank ever did to deserve it - first, what they did was cancel the health care facility. Then they closed the HRE office. Then they took the driver examiner away from there. Now, I am told, if you want a community health nurse, who would, in the past, travel to communities like Point May and set up in an office over there so people could bring their children in to get vaccinated, now I am told they are no longer doing that. Now you have to take your child to Marystown. So it is all about centralization. It is all about regionalization. So much for small communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who have so little, who do not ask for very much, but who really need the support of their government. Unfortunately, that support is not there with this government, and we are finding that day in and day out. People are coming up to us as members of the Opposition, and saying: How much longer do we have to put up with this? Is there anyway of getting rid of this government? Is there anyway of getting rid of this Premier? Unfortunately, with the system that we have, you are stuck with him. We are stuck with him. They keep saying: It can't be so. But it is so! I think they all recognize that if he keeps going the way he is going, if this government keeps going the way it is going, that what we will have here is a one-term government, and rightly so, Mr. Speaker, because I do not think Newfoundland and Labrador could survive another four years under this government. Certainly, rural Newfoundland and Labrador could not.

AN HON. MEMBER: There would be nothing left.

MS FOOTE: There would be absolutely nothing left.

What we are finding is that leaders in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, in rural parts of our Province, are losing their enthusiasm. They have no interest at all in trying to make a difference, because they are saying: No matter what we do it is having no impact. We are running into brick walls. We are not quite sure where this government is going. We try to get answers. We cannot get answers. All we know is that everybody is feeling downhearted. They are feeling downtrodden. They are feeling betrayed, and it has only been eight months. The fear is that if this continues for three-and-a-half more years then there will be nothing left in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. What we will see are centres of growth. We will see regionalization, centralization and the small communities that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS FOOTE: - Newfoundland and Labrador is so proud of will disappear.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The question is that the House concurs the report of the Government Services Committee?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Call in the members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Are the whips ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion please rise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: It is very unusual to allow a point of order during the calling of a question. However, in this case we will.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker, the government has no concern about me supporting their motion here.

The reason I stand, Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding from talking to the Government House Leader, that we were calling the vote here on both committees, both Estimates. Whereas, I believe, the Chair only made reference to one. I thought we should go back and maybe do both at the same time. If that was the intention?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is certainly the intention, that we have concurrence by all members of the House. It is certainly an agreement between myself and the Opposition House Leader. Then we can do it all at the same time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there consent that the motion that we put previously would include both references, the reference to the Government Services Committee and reference to the Resource Committee?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Consent has been granted.

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-eight ayes and thirteen nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Again, by agreement, we are going to adjourn the House now until 7:00 p.m. of the clock and return then and move on with some other motions on the Order Paper. So I do now move that the House recess until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: By agreement, the House is recessed until 7:00 p.m.


May 31, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 38A


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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

The message reads as follows: As Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 2005. By way of further supply and in accordance with the provisions of section 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

Signed by Edward Roberts, the Lieutenant-Governor. Dated May 27, 2004.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the message be referred to Committee of the Whole on Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 3, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2005 the sum of $2,416,816,300."

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

Clauses 1 to 4 carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: For a moment there, Mr. Chairman, they thought they were going to pass this without any commentary from the Opposition. They thought they were well away, didn't they? Yes, but I will tell you they are not. Not by a long shot!

I was thinking when you started to call this bill, I hope people have been keeping a video of everything that has been done in this Province since October 21. I could think of excellent footage that we could have for the next election campaign; footage of broken promises.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Why wouldn't I? I am proud of my record. Are you proud of yours?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I can tell you, this bill here represents a little better than half of the provincial budget for the upcoming year. When I look at this bill before us tonight I question the choices that this government has made; the choices that they have made on the people of this Province. When you look through the Budget, it is a sad commentary that a party who ran in an election campaign on new approaches - a new approach of growing our economy. All we have seen is slash and burn. What a sad commentary for the Premier of this Province, who is sitting in his chair tonight, and who ran an election campaign on a new approach. I have not seen one new approach, only devastation. All I have seen has been devastation! That is all I have seen. I have not seen one new initiative come forward by this government.

I said today, when I got up earlier to speak, if there is one positive thing that this government has done I wish someone would jump up on their feet and tell me about it, but there were no takers for that. Not one! Absolutely no takers! In fact, your own Member for St. Barbe today had a petition that he had to present on behalf of the people in his district. Do you know what the petition was about? He is one of the few who had the guts to rise. One of the few who said they were not muzzled. He is not afraid, I guess, of his leader here tonight. He represents his people, but I can tell you, the district that he is a representative of in this House - there are a lot of people in that district who have concerns, and the concerns are the close out of rural clinics, rural medical clinics. Now, I know he did his best to allay the fears of the people of his district of St. Barbe. A lot of those are elderly people. Tonight CBC started a documentary on aging in this Province. There was a lot of good information there that I think we should all take note of, but I can tell you, that would be one of the biggest concerns. If you were living in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today and you had a fear of a medical clinic closing in your area, wouldn't you be concerned? Absolutely!

I listened today to my colleague, who is right to my left, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, when he told about how this government went in under a cover of darkness and removed ten beds from the new hospital. They were supposed to have twenty beds open in the Twillingate & Fogo Hospital. Can you imagine? They sneaked in on the ferry in the nighttime, took ten beds, removed ten beds from the hospital that people were hoping to get and be able to use. Imagine, doing that to the people of that district!

Then I heard from my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank. Down in Grand Bank now this government, this new government with the new approach, is going to actually have tenders called to remove the steel. Tenders have been called to remove the steel and bury the foundation.

In my District of Grand Falls-Buchans, the sign has come down for the new erection of the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. How does that make you feel as a government with a new approach? You have no heart, apparently, because there is more chatter going on on the government side of the House than I have heard all day.

When I saw the sign coming down for the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor, it was all spray-painted in blue. This is a PC government that did this. The same thing is happening in Grand Bank. Grand Falls-Windsor had their financing in place, their work done on the parking lot, and the design was well in progress.

What kind of a government do we have here that people voted for? There was nothing in that Budget. There was no heart, there was no compassion, there was no feeling for the people of this Province. All there was is desperation and devastation. I have seen nothing in the Budget that I would hang my hat on and say: this is a great place to live because the new approach is going to keep me here. No, because do you know what you are doing? I am looking the Premier right in the eyes right now. Do you know what you are doing, Mr. Premier? You are driving our people away.

I had an e-mail from a young man in Grand Falls-Windsor. I e-mailed him back and asked him: Could I use his name? Do I have his permission to use his name? He said: Yes, go right ahead. He said: My name is Jared Butler and I am a resident of Grand Falls-Windsor. I can tell you, the Member for Windsor-Springdale knows who he is. He said: I was born in Grand Falls-Windsor and I had hoped to one day return there to work. I have studied at Acadia University, Dalhousie University, and I am currently studying medicine at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland. I had every intention of returning to Grand Falls-Windsor to start a career - now on hold, thanks to Premier Williams. Our new cancer clinic is gone. I do not understand why the Premier is bent on punishing the community of Grand Falls-Windsor. I think all of us could stand on our feet and ask you the same question.

That is a young man that, through his own initiative, wanted to be a doctor in our cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. We are trying to recruit our own people and we are trying to retain them here. We want them to stay in our Province but you are driving them away. You are driving them away. This year in the Budget you did not care about student employment. You took $3 million away from students. You hamstrung the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University. You are taking back the money you gave them for tuition freezes.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: No, he will not sit me down, the Minister of Finance. You can sit in your own seat. I have my time and I will stand and I will say what I wish!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Because they do not want to hear the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I tell you, you will not bully me. No sir! I will not sit in my seat until my rightful time has expired. I will not do it. But, what I will do, I will tell you what a mess you have made of this Province. For almost eight months on the job you do not have one thing to show for it, only a black eye. Even Stats Canada are telling you the same.

When I sat in the CBC newsroom January 5 and the Premier gave his speech, I thought you had a bad speech writer that night but you have had a bad speech writer everyday since then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Yes, you have.

MR. GRIMES: Not only that, he writes his own stuff.

MS THISTLE: I just heard that you write your own stuff. Well, you are writing your own legacy, big time! You are writing your own legacy because you have the economy of this Province poisoned. Absolutely poisoned!

Everywhere I go - and I am from the business world, maybe not as expansive as your world but I do know business. I can tell you, everywhere I go people are telling me they are irritated, they are annoyed, they are depressed, they are poisoned. Stats Canada confirmed that. Stats Canada -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: You think it is all a joke. Can you control your caucus? Can you control them? Apparently not.

CHAIR: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: They find that awfully amusing, don't they?

MS THISTLE: Yes, it is very amusing. Two months after delivering the worst Budget since Confederation, and the government is finding this very amusing. I can tell you, you have not gotten very many calls from constituents lately, or you would not find it so amusing. I don't imagine you get a call at your house to pick up a bag of groceries at the food bank, or help somebody pay their oil bill, or help somebody pick up their medications or something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: If you did, you would not be laughing over there tonight. I can tell you what: the pain that you have inflicted upon the people of this Province, make no wonder the Member for St. Barbe was on his feet today because he is under too much -

MR. O'BRIEN: Stress.

MS THISTLE: - stress. That is good. The Member for Gander said the Member for St. Barbe is under a lot of stress, and he is. You can probably relate to that, because my hearing is excellent and the next word you say is going to be reported to all the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Absolutely, so you had better be on your P's and Q's.

I can tell you, the Member for Windsor-Springdale has not done much standing up for the people of his district, or Grand Falls-Windsor. I have not heard anything said about the cancer clinic. I have not hear anything said about the consolidation of the school boards. I have not heard anything said about the consolidation of the health care boards. What is going on here? We all represent the one town, don't we? I can tell you one thing: the people in Grand Falls-Windsor will remember.

We had the best economy - I don't mind saying it - off the Avalon prior to this new government being formed. Now, everybody is frightened to death. They are frightened to death to spend a dollar because they do not know when the axe is coming next.

MR. ANDERSEN: We had a good Province until this government.

MS THISTLE: We had a good Province, like the Member for Torngat Mountains was just saying to me, my colleague.

You have to look back over the record and you have to look at what was said. Only a lawyer, a keen lawyer, would know the difference in words are important, because it started off with your job cuts. What did we get? We are going to have more of those job cuts right over the next four years, but they are not going to be ones that are going to be announced in the form of a news release. They are going to be people who are coming out of government offices all over the place. You are going to see them leaving, exiting, their place of work with a cardboard box and a pink slip. We see it every day of the week out here at the Confederation Building.

This is a vacuum here; it is not a real world. The real world is back in your district where you are representing your people.

MR. GRIMES: They do not go back (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Probably they do not go back. I don't imagine they do, because they know what they have been doing.

MR. REID: Hiding away in here.

MS THISTLE: Hiding away, because there are not too many of them standing up and speaking for their people, only when they are allowed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) trouble going back there.

MS THISTLE: Oh, yes, I would say there are a good many over there who have trouble going back, but I do commend - there was one person in the Government Estimates Committee, when I questioned the minister a week or so ago, there was one colleague on the government side who had the nerve -

MR. REID: Who was that? Don't tell them, because Danny will have him flicked. Don't go mentioning his name.

MS THISTLE: Oh, yes, if you mention his name he will probably be out of the government, I would say, and probably sitting as an independent. He is probably thinking he has too many over there now anyway.

The Member for Terra Nova said it plain enough when he had concerns about the safety of the travelling public and everyone in general about the closing of the weigh scales in Foxtrap and Port aux Basques. I do not think anybody can minimize the importance of that decision. That was a terrible decision. I do not know how you could sit there with any comfort in knowing about that decision that you have made. Eighty thousand tractor trailers barrelling off the boat right across until they get to Pynns Brook with not a check.

The same thing happened on the Avalon Peninsula, in Foxtrap. If you drive the highway as much as I do, and there are a good many members here that do, the ruts in the road will be deeper and wider if we allow tractor trailers and overweight trucks to barrel on through like they have been doing since this happened.

I can tell you, I related today a story about debris falling off a tandem truck, a half body of a car wreck on the side of the road. The driver of the tandem truck was scurrying out, trying to pick it up by himself. He could not do it. Can you imagine if that had gone through a windshield? It would have been game over for a lot of people, and a pileup on the Trans-Canada if there was a lot of traffic there. That is only one incident, and we were lucky it did not happen, but there have been so many bad decisions made by this new government that are going to leave this Province in a terrible rut. The biggest thing is the safety and the well-being, the health of our people.

I do not think that has become a consideration at all by this government. They are just interested in the bottom line. It is just like looking at it as if it were a business - the complete government finances - but you cannot do that.

We have seen the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment cut twenty offices in this Province.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know that I will have several opportunities throughout the evening to speak again.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I appreciate an opportunity to speak for a few minutes to this motion, to Bill 3, just to put it in context again, to make sure, as we did earlier this afternoon before we had our vote for the Concurrence Debate in which all the members opposite, despite any concerns they might have raised at a point in time, for some reason, voted for the Budget as presented. Of course, what this bill does, just so we understand, because the Minister of Finance - it is just as well he did not, because if he got up and tried to explain to us what it was, he would probably confuse everybody. We are better off just figuring it out for ourselves.

What it does say is this, Mr. Chairman, and it reminds us that back when the Legislature opened, and leading up to the end of March - because the Legislature opened a couple of months ago; the Budget was actually presented on March 27 - the ability and the authorization for the government to expend money expired at the end of March so we did Interim Supply. We did what is called Interim Supply, which gave them the right to spend - the number is $1.287 billion, in round numbers - in April and in May, because this is May and we are really only finishing the budget process today. So, for the last two months, we did an Interim Supply bill which gave the government the right to expend up to $1.287 billion. Now, they have not spent all of that. They have not spent that much yet, but had the right. In case we did not finish the Budget Debate today or tomorrow or next week or next month, they would have had the right. They had about three months ability for April, May and June to expend and had enough money to cover the normal expenditures of the government as outlined in the Budget without having to have the Budget Debate completed. What this Supplementary Supply bill does, it says that we are going to add to that now. We are going to give the government the authority to not only spend that $1.287 billion but to also spend for the rest of the year, up to the end of next March, another $2.416 billion. Therefore, this piece of legislation, this Bill 3, this motion that we are now debating, which again we will vote against and the government will vote for, it gives the government the authority then, in total, to spend for this fiscal year, to the end of March next year, in total, $3.704 billion. That is their plan. That is the Budget that was read by the Minister of Finance, and that is how much cash they are now going to be authorized to spend on services and programs as a result of their majority passing this bill at some point in the future.

Mr. Chairman, again, one of the points I was making this afternoon, I would like to make it one more time: If you believe the Premier, which we have found out that you cannot, if you believe the Premier with respect to the expenditure of the $3.7 billion, which is itemized here basically in the resolution itself and I guess it is itemized in clause 2, it says: Interim Supply, $2,416,816,300, and in addition to that we are going to add $1,287,423,900. No, the other way around, I am sorry. We already authorized $1,287,000,000 and the other numbers and we are being asked to authorize $2,416,816,300 extra. Now, that is the $3.7 billion in round numbers.

If you believe the Premier - let me say it again - which you cannot believe the Premier, because on January 5 he said to everybody in the Province, and he said to the members opposite, that the first billion dollars of that, guess what I have to do with it? Give it back to the banks. Cannot spend it on health care, cannot spend it on education, cannot spend it on social assistance, cannot spend it on business development, cannot spend it on infrastructure, cannot spend it on public safety, cannot spend it on anything. I have to give it back to the banks to pay interest on the loans.

We already showed today that page 8 of the documents showed that the Premier was only out by $510 million. So he has convinced the crew opposite, who voted for it today, he has convinced them, and I do not know if they still - I cannot believe that they still - believe it, because they have seen the numbers. So, if you were to believe the Premier of the Province, which you cannot, and the Finance Minister, which we know you definitely cannot, then, of this $3.7 billion, the first billion goes back to the banks.

By the way, the only person who has said that is the Premier. The Minister of Finance, when he has been asked about it a dozen times - well, let me retrace those tracks. It might take me more than one ten-minute presentation to make sure that I get this understood. Maybe I am just trying to make sure that I understand it myself, because I cannot understand why anybody else would see it any differently when we have been now a month studying these documents and it is clear. The Premier is the only person who has said we have to give the first billion back to the banks. You cannot use it for anything else. You have to give it back to the banks. When he has been asked a direct question about it, Mr. Chairman, in this Legislature - because I have asked him myself, at least ten times, if he would confirm, based on these Budget documents, that the number in here, the billion dollars that he talked about on television, is in here someplace. What he has done - and our Finance critic, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, has explored this countless times - as the Premier, he has refused to answer the question. He has never answered the question here in the Legislature, but what he has done is, he has had the Minister of Finance stand up.

The Minister of Finance has stood up and talked about: well, it is supposed to be accrual accounting. Most people in Newfoundland and Labrador know you can take the ac off the front and it is just cruel accounting by the Minister of Finance. So, he gets on and he makes his statements but he verifies because he knows that if he is going to sign his name to a Budget document, that on page 8 says the total cost of servicing the debt in the Province, which is the amount that we have to give to the banks with his name signed to it. Notice the Premier's name is not signed to this. It is the Minister of Finance's name signed to this, and the number is - let me say it out loud again - $490,382,400. When the Premier has been asked about it, he refuses to answer why he changed that number to $1 billion for the purposes of a television speech.

So, if we were to believe it, then in this Interim Supply, members opposite who are buying that line hook, line, and sinker - that is what they have bought into. I do not know why it is that they have not asked the question of their own leader and their own Premier themselves but, obviously, they have not. Maybe they have not seen the documents or maybe they are afraid to ask the question. Why not just ask your leader? Why not just ask the Premier? Why, Mr. Leader, why, our Premier, did you bother to tell the people of the Province and all of us that we have to give the first $1 billion of this $3.7 billion, that we are debating tonight, back to the banks when the document says it is $490 million? Why did you say that? I will bet you one thing, I will bet you my paycheque and then some, if I can go out and borrow a bit of money - which I usually have to do to back it up - that that question has not been asked of the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador by anybody on that side of the House. It has never been asked; never, ever been asked. But, I will tell you what, it might not be asked by the thirty-three but it is being asked by 300,000 or 400,000 people as to why would a Premier go out and tell us on television that it is $1 billion and then present a Budget, in which he will not answer the question but he has his Minister of Finance stand up and say it is $490 million.

Anyhow, that is not what I want to talk about tonight, Mr. Chairman. I think we have made that point. There is one other thing that I would like to talk about at least once tonight, because it is important. We are still waiting for the other prong, the two-pronged approach. Now, does anybody here remember that speech? I believe it is in the Blue Book, which is now the blueprint. I believe it was in the Throne Speech. I believe it was in the Budget Speech, that we have a two-pronged approach. My description of it, we have been pierced right through the heart and just about any other bodily organ that you can describe with the first prong. It has been a pretty painful experience for people all over Newfoundland and Labrador who see services cut, jobs cut and their communities being devastated.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will come back to that point at another opportunity.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. The Government House Leader.

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

I was not intent on getting up on this tonight but I have been moved by a couple of comments. One, by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, who talks about thousands of jobs going out of the Province and out of the public service. Of course, what the member is referring to is our attrition policy. Now, here is the difference. Here is something she did not say. Here is something that other members of the Opposition who were in Cabinet, I have not heard them say. For three years prior to the last election, when they were the government, they had an attrition policy -

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I do not believe it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, yes they did.

- that they did not replace people when they retired. Do you know why they were doing it? Do you know why?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am going to give you the evidence. It is true. There is one thing about being in government - I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, we found out a lot of things about what you were up to that you did not tell people in Newfoundland and Labrador. Here it is, three years, an attrition policy. The member was the President of Treasury Board, and not once did I hear her, as the President of Treasury Board, or any other Minister of Finance or President of Treasury Board, talk about how they were going to solve budgetary or financial problems by an attrition policy. Not once did you hear it.

For example, in 2000, the Department of Forestry - which now comes under the Department of Natural Resources - had a salary deficit of $1.9 million. The question that begs to be asked, given the statements made by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, is: How did they solve the salary deficit for just that division in government of $1.9 million? Guess how they did it? They did not replace people who retired and over a period of twenty-eight to thirty-two months they solved it by not replacing or hiring people. I find it somewhat disturbing, to be quite honest with you, somewhat disturbing.

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo says it is not true. Again, it is. That is exactly how you did it in the Department of Forestry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Twillingate-Fogo, the information that I just gave you happens to be a fact. It is not a matter of opinion.

MR. REID: Yes, like the facts that you gave before (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You do not have to like it. You do not have to swallow it, but the fact of the matter is, it is true. That is the way it was done. So they did have an attrition policy.

MR. SULLIVAN: But they forgot to tell them.

MR. E. BYRNE: But they forgot to tell, obviously members opposite, some of them. I will tell you the people they forgot to tell, and that was the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because we were running up to an election and you had to be very sensitive about what you did and did not do. The fact of the matter is, there were significant numbers of people who were not rehired as a result of the previous government's attrition policy to try to solve its deficit problem. That is the truth.

Now, the Leader of the Opposition. I am always interested to hear what the Leader of the Opposition has said. He said one comment tonight: Based on the evidence I have in front of me, I am clear, very clear - he said that he has to make sure that he understands it himself. He was talking about the Budget.

I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has some trouble in understanding things, so I have taken the liberty of taking a little walk down memory lane. For example, in 1993, Grimes learning about his role as a Cabinet minister. The headline appeared in The Telegram. "Grimes forced to apologize. Labor Minister eats crow for veering from policy."

He has talked about how no member over here likes to say anything. He likes to make everyone believe that no member over here asks a question. Now, I have a story for you to tell, particularly for the newer members. This is some story. "After a trip to the woodshed for a political spanking, Employment Minister Roger Grimes emerged Wednesday to apologize for any appearance of having broken with cabinet solidarity." Here is the issue, "On the issue of reducing compensation for public servants, Grimes said last week in Grand Fall-Windsor he was hopeful government could reduce its deficit without reducing benefits or take-home pay...". However, that stood in stark contrast to both Premier Clyde Wells and Finance Minister Winston Baker who were saying that such a reduction would impact on benefits or take-home pay in some form. Now, it was either one or the other. Or as the older fellows in Riverhead-Harbour Grace used to say: It was "one or tuther" boy, which one was it?

As a result of that, his actions could have only taken two courses. If that is what he said, and he believed in it, he would have walked away from Cabinet. But, is that what happened? No. Here is what he said, "I apologize if my comments have in any way caused any difficulty for the premier or my cabinet colleagues, but I am assured that such is not the case." Well, it is not the case. Here is what Premier Wells said, "He's been a minister for a year or so and I suppose it takes a while to get used to..." that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, this was the champion, the guy who is now trying to make himself out to be the champion of everyone and every member. This is the same fellow who took him a year or so to get used to being a Cabinet minister. It took him a year or so. This is the same member, the exact same member who has asked questions about the sustainability of health care in the Province over the last number of weeks and months; criticized government. The same member, the exact same member who said in 1991: the problem with a significant deficit - this was in 1991. I think the deficit was about $381 million, $382 million in 1991. Much more significant when we took control of government.

Here is what he said, "You're going into a session in the legislature and a year in the province where it's going to be very difficult for the government and the province to manage..." things, because we do not have any money. "The problem has always been that if you don't sooner or later take the bull by the horns and deal with it you can always delay." But every week, month or year of delay makes it more difficult to grapple with the financial future of the Province. Those were his words in 1991 when the deficit situation, the new government took on at the time, was almost half of what this new government had to take on in this year's Budget.

This is the same member who in 2000, nine years later, was Minister of Health. When he said - get a load of this, he has criticized us for how we are dealing with the deficit. Here is what he said tonight, "Health boards have carried deficits of $15 million in each of the last two years despite having their operating budgets increased by just over 10 per cent. ‘Just to maintain the status quo would see deficits grow to almost $40 million a year, $50 million in 2001 and $65 million in 2002. At that time, the accumulated deficits..." of the health care boards "would reach $200 million,' stated Mr. Grimes."

"We are on an extremely dangerous course which, if not contained, could lead to financial disaster for Newfoundland and Labrador." The question is this, when he was Premier for three years, did he try to contain it? Absolutely not! What did they try to do? They tried to hide it. They did not let people know about an attrition policy. They borrowed more to try to make it look great, and who is left holding the bag? The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, unfortunately, but this government has decided to take that on. We have taken it on in this Budget and we have taken it on - and we will take it on in each and every Budget. But, to stand up and try to convince people, when you, yourself, as a leader, as a Premier, as a minister of several different portfolios talks about the financial situation, that was then, and knowing full well what it is today, in my view lacks some credibility.

This is the same person, in 1996 as Minister of Education, who was held hostage in Lewisporte - and I think he would remember that - that closed five campus sites, the College of the North Atlantic, reduced administrators from seventy-eight to thirty. I wonder what the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans would have said in Opposition then? But she could not say anything. Post-secondary education so near and dear to her heart.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am sorry, I forgot. I thought she was a member, but she was not. She was a government backbencher.

Now, I went through Hansard in 1996, when all this was being announced, and did I find a single, solitary boo hoo or hello from the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans? No! No, I did not. Not one. Five campuses gone in Newfoundland and Labrador, administrators cut from seventy-eight to thirty. I did not see the champion for post-secondary education, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans on her feet at that point. No, I did not!

Here is the big one, May 27, 1993, this was Leader of the Opposition at the time: If at the end of the day, meaning government, it means that some things that we promised and committed to cannot be honoured, then that was a very tough decision to make and a very tough decision that government took a couple of years ago, but it is one that we had to take because we did not understand or realize the situation the Province was in.

The fact of the matter is this - and I raise some history, and there has been some raised on me, but we are all part of a public record here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that, I say to the member?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You mentioned something.

MS THISTLE: I said there will be a lot more raised.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am sure there will be, because that is the whole point of this place.

The fact of the matter is this: It is very amusing, to be honest with you, when you stand in the House and listen to members opposite say that all we have done in eight months is drive everyone out. You would not know but we volunteered to go out and pack up everyone's suitcases, put them on the first plane, on the first boat, out of here. We did not hear members talk about how, during the budget process, by where this government took a decision to not tax lower income people. Was that something that would drive people out of here? Absolutely not.

We did not hear members talk about, for example, that today we entered into a two-year agreement, for the first time, with the Labrador Metis Nation, to talk about a feasibility study to develop the value added and secondary processing opportunities in Southern Labrador. Of course not. That is too positive news.

You did not hear the Opposition talk about how this government brought an extra couple of hundred million dollars into the revenue of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro because of the different way and different principles that we put forward in our discussions and negotiations with Hydro-Quebec in what we renewed in terms of recall power. Of course not. It was good news. They cannot talk about that. You are not going to hear them talk about the Rural Secretariat. We have heard them talk about it, but nothing positive about it.

On the one hand, I have heard members say: Sure, that is really only the social policy - what was it? - the Strategic Social Plan, wrapped up into something else, and then, at the same time, turn around and criticize it. What is the Rural Secretariat anyway? On one hand, on one day, they know what it is because they believe it is theirs, and then on the next day, at their convenience, they have no idea what rural Newfoundland is about. They are not listening.

The fact of the matter is this: Yes, this was a very tough Budget, acknowledged by everybody. Acknowledged by everybody in this room. Acknowledged by members on this side of the House. Yes, there were difficult decisions to make, Mr. Chair, but we had the courage to make them. They were not ones that we would have wanted to make. If our fiscal capacity was somewhat different, we would not be making them. If we get some respite with respect to equalization or the Atlantic Accord or equalization formula moving to a ten-province formula, those two initiatives alone - an equalization formula that is based on a ten-province average, and the proposal we put forward on the Atlantic Accord - if those two initiatives alone were to come home to roost this year it would put in the vicinity of $280 million to $300 million in next year's revenue pot alone, just those two initiatives.

I understand that members opposite have a job to do, and their job is to hold government accountable - that is the process by which we do it - but the fact of the matter is this: The first speaker responding to a bill gets fifteen minutes, just like you had fifteen minutes as the first speaker to it. The fact of the matter is this: We can have a political play back and forth, and that is part of the process. We can have a bit of fun with each other in the process, and the tough questions need to be asked of every government. We have taken, yes, some tough decisions, but it cannot be lost on either one of us, or people in the Province, that on Budget day, on 30 March, the last day of March, when the Minister of Finance stood in this House - they say it was the worst Budget in Newfoundland's history, members opposite have said - the fact of the matter is, even with the decisions we made, even with the decisions that emanated from the Budget and what has been discussed in this House, the Minister of Finance still delivered a Budget deficit projection for this year of $840 million. That is the accrued -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Isn't that the right number, I say to the Minister of Finance? Absolutely. It is in the book.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) on a cash basis, collectively, on accrual basis, $840 million.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is very interesting to hear the Government House Leader talk about a Budget deficit of $840 million. You know, this has absolutely no meaning in the budgetary process that we are undertaking in this Province. It has no meaning in the context of the kind of promises that were made in the pre-election period. It has no meaning in the terms of the kind of commitments that this Minister of Finance and this President of Treasury Board made to the people of the Province shortly after they were elected in the first few days of November when he said, and was reported in The Telegram as saying: Well, you know, we got this accrual accounting but the real deficit, the one that we are going to tackle, is the current account deficit and the capital account deficit. In total, I think the figure was $260-something million. This is what he says: That is the number. That is the one that we are going to try and eliminate in four years, and we might not be able to do it but we are going to try and do that by 2007-2008.

Nobody disagreed with that, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I think the policy of the New Democratic Party in the election that was held in October, and the policy of the Liberal Party that was held in October, was that we would all commit to having a balanced Budget on a current account basis within four years, cash and capital account. That was the way. The understanding across all parties during the election campaign was that.

This notion of cruel accounting, the Opposition Leader had it right. I think he heard me say it the other day. When he talks about accrual accounting, what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador experience is cruel accounting, because they use that - just as the Minister of Energy did, the Government House Leader did a few minutes ago, he used that $860 million as cruel accounting to use as a battering ram to justify the kind of things they did to the public servants of this Province a few weeks ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: They used that to beat people over the heads, to take away their collective agreements, to destroy collective bargaining in this Province. To do the kind of things they are doing, they used this cruel accounting method.

That is what I am going to keep calling it, Mr. Chairman, because in the hands of this government that is exactly what it is. It is not a way of looking at the future and looking at the real liabilities and say: Okay, we have to understand that we have this year at least. This year, at least, we have a big, huge unfunded liability in our pension because we are going back two years and measuring it.

The minister himself admits that: Well, the reports last year say there is only 40 per cent funding in the public service pension plan, but really it is now around forty-eight, and if we make what we have made historically we will have no problem. In some cases, Mr. Chairman, we do not have to do anything. In other cases, we do.

The Teachers' Pension Plan has to be fixed, and the Member for Mount Pearl knows it; because he is a teacher and he knows exactly what is going on in the Teachers' Pension Plan. There is a major problem of unfunded liability because the money has not been put there by governments in the past. Something has to be done about these things for the long haul, but when he uses this cruel accounting method to beat people over the head and tell people on social assistance, who could hardly afford to have a nutritious diet, that they do not deserve an increase, they cannot get an increase because we have a cruel accounting method that we are going to beat you over the head with, then they are misleading the people of this Province.

The fact of the matter is, the real structural deficit - I am going to go back to this number again now - in this Province is around $270 or $280 million a year. It is there for a reason. It is there because some significant things happened in the last seven or eight years that have to do with this Province's financing.

Members there can blame the Liberals, and the Liberals can blame the Tories, and they can blame each other until the cows come home - and come home they will, I say to members opposite; come home they will - but, in the meantime, Mr. Chairman, there are four or five things that have happened since 1995 that have caused us the substantial problems that we have.

The first one - and we are going to hear Paul Martin's name a lot during this little speech, because Paul Martin is the man who did the job. Paul Martin is the man who did the job from Ottawa as Minister of Finance. The first thing that they did in trying to solve their federal financial problems was, they moved from a ten-province standard for equalization to a five-province standard. That ended up costing this Province - I think the minister of energy got the number right - about $100 million a year.

If you move back to the ten-province standard, with all provinces being involved in it, the federal government commitment to equalization would go up by $3.4 billion and our share would be $100 million.

What else did they do? They changed the Canada Assistance Plan. They got rid of the Canada Assistance Plan which supported the efforts to pay health care and social assistance on the basis of need. They took that out. There was an element of equalization in that formula because it was based, in part, on need. Instead of that, we got the CHST which is based on a per capita situation, and that was eliminated by Paul Martin in 1995.

The third thing that the Government of Canada did - and this again was Paul Martin's handiwork - they changed Unemployment Insurance, because this was an indirect form of equalization in this Province. It was cut back dramatically by transforming it into Employment Insurance. This had two impacts on the Province, Mr. Chairman. First of all, it decreased people's income so they had less money to spend. Secondly, because of the design of the program, it ended up that our share of the total benefits in fact decreased.

Then, Mr. Chairman, we had a double whammy, because the provincial revenue was increased as a result of that and then those who would have otherwise received UI had to collect social assistance and that was totally funded by the Province, with no contribution.

Then, the cruelest cut of all, Mr. Chairman, the way that the equalization formula worked, when we started getting benefits from our offshore oil and gas, we started getting them cut out because the formula was working against Newfoundland and Labrador.

These five things all happened, Mr. Chairman. They happened not because of the result of what the crowd on this side, the Opposition, did when they were over there. I am not singing their praises, Mr. Chairman, because I criticized them from this position for years while I was here, just as I will criticize this government opposite for doing the things that they are doing. We do have to understand that there is a structural deficit caused in part by these problems, and the solution to these problems - can fix them - but in the meantime, the real test of a government of this Province is: What do you do? What do you do, to try to balance the Budget in the meantime? Do you spread the pain or do you concentrate it on only a few people?

Mr. Chairman, this Budget and this government refused to do some of the things that they should have done to make it fairer for people. They did not raise the corporate income tax to the level of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Yet, our sister Province of Nova Scotia, already with higher corporate income tax, raised theirs to try to balance their budget. They did not take back the tax break that was given a couple of years ago, that we obviously could not afford, Mr. Chairman, the tax break that was given to the well-to-do. They did not do that. They left that there.

They did not, Mr. Chairman, do anything to ensure that those who had the most ability to pay taxes were paying them. In fact, they did the opposite. In Nova Scotia, once again a Conservative government, they added an additional tax bracket at the high end to collect a few more dollars from those who had lots of money.

What did we do here in Newfoundland and Labrador? Leave the corporate sector alone. Leave the wealthy alone. We turn to the Minister of Finance, who introduced 150 new fees that we are going to collect $25 million from ordinary people of Newfoundland, who need a birth certificate, or have to get a driver's licence, or need to renew their motor vehicle, or need to get a death certificate, or need to get an ambulance because they are sick. These are the things that this government did in this Budget, instead of being fair, instead of spreading the pain around and making sure everybody was treated fairly.

Yes, we do need those kind of significant changes that the minister of energy talked about. We have a commitment in writing from the national leader of the NDP to do just that, to do just that and more, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hopefully there will be other opportunities to speak tonight because I think this is going to be an interesting debate.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to pick up on some of the things the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said, that are not accurate. Actually, the member himself calls it Qui-da-Vi-da, I think, and the Finance critic is saying Kid-e-Vid-e. I am not sure. I have heard the member refer to it. I do not think it matters either way. I will say Qui-da-Vi-da because the member calls it that and I like to call it by the way the member likes to call it. So, if she has an objection....

One of the interesting things he mentioned is what has happened federally and with money to our Province. If you look at the changes that were made - and, by the way, the province formula was not changed by Paul Martin. It was changed back, I think, in 1982 under Pierre Trudeau, and then it was changed to a five-province formula. Once since then it changed, and they made one change in the election before last, and he made a change to allow the ceiling to come off it, which is off it now anyway because they did not have to pay out any money by taking it off. That is basically what has happened.

Under the current federal-provincial structure right now, the Conference Board of Canada did a report and if they froze all the federal programs, or provincial, what the provinces are now delivering, by the year 2020 the federal government would have a $78 billion surplus in one year - $78 billion by 2020 - and the provinces, collectively, all across the country, would have a deficit between $10 billion and $11 billion. That is very, very significant.

Across this country, provinces pay for 62 per cent of program costs and we only collect 48 per cent of the revenues in the country, which means there is a fiscal imbalance in this country. We are getting less than our share of revenues and we are paying for more than our share of programs in the country. That is a problem that needs to be fixed.

People in Opposition talk about taxes. Well, if you look at corporate taxes, for example, the general corporate taxes in our Province are the third highest in the country. While we are low in manufacturing, processing, I will tell the hon. member, in small business tax we are the fifth highest in the country. When you look at general and financial capital tax, and you add general and financial together, we are the highest in the entire country in this specific area. We have the third highest in payroll tax. We are the third highest in sales tax. In fuel tax, we are the highest. In diesel tax, we are the second highest. We are the one of the highest taxed provinces in the entire country, Mr. Chairman. That is why we do not want to inflict more taxes and cause companies to set up in Halifax and elsewhere. There are people already looking to lower tax havens that are competing with us. We have a significantly high tax base. We want to continue to be able to attract people, and you will not do it with taxation.

I would like to correct something that is incorrect, that was stated by the Leader of the Opposition, and I will use the example of the last fiscal year, 2003-2004. There was $612.7 million paid out by this Province to pay interest on the debt - $612 million - the accounts, the Consolidated Fund Service. They do not count the boards, the agencies, and the Municipal Financing Corporation, all the aspects of government that they conveniently shoved in a category and called it a different category than current. They called it the consolidated cash. When you add up all those entities, there is $612.7 million in interest paid in our Province.

MR. GRIMES: How much is in your Budget this year? How much is in your Budget (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to it.

When the public accounts of this Province were tabled, on the year that the Opposition Leader was Premier of the Province, certified by the Auditor General, released by the Comptroller General's Office, the public accounts prepared and released, showed that there was $615.9 million in direct interest for consolidated funds and other grants. It is released and published

MR. REID: Show it to me. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You have a copy of the public accounts of our Province, tabled in this House.

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo, all he can say is, not true. Read it. It is in print and certified by the Auditor General.

Mr. Chairperson, they do not like to hear the truth. That is why they are shouting and trying to drown you out when you are speaking. I sat and listened to what they had to say, even though I knew it was not true. The amount that is accrued for last year's Budget - and I am sure the public accounts will show that, and the Auditor General will confirm that - is over $1 billion for last year, basically, it should come out on an accrual basis. What we paid out: over $600 million we have being paying out, direct interest, and we have to allow the interest on unfunded pension liabilities. That is what we will find in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairperson, what they do not understand is the $100-some million we allowed the Health Care Corporation of St. John's to borrow, and there is interest on it. What they do not understand is the Municipal Financing Corporation borrowing interest on these; entities like The Rooms in the past, Education Investment Corporation. They hid that, Mr. Chairperson. They hid it under a different heading. They called it a cash deficit, a consolidated cash and an accrual. They had three sets of books for this Province, and it is about time that we hid two of the books and had one set of books, the true set of books, for this Province, and that is the fact. They do not like three sets of books. Now they want three sets of books. They did not like it then. They are trying to hoodwink the people of this Province with all different sets of books, trying to confuse people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I would at least appreciate them acting a little civilized. I do not mind an occasional shot, but with continuous interference it is kind of difficult to speak. I am entitled to time here in the House to speak, as well as members. They had an opportunity. I listened and took some notes on things they said. If they do not want to hear it, if they want to shout out about it, fine, I will sit down. I will sit down very shortly and I will not stand up and comment on it again, but it is kind of difficult to stay in your seat when you know that the official record confirmed by the Auditor General of this House is exactly as I am saying. They stand up and will not take ownership because they put us in this place. They put us a billion dollars in debt annually, well in excess of $10 billion in debt, running up on a basis of in excess of $13 billion, when you look at it, in debt. They ran us into debt. They are causing us to pay out and allow a billion dollars a year for unfunded liabilities to accrual basis and direct payments out on direct debt. They did not come to this House last year with a loan bill to borrow for their last year's Budget. They did not even pass - the Special Warrants they issued in 2002, Mr. Chairperson-

MR. GRIMES: Why don't you tell the truth for a change? (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair heard a comment from the Leader of the Opposition which was certainly unparliamentary, and I ask the Leader of the Opposition if he would withdraw those remarks now, please.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, what I said to the Minister of Finance across the floor is: Why don't you tell the truth? Now, I have been in the House for fifteen years and I have never, ever, heard that expression ruled as unparliamentary.

I would like for you to check some references, or at least quote one to me somewhere, or show a precedent, because I want to abide by the rules but I can tell you that I have heard that expression ruled as unparliamentary. I will certainly take direction from the Chair if it can be shown to me, because I do not want to show any disrespect for the Chair, but I want to be able to participate in this debate and we need the truth told.

CHAIR: The Chair clearly heard the Leader of the Opposition say something other than what he is referring to, which is certainly unparliamentary. The Chair distinctly heard the Leader of the Opposition say: Sit down, you fool.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition if he would withdraw those remarks.

MR. GRIMES: Again, Mr. Chair, I do not mean to be hard to get along with here. I did, at some point, say: Why don't you sit down? You are making a fool out of yourself. Again, somebody had better check the tapes because I have apologized in this Legislature and will most certainly do so, and will withdraw unparliamentary comments, but I am not going to stand here and have comments attributed to me that I do not believe that I made.

Now, there are several people sitting here who have been making comments, and I do not believe I made that one. If I did, and it can be verified, I will gladly withdraw, but I am not going to withdraw in a debate. I think we are prepared to have a good debate here this evening. We need the truth told, and we hope that it will be told as this debate goes on. I will gladly withdraw if it can be shown that I said it.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to show any disrespect but I do not believe I said what you attributed to me.

CHAIR: The Chair distinctly heard the Leader of the Opposition say the remarks that the Chair is putting forward. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw those remarks.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If you are convinced that is exactly what you heard, even though I am pretty convinced that is not what I said, for the purpose of the debate and for decorum in the House, I will withdraw, Your Honour, to meet your wishes.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

CHAIR: I say to the member, your time has expired.

The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to rise for a few minutes to speak on this debate. Again, the Government House Leader gave his little pep talk here to the members opposite, who are getting a bit weary, whose knees were getting a bit weak. He had to stand up and rant and rave and give a bit of a pep talk. One of the things he came up with, he said that the members opposite did not want to bring up the low income, where we cut their income tax. You are right; the government did do it. I agree 100 per cent, but what you forgot to add - and this is what we are saying here, we have to get the facts on the table - is that when you cut the low income earners you put 150 different fees on the table. That is going to get your money back twofold. You are going to get your money back.

I will just read a few. Fishing, gone up. Big game licence, gone up. Trout fishing, gone up. Every park fee in the world is gone up. As I said in Corner Brook, the only problem that the Minister of Finance had with the park fees was that he could not find a way to tax the toilet paper that was used in the parks.

Here we have driver's licence, gone up. To get your driver's licence, gone up. Registration for your vehicle, gone up. Road tests, gone up. Road tests, again, for commercial vehicles, gone up. Road tests, reassessments for seniors - you are talking about all the work that you do for seniors. You are talking about all the great work you are going to help out with the seniors, the low-income seniors, but now for a senior, to get him reassessed, a driver's vehicle, to get him reassessed for his licence for safety, it is going to cost that senior $100. That is what it is going to cost, $100.

When the Government House Leader wants to stand up and give the big rah-rah speech about what we are doing, these are the facts. This is not propaganda. These are the facts. The problem with it, I know there are backbenchers over there who have not even seen this. They are only starting to read it themselves. When they go back home on the weekend, when they go back home to their districts, that is when they see it. That is when they see it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) haven't seen the survey. Where is your survey?

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chairman, they want to see the survey. You want to see the facts. You want to see the facts and the survey. Let's talk about why people are so upset about the Budget. Let's talk about - I have this very unique position. Half the things that were said during the election, the members opposite never even heard of, never even saw. I will give you an example, and I have shown it here in the House several times, half-page ads in The Western Star, October 17, five days before the election, your Premier put it out in The Western Star. Your boss, the one you are not allowed to stand up and speak against, that is who put this out in The Western Star in Corner Brook. Here is what he said.

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible) have a survey of that one too?

MR. JOYCE: There is no need, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, for a survey. He signed it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: He signed it.

There is no need. If you were such a man - when the Premier comes out and says there will be no job cuts, and you clapped on the desk real hard when he laid off 4,000 people, and you are over there now smiling, laying off 4,000 people, and him writing that in The Western Star, I would say, Mr. Chairman, I would not be able to do it after signing it. The Premier himself signed it, no layoffs. He goes on to say it is time to set the record straight of misinformation in a desperate attempt to win votes. So, he goes off and says there will be no layoffs - no layoffs - in a desperate attempt to win votes. That is what he says to us.

AN HON. MEMBER: No massive layoffs?

MR. JOYCE: No, massive was not mentioned, not in Corner Brook. It may have been in St. John's, but not in Corner Brook.

Mr. Chairman, here is the problem that I have with that. Fine, he is going to go and lay off 4,000 people. He already said he is going to do it. One of the people sitting around that table is the Minister of Transportation and Works. He is sitting around that Cabinet table. He is making that decision.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE: And Aboriginal Affairs.

He is sitting around that table. He is making that decision, Mr. Chairman. Here is what he said, April 21, 2004: I understand that over the next three or four years there is somewhere between 6,000 to 7,000 people who will voluntarily leave the public service. Here is the minister saying there are going to be 6,000 to 7,000. Here is the Premier, October 17, 2003, saying there are going to be none. Here is the Minister of Finance, March 3, saying that there are going to be 4,000. Here is the minister on April 21, 2004, saying there are going to be between 6,000 to 7,000. What are we supposed to believe? Who are we supposed to believe? Which one of them over there are we supposed to believe?

Then the Minister of Finance, when I was speaking about the closure of the finance office in Corner Brook. Here is what the Minister of Finance said out in Corner Brook, and I know a lot of the members do not want to hear the truth and I know you do not see this because you are only told what they feel you should need: Eddie Joyce may have exaggerated comments of closure of the finance office. That is what the Minister of Finance said in Corner Brook. Here is what he said - that is what he said in Corner Brook. Here is what he said in Hansard the day before: There are two positions retained; one new one, and there was one of the current positions maintained there. If there is no government space to do it otherwise, there is an arrangement that they can work out of their own home if there is no government space in the area. And I am overreacting that the department and the office is going to shut down in Corner Brook? He is going to let him or her work out of their own home, and I am over-exaggerating.

Mr. Chairman, another one. During the whole election, before and after, the major issue during the election in Corner Brook was the long-term care facility. We have the Premier on many occasions - we had him before the election, we had him during the election, and we had him after the election. His statement was: The long-term care facility will be publicly funded, publicly operated, and built and operational in a four-year mandate. In this four-year mandate. That is what he said to the people in Corner Brook when he was looking for their vote. That is what he said during the election, that is what he said just after the election, but upon questions to the Minister of Health and Community Services here in this House, the minister said: Upon my question, it will take a year-and-a-half to complete the design with consultation. The Minister of Health and Community Services said: I have quite a lot of involvement with regard to planning, and planning of different types of facilities within government. A facility of this nature will take several years and it is usually budgeted from year to year, two or three years. This year $300,000, as I indicated, will be for the planning and will be for the initial site identification, selection, preliminary planning and will anticipate, for the next phase of the project, will be considered during the next budgetary process.

Mr. Chairman, according to the Minister of Health and Community Services, if the money is approved next April, we are a year-and-a-half into the mandate. According to her own words, which are in Hansard, it will take several years. We will just be positive and say it is going to take two years. With the year-and-a-half that has already passed, with the two years that the minister has already committed to that it is going to take for the planning and consultation, we are three-and-a-half years into the project before the ground is even dug. Where is the commitment from the Premier that he made during the election that it will be built in this mandate?

As I tell the people in Corner Brook and Western Newfoundland: Don't feel bad. This is not the first commitment that this Premier has broken. This is not the first commitment, when he went out and wanted to look for votes that he was going to make just for the sake of the vote. I say to the Minister of Health and Community Services, the long-term care facilities are looking for a meeting. They are looking for the commitment that was made during the election. They are looking for the commitment to have this built in four years. I know it is not going to be built in four years. You know it is not going to be built in four years. So I ask you, go out there and be honest with the people in Corner Brook and the Bay of Islands area. Tell them it will not be built, it cannot be built, and give them some kind of assurances that, yes, it is going to take seven or eight years, but in the four years that the Premier has committed, this long-term care facility cannot and will not be built.

The Minister of Health and Community Services should meet with the long-term care facility committee. The Premier did before the election. They are still looking for a meeting since the election. I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Why don't you go out and sit down with the committee, give them the right information, give them the information that they so deserve?

Another commitment, Mr. Chairman -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Bay of Islands that his time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I will give the Leader of the Opposition plenty of time tonight, but I would like to have a few remarks tonight, Mr. Chairman.

Actually, the timing of it for me to stand tonight is just from an event I attended this weekend at the School Sports Federation Banquet and Annual Awards. I have to make a couple of comments referring to that. Of course, the timing of it, because tomorrow - the reason I stand tonight is to invite all members in the House to walk with us tomorrow, which is an event which will go right across Canada on Sneaker Day. It is called: physical activity and recreation and getting involved.

Mr. Chairman, just over the weekend - and the Member for Bay of Islands will relate to what I am about to talk about. This weekend I attended an awards ceremony for School Sports Federation, in which coaches and athletes from throughout the school system in our Province pick one night of the year to be honoured. They pick one night of the year where they are recognized for their involvement. What is so special about this particular night is that it is the only time of the year when they can get together in this Province and I guess recognize people who give so much volunteer time for students throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, a point that I have to make - and I did say I would make this after talking to people this weekend at this awards banquet. Of course, we recognize the male and female athlete of the year. We also recognize coach of the year, and it is very important. For those of us who have coached at the high school level and in our communities understand how important it is. One thing I will say here tonight, Mr. Chairman, and I am disappointed about, that throughout the entire event, in which they honoured the male and female athlete of the year, coach of the year, executives, volunteers and so on, not one single media report. Not one single media report from anybody at that particular event, which was really disappointing to the people there, to the young athletes who were honoured and to the coaches and so on who spent so much time throughout the year, hours and hours after school, hours and hours on weekends travelling with teams and so on. They are the people in this Province who should be recognized. I am so glad that the School Sports Newfoundland and Labrador take the time throughout the year to have this special night to make sure that we honour and respect the people throughout our school system, especially volunteers. A lot of times teachers, but also a lot of times parents and just people who get involved in school sports in Newfoundland and Labrador. It means so much to these students.

Mr. Chairman, they were really surprised throughout that event; beautiful plaques were presented. A lot of information was given about the athletes, about the coaches and what they took part in throughout the year. Mr. Charlie Barker, from Deer Lake, who the member knows very well, was honoured as coach.

MR. JOYCE: ( Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, in Deer Lake, Mr. Chairman - he may be from Corner Brook but he served a lot of his coaching years in Deer Lake. Of course, with Xavier and then with different teams. He was the Coach of the Year, Mr. Chairman, and very, very well deserved. I have known Mr. Barker for a lot of years, as a coach and player and so on. That is an example of the people who were recognized this weekend. It was amazing to me that not one single media report of thousands, thousands of students throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and not a single blurb in the media after. Not a picture taken, nothing at that particular event. Knowing, Mr. Chairman, because I have done it many times, I know many members in the House have, who have coached teams throughout junior high and high school and the many parents who get involved at that level, that that one night of the year is very important to those students and to those people in school who coach.

Mr. Chairman, that was one disappointment. At the same time, I will say on a good note, that school sports in Newfoundland and Labrador is doing well. It is doing well. There is more participation than ever. Some sports are really growing at a rapid pace. There is more involvement than ever.

Also, I want to make this point tonight in these few minutes I have, that the new bilateral agreements, which we just signed with the federal government, one of the prongs of that agreement, Mr. Chairman, is to involve Grades 7 to 9 students. Many studies have shown us, even recently, that one of the highest obesity rates in Canada is in this Province of young students. Grades 7 to 9, especially, is when we see studies that show us that is the time when if that child does not make the basketball team or the hockey team or the soccer team - because usually it is ten or twelve players - than they get turned off from sports and recreation and physical activity. Mr. Chairman, we see the results of it down the road, as they drop out in Grades 7 to 9. They get up through high school, they get into young adult life, and they have basically given up physical activity. That is why I, and my hon. colleague, will lead off the sneaker walk tomorrow, in participation of recreation and encouraging people to get physically fit; to learn more about recreation.

Mr. Chairman, it does not have to be complicated. It does not have to be an organized sport. It does not have to be a team sport. It can be an individual sport or it could be just simply having a walk with your family, or just participating in some way in recreation. It is so simple, but it is so important. Too often, as we have seen throughout the Province and throughout the country, that in fact, those Grades 7 to 9 - as I mentioned earlier in this particular agreement, what it does, is we provide funding in different ways through awards and so on. If schools throughout the Province - and I am going to encourage anybody who is listening to this tonight, who coach any - especially that age group from Grades 7 to 9 - there is funding available now. I have spoken to the hon. member about it - to encourage Grades 7 to 9 to participate. In this particular case, nobody will be cut. If you do not make the team, there is another team. You can send two or three teams. The bottom line here is participation by everybody. So that person on the thirteenth, fourteenth or fifteenth on the list who did not make the team this year, this is for participation. This is what we will include, especially that age group of Grades 7 to 9.

So, I encourage all members here tonight, and anybody who knows of coaches who want to participate, to encourage them. If they have groups in Grades 7 to 9 age, who would like to participate in any sport, bring as many players as they want -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It is coming.

- and to participate, Mr. Chairman. I am just giving you an intro to it tonight.

That is the type of thing because there are only a few days, I guess, before we get into the summer session and so on. I want to encourage people that if you know of coaches or players who have usually been cut from these types of things, these are the activities for those people so that they participate, because if we keep people at that age group, Grades 7 to 9 - I know from coaching teams myself, at that age group if they do not make those teams they usually give up on sports and walk away from it and are turned off for the rest of their school years and then that usually continues on.

So, the fact of the matter is, physical education and recreation go hand in hand with health care. Although we may not see the results in a year or two from now, I can guarantee you, if we increase participation at that age group you will see health care costs and so on in five, ten and fifteen years from now, go down. That is why health care, physical education, recreation and just participation, ParticipACTION as they have used for sometime now, was a good thing throughout this country. It is something that we should promote because a lot of times, in this particular department, we talk about tourism and culture which are very, very important but it is tourism, culture and recreation. Recreation includes everybody, and not just for the physical aspect of it but for families. With so many boardwalks and trails and so on throughout our communities now, you see many more families just taking a walk in the evening. It is the social aspect of it, too. Also, it is a bit of participation and a bit of recreation. So I am going to encourage people to do that.

Also, I guess, to backup, we talked about recreation. I am going to go the reverse tonight, culture. Mr. Chairman, the Heritage Foundation, I just want to make a few comments on that. This year people were worried. Of course, when you do a budgetary process there is always a worry of funding for different programs and so on but I have said it before and I will say it again, our heritage and the uniqueness of this Province, our culture and our heritage is the background and the real foundation for tourism and how it is growing in this Province.

Even as late as today, Mr. Chairman, we spoke with the Embassy in Germany earlier today talking about how the unique culture and heritage of this Province is its main asset when it comes to tourism and why people come here. Because although they look for the pristine environment and the nature trails and so on - it was even mentioned again today about this Province, in particular, of Newfoundland and Labrador is dubbed now with the most hospitable people in the country; the people, of course, since 9-11 and some things that happened to that effect, people in this Province have a reputation for being a friendly people. It is as simple as that, especially when you go into rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, how people are warm. People from abroad come to this Province to experience the people themselves. Although our culture and heritage is our foundation for tourism, the way people act in this Province is a major benefit to tourism. That is why we are going to see tourism grow in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, although we hear the bad news all of the time, there is good news too. The good news is that the tourism industry - I think we all agree - is really just a beginning. As we spoke today with the officials from Germany, they said the same thing, that we are really just beginning to tap into the tourism potential for Newfoundland and Labrador, as we see the trends in the rural, as they look for a safe, pristine, simple, warm place to visit - warm in hospitality, Mr. Chairman. Although there are people who, of course, criticize the weather at times, our spring is not so good this year - other years it is - but they are talking about the warm hospitality of people in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what the most important part of the whole building of tourism in this Province is all about.

Mr. Chairman, we are really looking forward to this particular summer. Already we have seen indications from our 1-800 number and from the Web site, inquiries into Newfoundland and Labrador are up 15 per cent from last year already. If that continues to grow, Mr. Chairman, with just over 400,000 people visiting our Province last year, we can be heading towards somewhere near 500,000 coming into this Province this tourism season. Mr. Chairman, just think about that, and the potential it has.

Also, what is encouraging -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the minister that any type of program that is going to involve youth activities, this side is very much impressed with and will be very much engaged. Also, I just want to inform the minister that the applications he sent out for the schools, every school in the Bay of Islands will receive an application for this, to ask for their participation. We think it is a great idea and we think it is a great initiative.

CHAIR: There is certainly no point of order but it is certainly a point of clarification.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I am delighted to see the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation participating in the debate. The issues that he did address are good initiatives in Newfoundland and Labrador and ones, as my colleague from the Bay of Islands just pointed out, that will be welcomed and supported. The biggest difficulty with that, with respect to the Budget that we are debating, and this Supply Bill for the $3.7 billion, is that those types of initiatives are so few and far between compared to the pain that is in this particular Budget and these documents that it gets overlooked.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to get back to a point I was making a little earlier. Unfortunately, we saw - fairly typical - the approach. The Government House Leader did not want to talk about the Budget. He wanted to do what he is pretty good at. He wanted to deflect from it and talk about ten, twelve or fifteen years ago, because I guess he is not too proud of what we are talking about today.

By the way, just so people would know, there is an old adage that works extremely well, and I would recommend it to many of you. Many times, when you want to make a point, and you know that some people may disagree, it is sometimes better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

I can tell you, with respect to the issue that he raised, when I did apologize in this Legislature, as I have done many times, I made my point and we did not have any benefit reductions for the people because it was made during a run up to a Budget, and I made my position, even though I was in the Cabinet, perfectly clear, publicly in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Premier's choice in how he ran a Cabinet was that he preferred that I make those statements at the Cabinet table rather than publicly. He asked me to apologize in the Legislature. I did so.

The point that I made publicly on behalf of the people I represented was the one that carried the day, at the end of the fact, and if the price for making that happen was to apologize in the Legislature, so be it, but saying your piece was important in the first instance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, just going back again, the biggest part to remember about when the history lessons are told about ten or twelve years ago versus now, what we have demonstrated to the people of the Province is that the "financial crisis" that the current government would have us believe and is trying hard to convince their own caucus to believe that exists is fabricated and not real. Whereas in the early nineties, we were operating in a Province at a time when there was a North American and worldwide recession. We dealt with a closure and a fishery moratorium in the Province that put 40,000 people in hundreds of communities completely out of work, and the Province, unlike what the Finance Minister was able to report on Thursday past about a credit rating being reaffirmed at the highest level in seventy years and the outlook being stable, the credit rating thirteen years ago was downgraded because it was not sustainable and the outlook was desperate in Newfoundland. There were actual alarming letters from the bond rating agencies thirteen years ago, and those of us who have been here that long know that. We know the difference in the circumstance from the early nineties to now. What you have today is a fabricated circumstance by a government that wants to do some things because they believe in it, in a right-wing agenda, and they have some people who are not that right wing talked into it by exaggerating the circumstance.

That is the point that I made. That is why, again, I was very disappointed in the Minister of Finance, because when we debated issues a few days ago, last week, with the Executive Council, Consolidated Fund Services, that are done in Committee in the House, remember his plea? The members will remember his plea. He wanted to compare apples to apples. Do you remember that? He wanted to compare the $33 million that was budgeted last year in Executive Council to the $30 million that was budgeted this year, because he said that is the only fair comparison, to compare apples to apples.

When he was asked again today, in this debate this evening, to compare apples to apples by looking at page 8 and explaining to the people of the Province why the number that is on page 8 for money that has to be sent to the banks to pay debt is $490 million, did he want to compare apples to apples tonight? No, Sir, he wanted to talk about not the direct servicing debt, which is what the Premier described on television. He wanted to talk about some money that is a shortfall in the pension plans for which, by the way, there are numbers on other pages in this Budget that show there is a plan here, a twenty-year plan to pay that all off. It is all part of a plan.

As the Leader of the New Democratic Party keeps saying, when he makes his interventions, about the fact that the circumstance that this government wants the people to believe does not exist, the Minister of Finance, tonight, got up and would not answer a direct question about why this number is $490 million and the number that his Premier said on televison was a billion. All of a sudden, because this is cash of the $3.7 billion that is in this bill, this book says that $490 million of that has to sent off to the banks. The Premier said it is a billion. So, if the Minister of Finance stands up again, I would ask him to put his own standard to the test. Let's compare apples to apples. Never mind the public accounts, which is a different document altogether, that talks about money that was spent on a whole range of things a year after it happens. Let's talk about the Budget and the Budget, the Budget last year and the Budget this year, and why the Premier went on Province-wide television and said: I have to send a billion dollars in cash to the banks. Then he stands up, as the Minister of Finance, and presents and defends a document that says it is $490 million. So, let's compare apples to apples. I am disappointed that he would not do it tonight. Do you know why he would not do it? Because he cannot do it. Because you cannot defend what the Premier said on television. It is indefensible, because it is not a fact. It is a not a fact.

Now, did you hear another number that he mentioned? He said, even if you count some of the boards out there, the health boards and stuff, last year he said it was $600 million. He is still $400 million away from what the Premier said. So, even when he started to use the second set of numbers, now he wanted to compare apples to oranges, but his oranges were still $400 million off from what the Premier said - and you will not get them. I will make a prediction now: You will not get the Minister of Finance or the Premier to stand in this House before the debate finishes on this particular bill and defend why a billion dollars was said on television and there is $490 million in the document that is before us, because it is not defensible.

I was wanting to talk, Mr. Chairman, about the second prong, because it is important. The first prong, we have seen it. The first prong has been talked about: job losses, service reductions, safety threatened on the highways. Other issues, by the way, that will come out in the next few days: no tenders yet for public works. How much work do you think is really going to get done this summer? They are probably going to exceed their budget targets because it says they are supposed to do - wasn't the Minister of Municipal Affairs on his feet last week saying it was going to be $100 million worth of work done? If they do not get some tenders out, there will be nothing done. Then they will show next year that they are $100 million better off in the budget if the do not soon put out some tenders - because they are not going to do any work. So they better get off their behinds and get off their thumbs and start doing some work, start creating some activity.

Let me talk about the second prong, Mr. Chairman, because the second prong, the business approach, the experience of the leader, a Blue Book, by the way, a similar color, a Blue Book put out before the election, then reprinted, called the blueprint, and even referred to as the blueprint, referred to as a blueprint in the Throne Speech and in the Budget, and it was all first-person singular, says: I have thirty years of business experience. I know how to create jobs. I know how to grow an economy.

Well, we are still waiting. We are still waiting, and one of the things that was supposed to happen was that the I, who wrote the book, was going to run the Department of Business all by himself, because he knew so much about it. I do not know why we have a Minister and a Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, because we have exposed that the Rural Secretariat is the Strategic Social Plan with $300,000 taken out of it. We have shown that by examining the Budget, so there is no Rural Secretariat. That did not happen, so we have the rural development - and there was two parts, by the way. There used to be Grants and Subsidies in the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, with a figurehead minister, but we know who has been making the speeches around the Province: Dr. Doug House.

Dr. Doug House, travels around the Province and makes speeches about Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Guess what has happened to their budget? Last year, for business analysis - there is a new Department of Business now, by the way, with nobody in it. The Premier is the minister, and he would not even come to the Estimates. They put $1 million in it, a couple of hundred thousand dollars to hire two people to sit up in the Premier's office, no real staff, just two more people to sit with the Premier - a deputy minister and a communications officer - and then almost $800,000 in Grants and Subsidies; no ability to do any analysis, no ability to look at anything to see whether it is viable or not, because there is no one to do it. There is no staff. There is only a deputy minister, who is going to sit right next to the Premier, and a communications director to put out little notices saying we gave away some money the other day to a business in such-and-such a place.

They might get to it this year, because there is no sign of it yet. They have not even hired any people yet. They got elected in October. They are out now with ads in the paper looking to hire two people to sit up with the Premier and talk about it. Guess where the almost $800,000 came from, that the Premier and his hand-picked person get to pass out with no analysis, no cost benefit analysis, no real criteria at all? It came from the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Their budget was reduced. Last year they had $10 million in the Department of - it was then Industry, Trade and Rural Renewal. They changed a couple of letters because they wanted it to look like it was different. They had $10 million for business analysis. They have a full staff over there - professionals, by the way, who know how to analyze business plans, go through them, check the criteria, see whether or not there is a chance for a business to succeed. That budget has been cut from $10 million to $5 million. They took $5 million out of it. I do not know what they are going to do over there, because their ability to fund things has been cut in half, but guess where the $5 million went? Four million of it went to the Department of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: And did what?

MR. GRIMES: Grants and Subsidies. It has never been there before, by the way - Grants and Subsidies - and the members on the other side again are hearing this for the first time. It is amazing how many things they have never asked about, never looked at, and they are hearing for the first time.

What you have is a Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, where there used to be $12 million or $13 million, with proper analysis done by professionals to see if you were going to support business opportunities. Six million of that altogether has been taken out; basically $1 million given to the Premier, with no analysis, that he can pass out a slush fund for the Premier, with no staff and no ability to analyze it; and, $4 million, for the first time in history, given to the person we trust more than anybody, the Minister of Finance, that you cannot believe a word hardly that comes out of his chops, cannot hardly believe a word that comes out of his cheeks, and, for the first time ever, guess what? They are going to give him a slush fund of $4 million.

Why do we have a Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and why do we have Dr. Doug House and the staff? To do nothing. We have them over there to do nothing. They took away the money that they used to have, to decide if they were going to support new business enterprises. They created a new Department of Business, with nobody in it except the Premier, and they gave the Premier a little slush fund to pass out with no analysis; and, of all people, they gave the Minister of Finance - can you believe it? - $4 million to pass out as grants and subsidies to support business development. The group on the other side never heard of that, I would say, until tonight.

Here we are being asked to grant the permission for $3.7 billion.

CHAIR (Harding): Order, please!

I would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that his time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will probably be back one more time to talk about that wonderful second prong.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am just going to pick up on a couple of things that the Leader of the Opposition was just talking about, because, Mr. Chairman, it is very important to understand where dollars in this Budget are being allocated and where they are being spent. Now, the Leader of the Opposition just talked about the fact that there was going to be half the Budget, $4 million of it, taken out of the Department of Rural Renewal and put into the Department of Finance.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that the government opposite announced in their Budget a Rural Secretariat. Now, that was interesting as well, because again, it is just a great title, some fancy words that does absolutely nothing. In this Rural Secretariat they have allocated about $1.7 million. They have also said that the money is going to be used to do the community accounts which is an initiative that was started by the Liberal government, funded by the Liberal government previous, and they also say they are going to use the money to subsidize or to carry forward with the Strategic Social Plan. Again, an initiative that was started by the Liberal government. Now, those two things were already being funded in the Budget. They were already activities that were being done in the Province and now they will make up the new Rural Secretariat. So, this is what the Rural Secretariat is all about.

This week we will have the PAN provincial zonal boards all in St. John's. I think they are all showing up tomorrow or Wednesday. They are all going to get the big briefing on Thursday from the department of the new Rural Secretariat. They are going to be shocked when they find out that there is actually no new money, no new Rural Secretariat. That it is all a name, all a title, that will house programs which were already being done and founded and funded under the Liberal government. So, that is what the Rural Secretariat is.

Now, Mr. Chairman, you are talking about a two-pronged Budget. I talked earlier today when I stood up in this debate about where cuts are occurring, where projects are not being funded, where projects are being cancelled, where people are being laid off. Now I am going to talk a little bit about the economic tiger that the Minister of Finance said he was going unleash on Budget Day. Well, I can guarantee you, that tiger has not reached anywhere near the district that I am representing at this time. There has been no job creation there, no economic opportunity as a result of the Budget and the numbers that were passed down by the members across. No, not at all, Mr. Chairman. In fact, it has been the complete opposite. Not only have we not seen any activity, but we do not expect to see too much happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador if it is going to be done under the Rural Secretariat, because there is absolutely nothing that will be occurring there.

Mr. Chairman, the second prong of the two-pronged approach. Let me tell you what is happening with this second prong. As a result of announcements that were made by government in their Budget and the actions that the government has taken in the past six or seven months since they have been in office - in fact, what is happening is that consumer confidence has been lost. What we are seeing is a decline in the amount of spending in this Province and it is causing a lot of concerns to people.

I was reading in the paper today an article by Bradley George, who is from the Federation of Independent Business. What he says is that infrastructure is in a downhill slide and social economic problems are on the rise. It will be next to impossible to attract businesses to our Province. That is what the Federation of Independent Business is saying. They have no confidence in what this government is doing. Absolutely none! They do not see any great opportunity for new business development to occur in this Province over the next little while.

He goes on to say that small firms, small businesses throughout our Province, do not buy into the concept for one minute of the notion of poor, broke government. No, Mr. Chairman. The Federation of Independent Business is saying that small businesses out there in this Province are not buying into what the government is doing, not buying into the concept that we are broke and that we cannot afford to continue to carry on with a lot of the programs and a lot of the services and a lot of the infrastructure spending that we have been seeing in the Province over the past few years. They have no confidence in it, and I will tell you why they have no confidence in it, for the same reason that we have no confidence in it. Because we know that the Budget numbers, the deficit numbers that were put forward in this House on Budget Day were trumped up numbers. They were inflated. They were done to create an image, to create a picture of total desperation in a Province that is on the verge of complete and utter bankruptcy. That is not the case, Mr. Chairman. It was done that way so that they could launch their attack on the ordinary working person in this Province, to launch the attack of extreme layoffs, of redundances, of eliminating jobs in the public service, of cutting services to rural and remote areas of this Province. That was the charade. That was the mask under which they launched the attack on ordinary working people in this Province, putting in place fees on almost every service that the people of the Province would need to use over the course of a year or a couple of years. That was the mask under which they allowed all of these increases, all of these cuts to occur.

Now, that is the economic prong. That is the real tiger that was unleashed here on Budget Day. The same tiger that circled this Province from coast to coast and cut twenty HRE offices out of this Province, taking services away from people, removing the face of poverty from the government's own offices so they did not have to look out their door and see clients coming in to see them. No, Mr. Chairman! They could deal with them over a telephone or over a computer line and not have the personal contact which was required. That was the tiger that was unleashed. The same tiger that is attacking the education system in this Province which is taking, this year and next year, 476 teachers out of the school system.

Mr. Chairman, a lot of those teachers are coming out of schools in my district, and in the district of the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. I have the list. Twenty-five units gone in that board area. The smallest schools in the Province, some of the smallest schools in the Province, I say to you, in some of the most remote areas of the Province. That is what is happening. That is the tiger that was unleashed, the one that is going out and gobbling up the education system; not allowing enough teachers in the classroom to provide an adequate curriculum to our children; making sure that they are not going to get the programs and services that they should be entitled to in rural schools around this Province. That is what we are seeing.

We are seeing the closure of school boards; removing the board structure from the parents and from the communities who have so desperately clung on to the board structure in hopes of enhancing curriculum in their schools, enhancing the level of education being provided to their children in the classroom. That is the tiger, Mr. Chairman.

I could not believe it one day when I heard a minister in this House stand up and say they had no problem with seeing school boards close down in their own district. Twenty-two and twenty-three people got their layoffs, only within days of the minister standing up and making that statement in this House. Mr. Chairman, that shows a blatant disregard for education in this Province. That is the only thing I can say on that matter because I will tell you. come September, come October, November you will hear it, Mr. Chairman. You will hear what is going to be happening in the classrooms around this Province. You will hear, come June of next year, how children in this Province are impacted by the further cuts of teachers in our education system by the removal of boards. In places all over the country where the school boards have been cut, they are now increasing the number of boards again, putting more boards back because the system was too far removed from the people, from the parents, from the teachers, from the communities, not enough say in how the educational system will be done in their region. We are going the complete opposite to that in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what about health care? Let's talk about that. That is the tiger that has yet to creep up on us all. That is the tiger. The tiger is going to leap in health care, I can guarantee you that, when the minister goes out around this Province and starts hiring consultant groups to go in and start looking at boards and looking at how their structure works asking them if there are opportunities for revenue generation within the health care system, looking at areas where they can cut services. That is the kind of terms of reference that has been given to consultant groups that have gone out to study the health care system.

I have letters on top of letters, petitions from the West Coast, the Northern Peninsula, from Labrador, people who are afraid of what may happen within the health care system. Indeed they are afraid, and they have good reason to be afraid because what they have seen with regard to education, what they have seen with regard to social services does not give them a great deal of comfort when it comes to the health care system, I will tell you that.

Mr. Chairman, where was the money for health care investment this year? It was not there. It was not evident. Eighty million dollars went into this Budget, new money in health care. Over $50 million of that will be paid out to physicians in the Province as a result of the new MOU and contracts that were signed with them less than a year ago. So, where is the new money for health care? Eight million dollars going into drugs but no funding for Alzheimer's medication, a group in this Province who went out and launched one the most effective lobby campaigns that I have ever seen but they haven't gotten any results from the government opposite. Not because the need does not exist, not because they have not made a good case and not because it is not necessary. I could not believe to know that the Minister of Health sat at the Cabinet Table, voted to put more than $1.7 million into having a ferry service go to Lewisporte for the people of Labrador when they did not need it or want it but yet, did not support $1.5 million going in to fund medications for Alzheimer's patients in this Province. Shameful, Mr. Chairman! That is what that is.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like to remind the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that her time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will finish my debate later in the evening.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to have at least one more opportunity to speak on this matter before the House. When I spoke last time I talked about the difficulties that both the current government and the previous government face with respect to the financing problems and financing.

I do want to state emphatically, Mr. Chairman, that the talk about accrual budget and $800 million really is not a measure of the day-to-day difficulties facing the government and should not be used in the context of defending budgetary decisions being made today, for example, during the public sector strike, decisions being made with respect to funding of particular items, the closing down of schools and all this stuff, if this is being done because this government wants to do that as their way of tackling the $280 million structural deficit. I think we have to keep focusing on that because every single time they talk about an $850 million deficit, we have to say that you are misleading the people, you are trying to scare people, you are trying to frighten them. Because next year, Mr. Chairman, if the experience of the pension plans are good, as it was last year, all of a sudden this so-called $13 billion deficit that we have is going to be dropped by a billion dollars or dropped by another billion-and-a-half dollars, with no effort on the part of the government. No effort on the part of people having to tighten their belts or sacrifice, no effort at all. So, let's not talk about that, anymore then we can say: Yes, on an accrual basis we do have a large deficit and a large obligation.

As the President of Treasury Board said last November - but has not said much since because he has been upstaged by the Premier who wanted to talk about billion dollar deficits in January of this year to justify what he was going to do in April and May - the reality is that if this government is being honest, if this government is being truthful to the people of the Province and not misleading them, then they would not continue to talk about that in those terms. That is an important consideration when we look at decisions being made on a day-to-day basis by this government, that this accrual budgeting or accrual accounting - or cruel accounting as

I want to call it, because that is the way (inaudible) people - it is not really a fair measure by which to address the day-to-day decisions that this government has to make. Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, we would not be in here with this government seeking permission to spend $3.7 billion. We would not be here, because there is no government in this Province, on that side of the House or on this side of the House, no party which would say that we should have a zero budget on an accrual basis; not one.

If the Minister of Finance wants to get up and disagree with that, then I will sit down and let him do it because that minister and that government will not say that we should have a zero deficit on an accrual basis. If that is what the minister believes, then I will give him time to get up and say that, because I do not think he believes that, and I do not think he believes that because it is absolutely not true.

The accrual accounting method is one that allows us to have the true financial picture for the long haul but it is not a day-to-day decision making tool that we have on a cash basis with the decisions that have to be made year in and year out for this government. On a long-term planning basis, yes. If we look at the teachers' pension fund, and the $1.3 billion or $1.4 billion unfunded pension liability, yes, it is an issue. Yes, we have to look at that for the long haul. Yes, we have to find a forty-year plan to solve it, but if this government wants to slap up to people in this Province the fact that we have an $800 million deficit, then what they are saying to the people of this Province is that we are going to use that to frighten you and scare you into thinking that there is something seriously wrong when there are long-term decisions that have to be fixed, but we do not have the kind of short-term crisis that the minister keeps throwing back at people in the Province and frightening them.

If that were the case, Mr. Chairman, if we did have such a disastrous circumstance, we would not be told again and again that the Province's financial circumstances are stable. We would not be told again and again. Let's face it, Mr. Chairman, last October when these bond rating agencies said that the Province's fiscal situation was stable, that was before this government even had a chance to look at the books. When they looked at the books, and they had Pricewaterhouse do their exaggerated study, that did not change anything. It did not change anything, and the results of Standard and Poors last week does not change anything either. The Province's ratings are still the same as where they were before. They are still stable, just as stable as they were last October or the October before that.

Mr. Chairman, let's get real with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Admit that this government has an agenda at work here, and when they say that they are looking out for poor people by taking $5.3 million and saying we are not going to collect that tax from anybody making less than $12,000 a year, and we are not going to introduce it for a year or so, that same government who say they are giving back $5 million to people making less than $12,000 a year, they are also - they just added, in this Budget, $25 million worth of fees; $25 million per year of fees that are tacked on this year, next year, and the year after that. The $5 million that is being given back to people making less than $12,000 a year does not kick in for another whole year. I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, for that to be known. This government is - for policy reasons, for ideological reasons, for reasons of how they believe the world should work - taking $25 million with one hand and giving $5 million back with the other. Because every single person, no matter how much you make, if you need a birth certificate, Mr. Chairman, you are going to pay the same amount of money whether you are rich or whether you are poor. If you need an ambulance, Mr. Chairman, you are going to pay the same amount whether you are poor or whether you are rich. If you need a death certificate, because one of your loved ones or family members have died and you need that to process your papers, you are going to pay the same amount of money whether you die poor or whether you die rich. That is the kind of unfair taxes and fees that this government has put onto people, $25 million worth, and they want people to believe that they have somehow or other acted in a terrifically compassionate way by saying we are going to take provincial income tax off people making less than $12,000 a year, but that is not going to be introduced for another year or so.

If that were not the case, Mr. Chairman, if this government were more fair, as I said in my previous intervention, if they had taken back the income tax break that they gave to well-to-do people a couple of years ago - the previous government did - we would have an additional $65 million a year to spend, an additional $65 million that could solve some of the problems that we have amongst our school children, Mr. Chairman, children who are going to school hungry, children whose families are forced to pay school fees and pay for textbooks, whether they can afford to or not, children who need the advantage of a full day kindergarten. The program that we campaigned on last October that would have cost about $30 million, Mr. Chairman, that could easily have been paid for, plus eliminated the need for the $25 million in extra fees that they are collecting by getting rid and rolling back the tax break that was given to well-to-do people a couple of years ago.

Mr. Chairman, if we raised our corporate taxes to the same level and to the level equal to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, we would have another $70 million. So there are fairer ways to raise the revenues that we need to spend to look after the people of this Province, but this government has chosen - and it is a definite, decisive choice that they have made - not to hit people who have lots of money, not to hit the corporations, and to put $25 million worth of additional fees affecting everybody equally, Mr. Chairman, and have not seen fit to do anything whatsoever to raise the incomes of the lowest level of people in this Province receiving income support, and they are turning them away from government offices. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and the Status of Women is closing down offices and telling people who need social assistance that you are going to have to use the telephone, whether you have one or not, in order to communicate with the Department of Social Services.

It was all bad enough, Mr. Chairman, when they came to office, because I remember hearing -

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: I am very disappointed to hear that, Mr. Chairman, but I will sit down. I see that the Minister of Fisheries wants to have a few words so I will sit down and let him speak.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) close schools in your district.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquiculture, and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, I never in this House said that I wanted to close any school in my district or outside of my district. I said that there were probably opportunities for it, given the way that the school populations are in some areas now, but I never, ever, wanted to see that happen. I would hope that in every community in this Province we would always see enough children to maintain the number of schools that we have presently.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: While I am on that - and you can read it back to me tomorrow - I said, at the time, back about three or four weeks ago, with the current enrollment and current trends, maybe in places like Gunners Cove and St. Lunaire-Griquet, that we would see a time in the not-too-distant future where, instead of two schools, there would be one school; because, where we used to have 200 students in Gunners Cove and 300 students in St. Lunaire-Griquet, we now have less than 300 in both combined.

Mr. Chairman, that is what I said, for the record. I do not mind standing by that. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that in the years to come, the population will not decline but will increase so that we will not see that unfortunate situation develop.

While I am on it, I will, if I could, speak briefly, very briefly, about something that I heard on CBC radio as I was driving to the airport on Friday morning past. Probably some other members here heard it, about a bit of a documentary series, I guess, that CBC is planning on doing. They are going to call it, I think, Coming Of Age, and talk about the population changes and demographic shifts in Newfoundland and Labrador. They referenced briefly the community of Upper Island Cove, where this year there are, I think, thirty-four or thirty-six students in kindergarten. Next year, my understanding is that there are going to be fourteen in Upper Island Cove in kindergarten.

MR. REID: That is your government that did that.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, that is our government that did that. Yes, for sure. Don't talk so much foolishness, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. Yes, in six months we made that change.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak very briefly here tonight about a couple of initiatives that we have been engaged in over the past six months, trying to do and trying to deal with some of the issues that are of vital importance to the people of this Province. I heard one of the members opposite, in the last half hour or so, talk about Mr. Bradley George's comments and commentary in a paper recently about deteriorating infrastructure in the Province. I can assure the people here in this House that, yes, the infrastructure in this Province has deteriorated over the past winter. I am sure that every time there is freezing and thawing, the roads in this Province deteriorate some.

Mr. Chairman, we know, and everybody in the Province knows, that the problem we have with infrastructure in the Province did not occur over the last six or seven months, and that the problem confronting our roads, our water and sewer infrastructure and the like, is not a matter that happened over the past six months and is not going to be solved over the next six months.

Mr. Chairman, we saw, when we brought down the Budget a little while ago, and I heard one of the members here tonight reference, an increase in vehicle registration by $40. We did that for a reason: simply to respond in some small way to the deteriorating infrastructure that we see in our roads. We have increased, yes, the vehicle registration by $40 for the years to come and for this fiscal year. Mr. Chairman, that will generate $7 million in additional revenue; $7 million that we have committed directly to roads, capital works expenditures for our road system in the Province.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to hon. members opposite talk over the past couple of months about some of the programs - projects, I should say - throughout the Province that we have either delayed or cancelled. I remember doing an interview, actually, with The Labradorian, back around the time the Budget came down. The question was posed to me: What did your government cancel or delay in the budgetary process in your district? I had to answer: Nothing. We cancelled nothing and we deferred nothing.

I say, Mr. Chairman, there was a reason for that, because the previous Administration had promised nothing that could be cancelled or deferred in our district over the past three years. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, everybody in this House, or the vast majority of people in this House, and certainly the people on the Northern Peninsula, know what the condition of the Northern Peninsula Highway, Route 430, is, and many of the side roads up on the Northern Peninsula, the condition of those highways.

Mr. Chairman, I know I sat in this House now for a little over three years, just about three-and- a-half-years, and in those three years, despite a significant amount of lobbying on my part, the previous Administration saw fit to spend $300,000 to replace two culverts in 2001. They spent $500,000 in 2002, to repair four-and-a-half kilometres of pavement, and last year, Mr. Chairman, because of their electioneering, they saw fit to spend zero in my district on roads.

Mr. Chairman, that is what we have seen on the Northern Peninsula over the past three years. We saw, in The Straits & White Bay North, a grand total, in three years, by the previous Administration, $800,000 spent on highways in our region.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to a number of the comments here tonight on government spending and what we are planning on doing with increased fees. We have, as I said, increased fees for vehicle registration and it will go directly into increased road funding for our transportation infrastructure throughout the Province. Hopefully we can see where, over the next three years, there will be more than $800,000 - the $800,000 that was spent by the previous Administration - spent on the highways on the Northern Peninsula.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things, and while a lot of people might focus just on the Budget and what we have done or have not done in the Budget exercise over the past number of months, there have been a host of other items and initiatives that this government has been pursuing. Some of them have been referenced by the Minister of Tourism here earlier this evening. Some have been referenced by the Minister of Natural Resources. I will just bring up one that our department has been working fairly intensely on, fairly aggressively on, and that is the change in fish processing policy in the Province.

Mr. Chairman, I know when we had our debate here in the Resource Committee back a couple of weeks ago - two weeks ago, I guess it was now - there were questions posed to me by the critic, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, on what we are doing with the implementation of the Dunne report. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, from his comments, he certainly seemed to be in agreement with the majority of the initiatives that we are pursuing there, and I thank him for that. He agreed that where we plan on going and where we hope to go is a bit of a difficult road. I asked him: You say it is a difficult road but do you think we should go there? He said: yes, I think you should go there. I said: Well, that is all I want to hear.

MR. REID: On a paved road.

MR. TAYLOR: On a paved road. Go down the road on the fish processing policy review, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, and the initiatives that we announced in the Dunne Report as it related to species licencing and the auction system. I indicated in the Resource Committee that you said you agreed with what we were saying.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, here he goes. He is up on a point of order.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind the gentleman opposite quoting me but he should quote me correctly and truthfully. I did not say you should go down the road with the auction system and everything else. I said, with regard to the species licences, those species that these core plants have on their licences that are not being used, you should take those back. That is the road that you should go down on. That is the only thing I said about the policy you are talking about.

CHAIR: There is certainly no point of order, a point of clarification.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think that the record will show, Mr. Chairman, when it is printed in Hansard, that part of what the member just said is correct and part of what he said is slightly off. He may not have said that we should go down the road of the auction but he certainly did say, and the record will show it, that I hope the auction works. He did say that, Mr. Chairman. Now, whether he thinks we should go there or not, he certainly did say that.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, on a point of order.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, this is twice in the last two minutes that he is up misquoting me and misleading the public. I did not say I hope the auction system works. I did not say that to him. I told him, in fact, that I have some grave concerns about the auction and I doubt if it could ever work.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is certainly no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As the Government House Leader said, the record of Hansard will show who is right and who is wrong. He did say, I agree, Mr. Chairman, that he thought the auction system will be difficult to implement.

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

MR. TAYLOR: I just said I agree with him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, on a point of order.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, if the minister does not want me to interrupt him, I ask him to quote me exactly what I said and not go and dream things up in his head and pretend that I said them. So, I would ask him to refrain from putting words in my mouth.

CHAIR: Again, there is no point of order.

I remind the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that his time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say to the hon. member that I was only agreeing with him and I apologize (inaudible) for disagreeing with him.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not mean to belabour this or prolong the discussion, but I would like to make these few, final comments from me with respect to this particular bill. Again, to put it in context, what we are being asked to do - which I do not pretend to speak for the full caucus here, but I will vote against it, by matter of principle, because I think there are so many things wrong about it. We know that it will pass because the government members will vote for it.

Mr. Chairman, we are being asked to approve $3.7 billion in round numbers in expenditures for the government between now and the end of March. Again, my point is very much in-line with what the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi makes, that the government - and the Minister of Finance, in particular, and the Premier - have created this false scenario in the Province to try to justify how they plan to spend the $3.7 billion. So they are going to spend $3.7 billion. They would have you believe, which is absolutely wrong, that a billion of it goes to the banks to pay interest, and I think we have talked about that enough.

We cannot get the Minister of Finance to stand on his feet and admit to the actual fact, because that is not going to happen. It is not part of this bill. It is not part of any of these Budget documents. It is only a part of a figment of the imagination of the Premier. He is the only one who has ever said it. The Minister of Finance, when he got up tonight, would not even compare apples to apples because he cannot. If he compares apples to apples he cannot point out for anybody in this Legislature, or anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, where the $1 billion is that is going off to the banks for interest, because it is not here. It is not in any of the documents that we have looked at since March 27. It does not exist! Then he compares apples to oranges and then he goes on and compares apples to lemons, because the whole Budget is one big lemon. It is the biggest lemon that the people of the Province have ever been asked to try and swallow and choke down at any point in time, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Now, the fact of the matter is this, they want to talk about this $800 million deficit. No such thing! If there was going to be an $800 million deficit, as the way deficits are understood in budgeting and finance, the cash deficit that he talked about and that he read about right in the Budget Speech, right in the speech that he read himself, he talked about dealing with the cash deficit. Individuals and families understand cash deficits. If there is an $800 million deficit, you can put whatever adjective you want in front of it, it means that you are planning on spending, this year, $800 million more than you are taking in. That, folks, is not going to happen. That is not going to happen this year. The plan is to spend three hundred and - what is the number, Minister of Finance, $360 million more?

MR. SULLIVAN: You do not know what you are (inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: But you know. I know you know and I am trying to get you to say out loud that it is $360 million in round numbers. Well, that is the speech you read when you stood up for an hour on Budget Day. You talked about how much more money you were going to spend than you were going to take in.

Then you talked about other things. You talked about the fact that there is a pension plan that is not fully funded. Ideally, if it was fully funded, we would be making hundreds of millions of dollars more interest on it than we are today. We would be if it was funded. It is not fully funded so we are not making the money. That is the whole issue that they want to use to try to confuse people, but in this Budget and in this bill, the $3.7 billion, there is an amount in there for how much money he plans to spend on pensions; how much money that he plans to put into the pension funds. It is right in this bill, and it is not $300 million or $400 million, folks. Because if it was $300 million or $400 million that he was planning in this Budget document to put into the pension funds, then either the deficit would be $300 million or $400 million more or you would be spending $300 million or $400 million less on things like health care, education, social services and infrastructure. So, it is a scam to try and suggest that we are going to have a deficit.

The members stand up and talk about it when they make their speeches. They did it when we talked about Bill 18. That crazy, idiotic legislation to send people back to work who were already working for a week. What did they say? Oh, there is an $800 million deficit. I cannot pass that on to my children and grandchildren. Well, it does not exist, folks! There is a deficit, I believe, of $360 million, which is a big deficit. It needs to be dealt with, and whomever was the government would have to be doing something about it. No question. Now this idea - if you were going to fix the pension plans - there is a twenty-year plan, by the way, to fix the pension plans. It is right in part of this bill, because part of the $3.7 billion - and the Minister of Finance, if he wants, can get up and contradict me or he can get up and verify that it is true. There are two payments in this $3.7 billion for the pension plans. There are the matching contributions, so that when employees put their money in the government matches it, and there are special payments to pay off the unfunded liability over time. I believe this year now they are up to $60 million or $70 million above and beyond what is required to put in to match what the employees are paying. It is a plan that is in place.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sixty-two point five, to be exact.

MR. GRIMES: Sixty-two point five, I thank the Minister of Finance. There is $62.5 million of the $3.7 billion going to be put into the pension plans, not because it is needed to match the contributions of employees, but it is for past liabilities and as part of a twenty-year plan to pay off the past liabilities. Why do we need to be trying to frighten people to death about the state of the pension plans when he is already, in this bill that we are being asked to pass tonight, saying there is $62.5 million of the $3.7 billion going into the plan so that it will not go bankrupt next year, it will not go bankrupt the year after, it will not go bankrupt the year after that? It will actually improve its position over time, particularly if the markets are better. He acknowledged that in the last two years they improved, by the way. For a three or four-year period they dropped off. In the last year or so, when the report comes out at the end of the next year, it will show that the pension fund improved in its circumstance, in the next report, because the interest went up. So that is in there.

He talks about retirement benefits. There is money, by the way, in this for retirement benefits; right in there. It is not a different number, other than the $3.7 billion. It is in this bill.

He talks about the whole notion of student loans, the $200 million. Guess where it is? In last year's Budget, and carried over with some allowance for some maybe (inaudible) in this $3.7 billion. It is not a different number. It is not on top of that. It is in this bill, folks. It is already accounted for right in here. It is not an additional deficit or problem beyond what is in this bill. It is contained in this document.

Then you have the whole issue of - he talks about the health boards. He says there is some debt out in the health boards. Well, sure enough! Guess what is in this $3.7 billion? Money for the health boards, part of which they have to spend to erase their deficits. It is not an additional cost on top of it. It is right in this bill.

Guess what is here, Mr. Chairman, for the municipalities? He talks about debt out in the municipalities. In this $3.7 billion there is funding for the municipalities and from some of that funding they have to pay off their loans, which we approved a few weeks ago. I think it is well over $200 - I saw the number earlier, it might be listed here on a separate page. It is $200 million or $300 million worth of loans. When he described them a week ago he said they are at no risk. There is no risk to anybody. The municipalities have more than enough money to pay their way on their debt servicing. So, that is not above and beyond that.

The whole issue is this. We do have a cash deficit. It is a cash deficit that is not nearly the number that members opposite have been sort of brainwashed into quoting all the time. They go around talking about $800 million and $1 billion. They made the speeches about it a week or so ago. They made the speeches about it two or three weeks ago at the end of a strike. You did not hear them talking about a $200 million or $300 million deficit. They talked about $800 million and $1 billion, because they wanted to. They bought hook, line and sinker, the line that is put there by the Premier - who, again, did not stand in this Legislature and explain why he talked about the billion dollars and by the Minister of Finance, who, again tonight, would not stand up and compare apples to apples and show us why there is $490 million right in the document, right in this bill, instead of the billion dollars that his leader is going around talking about in Newfoundland and Labrador.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate the point. I know it is on deaf ears on that side but I can convince you, it is not falling on deaf ears when it comes to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 3)

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 through 4 carry?

All those in favour ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: WHEREAS it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending Marsh 31, 2005 and for other purposes relating to the public service.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The preamble is carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The long title is carried.

On motion, long title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried, without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 3 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Chairperson, I move that the total contained in the Estimates in the amount of $3,704,240, 200 for the 2004-2005 fiscal year be carried.

I further move that the Committee report that the Committee have adopted a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, and that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed the amount of $3,704,240,200 contained in the Estimates of Supply for the 2004-2005 fiscal year, and have adopted a certain resolution, and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the report be received? Now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2005 the sum of $2,416,816,300." Resolution for Main Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this resolution be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the resolution.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

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

I move that the Main Supply Bill, Bill 3, be introduced and read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 3)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce the bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 3)

On motion, Bill 3 read a first time.

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

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

I move that the Main Supply Bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said Bill 3 be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 3)

On motion, Bill 3 read a second time.

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

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

I move that the said bill on Main Supply, Bill 3, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill, Bill 3, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 3)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper." (Bill 3)

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

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

Motion 2. I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions respecting the imposition of taxes on tobacco, Bill 13.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

 

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act." (Bill 13)

Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 and 2 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened as follows:

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The long title is carried.

On motion, long title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Motion 3, Bill 19, Mr. Chairperson.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 19, "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province."

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the province a sum of money not exceeding $675,000,000."

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 6.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 6 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 6 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 to 6 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The long title is carried.

On motion, long title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 19, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 19 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Motion 4, Bill 28, certain resolutions relating to the Granting of Supply to Her Majesty.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

It has been quite correctly pointed out to me by the Clerk that I need to rise the Committee to report progress and ask leave to sit again, and that when we deal with Supplementary Supply we need to introduce another message from His Honour. I apologize to the House.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill 13 and Bill 19 introduced without amendment, and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: We will handle them separately.

MR. E. BYRNE: ( Inaudible) two of them together?

MR. SPEAKER: Two of them together? Is there agreement in the House that these two bills be read together, Bill 13 and Bill 19? Agreement has been reached?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, have directed him to report that the Committee has adopted certain resolutions and recommend that bills be introduced to give effect to same.

It is moved and seconded that these resolutions be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on tobacco."

CLERK: That is the resolution of Bill 13.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the Province a sum of money not exceeding $675,000,000."

CLERK: That is the resolution of Bill 19.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that these resolutions be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the two resolutions.

On motion, resolutions read a second time.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce two bills: Bill 19, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province; and, Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce the bills?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province." (Bill 19)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act." (Bill 13)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bills be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act. (Bill 13); and,

A bill, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province. (Bill 19)

 

On motion, Bill 13 and Bill 19 read a first time.

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

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

I move that Bill 13, an act respecting the imposition of taxes on tobacco, and Bill 19, be now read a second time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bills be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act. (Bill 13); and,

A bill, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province. (Bill 19)

On motion, Bill 13 and Bill 19 read a second time.

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

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

I move that Bill 13 and Bill 19 be now read a third time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bills be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act. (Bill 13); and,

A bill, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: These bills are now read a third time and it is ordered that the bills do pass and that their titles be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered passed, and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act." (Bill 13)

A bill, "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province." (Bill 19)

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

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

My suggestion is that Motions 4 and 5, of Granting Her Majesty Supply - this deals with expenditures that have already been made in years previous - that we deal with those together for the sake of expediency, if that is okay.

I believe that the Minister of Finance has a message to read.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have received two messages from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: Please rise.

There are two messages. Message number one: As Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2003, by way of Supplementary Supply, and in accordance with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly. Signed: Edward Roberts, Lieutenant-Governor. Dated 28 May 2004.

The second message: As Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required for the public service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2004, by way of Supplementary Supply, and in accordance with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly. Signed: Edward Roberts, Lieutenant-Governor. Dated 28 May 2004.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together with the amount, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the matters have been referred to Committee of Supply.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 28, a Supplementary Supply Bill.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2003 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 28)

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2003, the sum of $24,215,600."

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 and 2 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

CLERK: The Schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the Schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The Schedule is carried.

On motion, Schedule carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: WHEREAS it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain additional expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2003, and for other purposes relating to the public service.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The preamble is carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2003

And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The long title is carried.

On motion, long title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 28, Supplementary Supply Bill, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 28 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Motion 5, the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 29.

CHAIR: Bill 29, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2004, the sum of $46,490,200."

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, again not to belabour this because everyone, I think, in the Legislature understands these are expenditures that are already done; but, for purposes of the record, maybe the Minister of Finance might like to give us, particularly with respect to the Schedule on page 4 of Bill 29, an indication of which of these expenditures - because the year ending in March, 2004, as everyone would know, six or seven months of expenditures were under direction of the previous Liberal Administration, and expenditures at the end of the year were under the direction of the new Conservative new approach Administration. Could the Minister of Finance indicate to us, particularly as it comes to, say, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, whether or not that additional - because this is money that was voted and is spent above and beyond what was in the Budget. This is extra money, not what was budgeted. This is extra money that was spent.

In Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that $5 million, just as an example, because there are nine or ten entries here, was that $5 million because the previous Liberal Administration had decided to spend $5 million more than budgeted, or was it because the new approach, new Conservative Administration in the last fiscal year decided to spend $5 million more than budgeted, or was it partly decisions made by both Administrations? Rather than go through the whole list, maybe if the minister, just by using that one as way of example - because it is a year in which there were two different Administrations that should share some responsibility for the final amount of money spent in the Province as of March 31, 2004.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, yes, this bill is very similar to the bill before that. There are two bills. The first one we just passed, and this one reflects the same thing. The previous one was for the Special Warrants that were issued in 2002-2003, that never came to the House last year. We were obligated to bring the bill, too. That is for two years ago, basically, so this bill that we are doing now is the bill for this past year that we are also bringing to the House. I will give them an idea of where each of these were spent.

On Government Services and Lands, for example, in this bill there is $517,600, and under that particular bill there was a Special Warrant in that for automobile insurance of $230,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is.

Under Environment, the $175,000 was a special risk assessment of the former military base in St. Anthony. I do believe that was approved - I am not sure if my colleague - before our time, that particular one.

The next one, Fisheries and Aquaculture, was $497,500. That is the one that the former government approved for review of the provincial fish processing policy. That is a warrant issued;100 per cent of that was by the former government.

Forest Resources and Agrifoods, the total of $4.5 million. There were two Special Warrants given by the former government for Country Ribbon chicken. One was signed the day before we took office, for $2 million and $2.5 million respectively - each of the Country Ribbon - the deal was finalized.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am just letting them know when it happened. They asked the question. If they do not want the answer, I will sit down.

The next one, Tourism, Culture and Recreation, pertaining to previous amounts of expenditure of warrants for The Rooms of $635 and $1.265 million.

MR. JOYCE: That was a waste of money, not even open. Not even open.

MR. SULLIVAN: He says it is a waste of money. They will have to blame their government. They approved it. They sanctioned it. They approved $47.5 million for it and now they said it is a waste of money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Bay of Islands said $47.5 million wasted on The Rooms, that they approved, that they spent and they committed. Now, if they want the answers, I will give them the answers.

Health and Community Services, this was a Special Warrant in Health and Community Service. The total there is $21,782,500. One Special Warrant for the big bulk of that is $19,482,500 dealing with the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed with the medical association of which the former Premier is well aware, entirely negotiated in their year. The other $2,300,000 is the negotiated contract for the Newfoundland Association of Ambulance Services. That was the other one by which - the Leader of the Opposition is very much aware of that one.

The next one was Human Resources and Employment, that was for $9 million because they underestimated, basically, the amount of money needed for income assistance. The caseload was significantly higher than they had budgeted and they had to pay for income support on this specific one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: They underestimated their expenditure. In other words, their budget did not cover it. They underbudgeted on that amount and they had to spend it. Whose fault is it? Well, maybe it was a fair guess when you did your budget, but the budget numbers were off. The estimates were wrong when you put your budget there. That is why that had to be paid out - entirely a budgetary decision - amounts budgeted in a budget of a year ago.

The next item in Justice is $3,117,600. There was a $1 million Special Warrant to facilitate design and construction to the Supreme Court facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, of which I am sure you are well aware of that one. Also, a Special Warrant for retroactive increases and retroactive pay to Provincial Court Judges who went through a tribunal under the former government, and came to a bill to this House. That is entirely under the Leader of the Opposition's year as Premier of the Province also - of which just about all of them are, as you can see.

Under Municipal and Provincial Affairs, there was a $5 million one relating to the floods in Badger and the West Coast. Special Warrants had to be issued in those cases.

That is the entire amount there, of which you can see almost exclusively under the Administration of the former government.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No.2."

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 and 2 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The schedule is carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: WHEREAS it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain additional expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2004, and for other purposes relating to the public service.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The preamble is carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004, And For Other Purposes Related To The Public Service, No.2.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The long title is carried.

On motion, long title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 29, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 29 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that they have adopted certain resolutions and recommend that Bills 28 and 29, without amendment, be introduced and give effect to the same.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that we will handle both reports together, by agreement?

The Chairperson of Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, have directed him to report that the Committee have adopted certain resolutions and recommend that bills be introduced to give effect to the same.

It is moved and seconded that these resolutions be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2003, the sum of $24,215,600."

CLERK: That is the resolution of Bill 28.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2004, the sum of $46,490,200."

CLERK: That is the resolution of Bill 29.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that these resolutions be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

On motion, resolutions read a first and second time.

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

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

I move that the Supplementary Supply Bills, Bill 28 and Bill 29, be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce Bills 28 and 29.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce said bills?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2003 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 28)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No. 2," carried. (Bill 29)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bills be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

On motion, Bills 28 and 29 read a first time.

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

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

I move that the Supplementary Supply Bills, Bill 28 and Bill 29, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bills be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bills be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2003 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 28)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No 2." (Bill 29)

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

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

I move that the Supplementary Supply Bills, Bill 28 and Bill 29, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bills be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bills be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2003 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 28)

And, a bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No 2. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: These bills are now read a third time and is ordered that the said bills do pass and that their titles be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of the Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2003 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 28)

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2004 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service No 2," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 29)

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

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

Before moving the motion to adjourn, according to Standing Order 11, I move that the House tomorrow not rise at 5:30 p.m., and do further move, according to Standing Order 11, that the House do not rise at 10:00 p.m. tomorrow. With that, I move the motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion to adjourn?

All those in favor, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, June 1, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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