MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for St. John's North, and the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to extend congratulations to the winners of the 2004 City of Corner Brook Molson Sports Awards.

Last evening, I had the pleasure of attending the Annual Corner Brook Sports Awards and Banquet. With its beginning in 1967, this event is designed to recognize the accomplishments of individuals and groups within the amateur and elite sporting community of the City of Corner Brook. These awards have grown to include all facets of athletic endeavour, including events, school programs, officials, lifetime achievement and distinction.

The recipient for Corner Book's Male Athlete of the Year went to cross-country skier, Andrew Casey, while Noelle Kenny was named Female Athlete of the Year. Colin Pike-Thackray was named Youth Male Athlete and Kelsey Flynn, Youth Female Athlete.

Coach of the Year went to Humber Valley Speed Skating coach, Brian Bonnell, while Tony Baird took the Official of the Year award, with Marian Casey receiving the Distinction Award.

Introduced for the 2004 Awards is the Masters Male and Female Athlete of the Year, recognizing the sporting accomplishment of an athlete at the Masters level in sports. Awards went to marathon runner Michael Coyne and Sheila Ereaut.

Volunteer of the Year award went to Jeannie Colbourne for her contribution to the city's minor softball program, while the Lifetime Achievement award went to Claude Anstey.

The Team of the Year award went to Bas Buckle's world championship curling team, while the Event of the Year was the 2004 World Broomball Championships, and School of the Year was Presentation Junior High.

I ask all members of the House to join with me in extending congratulations to the award recipients and all nominees for their accomplishments and dedication to their individual sports.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. Hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Humber Valley, it is with great pleasure that I rise in this House today to congratulate the Deer Lake Red Wings on winning the Herder Memorial Trophy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: This Sunday, the Red Wings edged the Conception Bay CeeBees 3 to 2 in the seventh game of the Newfoundland and Labrador's senior hockey championship.

Mr. Speaker, this series drew sellout crowds in St. John's and Corner Brook and is proof that senior hockey is alive and well in Newfoundland and Labrador. In a year without the NHL, hockey fans in our Province were reminded that you do not have to look any further than Newfoundland and Labrador to see some great hockey.

I would like to express appreciation to Darren Langdon for providing exceptional leadership and drawing on his vast experience in helping lead the Red Wings to the Herder victory. I would also like to thank the many players who travelled from all over this Island to play their hearts out for Deer Lake, including the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile's son. Although MVP and stars were selected in this tournament, it was a team effort that led to their victory.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and recognize the Deer Lake fans for their passion for the game and fierce loyalty to their team. Their steadfast confidence, no doubt, helped the Red Wings to victory. The many volunteers and organizers that helped out at every step of the way in this tournament also deserve many thanks.

While I take great pride in congratulating the Deer Lake Red Wings on their victory, I would also like to extend heartfelt congratulations to the players, coaches and fans of the Conception Bay North CeeBees. It was a hard fought series that was decided by a single goal in the seventh and final game and they should be very proud of their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, this series was a testament to the determination and spirit that is so characteristic of people from all areas of this Province. I ask all members to join me in congratulating everyone involved in this year's Herder tournament.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, today I recognize David King of Grand Bank. David, who is twenty-two years old, was selected the most outstanding performer at the 2005 Newfoundland Open Senior Weightlifting Championships held in St. John's on April 2.

David's provincial record saw him named best male lifter as well.

David set three consecutive records in the Clean and Jerk seventy-seven kilogram class. The old record was142.5 kilograms. He started with 143 kilograms and followed that up with 147.5 and 150. Combined with his 112.5 kilogram lift in the Snatch category, he set a new total record of 262.5 kilograms. David qualified for the 2005 National Senior Championships being held in Saskatchewan in May. As well, in May he will convocate with a degree in pharmacy from Memorial University.

David comes by his ability naturally. His father, Jim, and brother Steven are both weight lifters. His parents are Jim and Joanne King of Grand Bank.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating David King.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, it was approximately five years ago that this hon. House passed an act to establish Holocaust Memorial Day in this Province. Last night, I was pleased to attend the Holocaust Memorial Service held at Prince of Wales Collegiate. While we all know the story of the Holocaust, it is still important for us to take time to remember that 6 million people, including 1.5 million children, were mercilessly killed simply because they were Jewish. It is important to recall that the Holocaust saw infants used as target practice, and another 1 million people killed because they were disabled or homosexual.

Mr. Speaker, there is an ongoing program of Holocaust education at PWC, and students from that school are the first in the Province to take part in the Asper Foundation Human Rights Program. Special mention has to be made of one teacher, Mr. Keith Samuelson, a recipient of the Prime Minister's Award for Teaching Excellence, for his efforts in promoting Holocaust education. Last night's memorial service also saw a presentation by the students of a Terry Reilly play, Some Picnic, as directed by Mr. Tolson Barrington.

As we in this House take time to remember the Holocaust, we have to realize that anti-Semitism is still alive in our world, and we commend all those students, staff and others who strive to fight this and all forms of prejudice in our world.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to a number of students from my district who participated in a local contest that was launched by DFO at three schools in my District of Terra Nova in 2004.

Students were asked to submit creative and original pictures that would capture the intent of local lobster conservation initiatives. The Eastport MPAs Steering Committee reviewed the entries and chose winners from primary, elementary, junior high and high school submissions. The winning entries were provided to graphic artist Derek Peddle from Vivid Design who, in turn, developed the final Eastport MPAs logo. Prizes for the winning entries will be supplied by DFO and the Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation.

The following students were awarded: Primary, from Charlottetown Elementary, first place went to Candace Murphy, second to Brandon Abbot, and third to Lyndsey Drover. Elementary, from Holy Cross School in Eastport, first was Haylee Brown, second place was Amber Dyke, and third place was Rebecca Bradley. Junior High, from Glovertown Academy, first place went to Adrian Locke, second to Holly Wells; and third to Gerri-Lynn Arnold. High School, also from Glovertown Academy, first place went to Matt Glover, second to Christina Elliot, and third to Jessica Lewis.

Mr. Speaker, I kindly ask that all hon. members of this House join with me in congratulating these students on their fine work and achievements.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, last week I had the honour of accompanying twelve Newfoundland and Labrador companies on a Team Canada Atlantic trade mission to Chicago. The companies represented a wide variety of industrial sectors and, I am pleased to say, came from all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

The companies that participated in the trade mission include: Labrador Preserves of Forteau; TUC of Nain; Wholesome Dairy Ltd. of Stephenville; Terra Nova Industries Ltd. of Glovertown; Compusult Ltd. of Mount Pearl; and from St. John's, iDance, Meditrain, Nearshore Atlantic, Systems ‘N' Solutions Ltd., thedog8it!, Unity Bay Energy Ltd. and Verafin Inc.

I would like to welcome Mr. Dave Cowan and Mr. Bill Burton of Meditrain, who are seated in the gallery today.

Mr. Speaker, this was the first visit to the Chicago area for most of these companies. While in Chicago, the companies had one-on-one meetings with potential customers from the Tri-State area of Illinois, Wisconsin and Missouri.

The companies attended sessions and events with key Chicago decision-makers who shared valuable information for understanding the Tri-State market, information which is critical if our companies are to successfully compete in that market.

And, while the Newfoundland and Labrador companies gained greater knowledge of the Tri-State market, they were also tremendous ambassadors for our Province. Individually and collectively, they raised awareness amongst American business people about Newfoundland and Labrador, and the benefits of doing business with Newfoundland and Labrador companies.

I am pleased with the work done and the progress made by our companies on this mission. The contacts made and the market intelligence gathered will be extremely valuable to the companies as they pursue opportunities in this market.

With over twenty-three million people in the Tri-State area, and less than 1 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador's U.S. exports going to that region, the federal-provincial partners of Team Canada Atlantic believe this area represents a huge untapped market for our companies.

Mr. Speaker, approximately 95 per cent of businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador are small businesses. This government recognizes the significant role small businesses play in our economy, and is providing an array of tools to support their development and growth, including a $10 million revolving fund announced in the budget, access to venture capital and the opportunity to participate in trade missions.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident this recent trade mission will prove to be successful for the companies who participated, and I look forward to continuing to work with them in the future.

Thank you.

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.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her Ministerial Statement today. A trade mission such as this is very important, as we know. The more local companies that participate, hopefully they will have the kind of experience that will enable them to participate and trade worldwide.

The day I will be really excited, Mr. Speaker, is when the minister brings into the House a Ministerial Statement talking about the plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I am pleased to see that some of the companies that participated were, in fact, from rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but unfortunately there is no plan that I am aware of that will see them benefit to any great degree from anything that this government has done.

I would suggest to the minister that we have seen 2,600 people leave this Province since she has been the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. It might be worthwhile, if she were to really be interested in small business, that she would talk to her colleagues in government and look at some of the decisions that are being taken of the departments that impact negatively on rural Newfoundland and Labrador. One, in particular, I think of a small businessman in Fogo who has eight trucks in his trucking company. In fact it costs him, because of the ferry increases, the rate increases in the ferry, $152 a day just to get a truck off the Island.

I would suggest to the minister, if she really wants to help small business in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, she might want to look at some of these initiatives that are not too popular out there today, and maybe we will see it stem to the out-migration.

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, too, want to congratulate the twelve companies who participated in this trade mission with the minister and her government. These kinds of activities, I hope, are very positive. I hope that the twelve businesses involved were happy with the investment they made in seeking new markets in the United States.

Small business is very important to this Province, and particularly to rural Newfoundland. I note one of the gentlemen in the gallery, Mr. Chafe, from Wholesome Dairy Ltd., is a new entrance to business and produces a terrific product that I have seen in the stores. I hope that he and all the others who participated in this trade mission found it worthwhile and are able to get some contacts, some customers and some ideas as to how to proceed from here. I think this is the kind of activity that needs to be encouraged in order to build our capacity to create and build the small business sector in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to recognize a very important celebration this week in Newfoundland and Labrador. April 17-23 is National Volunteer Week. It is an opportunity to honour the many people who, by volunteering in social, recreational, economic and other community nonprofit groups, make our Province a better place to live.

National Volunteer Week is sponsored by the Canadian Association of Volunteer Bureaux and Centres in partnership with the Voluntary Action Program. Provincially, the Community Service Council will be sponsoring a variety of events and activities to pay tribute to volunteers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Voluntarism enriches our community and makes a valuable contribution to our provincial and national character. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador encourages and supports community partnerships in economic and social development. Volunteers are one of our most important partners. Our volunteers give endless time to social interests and causes. In addition, though their work is beyond monetary value, voluntarism contributes significantly to our local economy.

The work of volunteers in Newfoundland and Labrador is diverse. In our Province there are more than 4,300 voluntary, community-based organizations employing thousands of people. Equally impressive, there are over 138,000 volunteers who donate the highest average of annual hours to volunteering in Canada. Newfoundland and Labrador's voluntary sector relies on its volunteers to provide community programs and services that enhance quality of life.

Volunteers support cultural diversity and heritage by promoting the arts, celebrating cultural identities, and preserving historical sites. Many volunteers also advance issues and priorities important to women in our Province.

On behalf of this government, I would like to thank all volunteers in our Province for their social and economic contributions to our lives.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

I am sure we would all agree, that we stand many times in this hon. House and celebrate and honour people within our Province, but I believe none is more fitting than the people we are recognizing here today, the volunteers, this being Volunteer Week, April 27-23.

Mr. Speaker, I know I can speak for my district, and I am sure each and every member in this hon. House can speak for the people in their districts. I think about the Run for the Janeway, the Lion's Clubs, the fire departments, the search and rescues, people who go into schools and assist teachers on any given day, and those who go and assist seniors in the homes. I think, Mr. Speaker, of all those people who go door-to-door on behalf of the various nonprofit organizations. They do a marvellous job, Mr. Speaker, and those volunteers come in all ages and they play a major role in each of their communities. By doing so they are making their communities stronger. By doing that we really see what is happening here within our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we, on this side of the House, Sir, want to say hats off to the volunteers.

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 am happy to join in recognizing the community volunteer-based sector and the over 135,000 volunteers in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is said sometimes, Mr. Speaker, that the volunteer sector is a third pillar of society, along with the public and private sectors. Here in this Province we have everything from municipal councils, fire service, as well as - they form a very important role in protecting the public and providing democratic operations in the Province, and, as well, as the social, recreational community and economic value that they contribute to. So, we do want to join in recognizing them and thank them for their service.

We are a little bit strained in this Province though, Mr. Speaker. We have a smaller number of volunteers than we used to and the number of hours, has been mentioned -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The numbers are going up because the volunteers that we have are doing, as has been said in the statement, the highest average of annual hours of volunteering in the country. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, part of the reason for that is that government services have been decreasing and are inadequate in the area of home care, in services for women. Women centres have been complaining about providing basic services instead of doing advocacy work. We would really want to see government welcome and champion the use of volunteers where it is appropriate but not fall down on the job in terms of providing the kind of services that ordinary people need and relying on volunteers instead.

In congratulating the volunteers on their efforts, I also raise the concern that government not fall asleep at the switch and cut back on services that people need.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Before we move to Oral Questions, the Speaker would like to welcome in the Speaker's gallery a former member of the House, Mr. Glenn Tobin, the Member for Burin-Placentia West. He is accompanied by Mr. Mike Monahan.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period on Thursday past we were shocked to learn that the Finance Minister participated in the Cabinet decision regarding the implementation of production quotas in the crab industry in the Province. This decision, Mr. Speaker, was taken, even though the Finance Minister admitted that he has immediate family members who are still involved in the crab processing sector in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, why did he not find it appropriate to excuse himself from the decision and avoid being placed in a potential conflict of interest?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, when I got into politics in 1992, I moved quickly - even in Opposition, with no requirements - that there would not be, not only any conflict, nor perceived conflict. I, within months, sold all of my assets and anything I had been involved in dealing with business. I declare, on an annual basis, every single thing that I own. There is a public disclosure statement released by the Commissioner of Members' Interest. I fill it out promptly within days of receiving it. I return it, and I have always gotten a return from the Commissioner indicating that I am not in conflict in any way. The Commissioner can tell you that.

To raise those issues here is inappropriate. It is character assassination in public, for the Leader of the Opposition to imply that I might benefit financially by making decisions done. It is completely an attack on someone's character; wrong attack on their character.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like an opportunity to answer the question. The question has been directed to me.

I very honestly and faithfully dealt with every single issue I have had in the past. I dealt fishermen. I dealt with plant workers. I have people from my family who do not live in my household, who do not have any ways, any dealings with, financially or otherwise, in the business. Harvesting, that is opposite sides of this government. The position we have taken on is completely opposite side and there are some people, employees, often some part owners in the fishing industry.

I, in no way, in any way, have been in conflict. He can find that out from the Commissioners. I invite anybody of the public. I think it is improper, Mr. Speaker, to move in and bring in an individual attack on somebody in an area. That is completely unjustified. I think any hon. people out there today, anyone in our Province, should stand up to this kind of action here and take great offence to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, whenever an issue is discussed in Cabinet that may impact a minister directly, or a member of the minister's immediate family, that minister is expected to excuse himself or herself from the discussion and not participate in the final decision. This has always been the practice, Mr. Speaker, not only for Cabinet members but for all of us as MHAs as well. It is spelled out, as a matter of fact - if he thinks it is inappropriate, maybe he might want to change the House of Assembly Act. It is spelled out in section 21 of the House of Assembly Act, and I quote that section, "A member shall not make or participate in making a decision in his or her capacity as a member where the member knows or ought reasonably to know that in the making of the decision there is the opportunity to further, directly or indirectly, a private interest of the member or the member's family."

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister why he feels he does not have to follow the established guidelines for conflict of interest as a member and a Cabinet minister when it is clearly pointed out and stated as the law of the land, not something inappropriate, but the law of the land in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[Disruption in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Visitors in the gallery are welcome in our House. However, over the last number of days visitors have been disrupting the proceedings of the House. The Speaker is mandated in our parliamentary system to maintain order and decorum. Democracy is a very fragile thing. We have many of our Canadian sons and daughters around the world, as we speak here, trying to preserve, protect and encourage democracy.

We ask all members who are visitors to this House to respect this House, to respect the Speaker, and to respect our traditions. If the Speaker has to remind members again, then the Speaker will have to consider closing the galleries and he does not want to do that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under the conflict of interest under the Legislature, I am quite familiar with it. I report it and I file it every year, everything honestly and accurately.

When Brian Tobin was Premier of this Province and the Leader of the Opposition sat there, they brought in regulations that governed people in Cabinet. I have absolutely followed, to the letter of the law, every single thing. If he wants a legal opinion on that, or whatever, I would be only too delighted. If he wants to go out and get an opinion, if he wants to ask the Commissioner of Members's Interests anything, absolutely.

It is very unfortunate and unfair when members of the Opposition - and I know in particular a number of the Opposition have been calling around in regard to fishermen, stirring up things that are improper and false, and putting it out in the public. It is unfair and it is a character assassination on something that is unjustified.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Finance Minister seems to be confused between two concepts. One is disclosure of our involvement, which we are all expected to do, and we have done it again this month. I am glad that he is following the law for disclosure like we all do. Section 21 of the Act talks about participating in decisions when there might be a conflict of interest. That has nothing to do with disclosure.

I ask again, Mr. Speaker: Why is it, and can he provide the documentation - this morning, his friend, the Minister of Natural Resources, in trying to defend him on the public airwaves, said he divested of his interests, and he said it himself. Will he now, in this Legislature, place on the Table exactly when he divested of his interests, because some of them, I understand, were in fish plants, and to whom? Further still: To whom did he divest his interests? To whom did he sell his interests?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very familiar with that section of the Act. That section of the act indicates: that if some member of your family is living in a household supported financially by you and so on. He was a Cabinet Minister in his day and he doesn't even know that. He is trying to put out something that is absolutely false to the public, and that is wrong.

I divested of my interests, I believe it was May of 1993, to a member of the family, and the business is not even in the ownership of the family anymore. The business, for a number of years, has not been in the ownership of the family whatsoever; and the interests I had. Not only that but I eliminated other interests that have no bearing on the operation here, so that there wouldn't even be a perception of conflict. I absolutely, and I said to the media when they asked me on Friday, when this character assassination took place in public, I have two properties I own. I own a property in Fermeuse and I have a property in St. John's that I pay a mortgage on owned by myself and my wife, and I have nothing else of any property value that I own. It is almost a decade since that. It is wrong, it is false, it is not even under the family ownership anymore. He knows it and he is trying to raise this issue here to create a character assassination.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we have known on this side for some time that there are certain members on that side who think they are above and beyond the law. The law is clear. You have divested.... If you want to clear the information, lay it on the table and tell us exactly who you sold your interests to, and then there will be no further questions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, or maybe the Minister of Natural Resources, the House Leader, who wants to defend everybody on that side - we are talking about participation. We are talking about participation. I ask the Premier: What are the rules for participation in the Cabinet? The rules are clear for the House of Assembly: You are not to participate in any debate or decision that might directly or indirectly impact a family member. Now, I ask the Premier: What rules are they operating under for the Cabinet -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - for participation in a decision that might directly or indirectly impact a family member?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have no trouble defending a colleague or colleagues who not necessarily need defence but who are being improperly, by the Leader of the Opposition putting out certain perceptions and motives where he said exactly - and I have it here. He said, on Friday, that the Minister of Finance knows and may be participating in decision where money is actually going into his own pocket.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like me to read it for you? Participating in a decision which is going to actually put money directly in his own pocket one way or another.

Those are your words, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is this: The same rules apply to this Cabinet that applied to every other Cabinet, and if you have any evidence of any member, as opposed to standing up and trying to assassinate a character or somebody as being beyond reproach, whether you disagree with them or not, lay it on the table. If not, stand up and apologize to the member right there!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Colleagues, order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Government House Leader that if he is living by the same set of rules that we live by, the Minister of Finance would have excused himself from the table when production quotas were being discussed.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Fisheries. Last week, the minister said that an independent arbitrator will make the final decision or the final determination as to what quota -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, I appeal to you. We are in the middle of Question Period; time is passing. Question Period is thirty minutes.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries.

Last week, the minister said that an independent arbitrator would make the final determination or the final decision as to what quota each crab plant would receive this year. I ask the minister: Is it true that this arbitrator is really not independent, as the final decision would still rest with the minister, and that this arbitrator is only advisory in nature?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we announced on March 4 that an independent arbitrator would set the shares within 90 per cent to 105 per cent of the previous three year average production for the various processing facilities throughout the Province.

As a former minister, I guess the Member for Twillingate & Fogo would know that at the end of the day the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture signs the conditional licence and the licence for each processing facility. We have said that we will take the information provided by the independent arbitrator and would assign those shares as a conditional licence to the various production facilities. So, at the end of the day it is my signature that goes on the licence but it will be consistent with what the independent arbitrator says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think the minister understands what the word independent means, because he still has the final say as to what quotas each plant gets.

Last week the minister led us to believe that all plants in the Province would receive 90 per cent of the average of their last three years of production. Will the minister now confirm that in actual fact some plants will receive more than 90 per cent while others will receive less than 90 per cent?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that one way or the other. There is a process that has to be gone through. The numbers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the shares will be based on the previous three year average production. Ninety per cent will be the minimum based on the previous three year average.

Mr. Speaker, there have been roughly 8 per cent -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: For sure, you know what you are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, there has been roughly an 8 per cent reduction in the overall Total Allowable Catch. That will have some impact, but at the end of the day the shares will be set by an independent arbitrator and the basis for it will be 90 per cent to 105 per cent of the previous three year average.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, if he cannot confirm what he is saying in the House of Assembly, he should not be making those comments, because that is what he told us here last week. We all know that there are a number of processors who will receive less than 90 per cent this year, while others will, in actual fact, according to his own formula, receive more than the 90 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the plants in St. Anthony, Englee and New Ferolle will not be operational this season for various reasons. The plant in New Ferolle is closed. The plant in Englee was closed down last year, and probably will not be operational this year. I do not know quite about St. Anthony, if they have their equipment installed. Will their quotas be transferred from the Northern Peninsula this year, and will they have decreased quotas next year as a result of their inactivity this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, issues of transferability are not issues that need to be discussed right now. We are pretty confident that the plant in St. Anthony -

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the Speaker appeals to the visitors in the gallery.

The long-standing parliamentary rule is that visitors are not to participate. They are not to show approval; they are not to show disapproval. They are not to participate in any manner whatsoever. The only people who are allowed to participate in debate in this House are the duly elected members of the House.

I appeal to all visitors to respect the rules of the House and let us continue without any further interruptions.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, the issue of transferability needs to be discussed in this House and it needs to be discussed right now before you go ahead with this hair-brained scheme.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the Member for Bonavista North confirmed publicly last week that production quotas did not work for caplin and they probably will not work for crab, will he not remove this scheme from the table and only implement production quotas if - and I say if - and when they are agreed to by the fishermen of this Province, as was recommended in the Dunne report?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I permit the minister to answer, I apologize to him. In the last exchange I should have gone back to him rather than going to the member, so I will let him have some extra seconds to make the reply to the question just asked.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of transferability - to go back to the previous question - is an issue that has to be dealt with in the longer term if this ever becomes a permanent part of our fisheries management approach. Mr. Speaker, that is one thing.

Secondly, we are reasonably confident that St. Anthony will be in production, and we are reasonably confident that New Ferolle will be in production.

Mr. Speaker, those are the facts of the matter, so those issues will not have to be dealt with on a temporary or a permanent basis.

Mr. Speaker, to go back to the last question on - I lost my train of thought. I lost the question. Do you want to ask the question again?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I said, in light of the fact that the Member for Bonavista North stated publicly last week that production quotas did not work for caplin and they probably will not work for crab, when are you going to remove this scheme from the table and only agree to production quotas if, and when, it is agreed to by the fishermen of this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, when the former minister was minister, he did not come up with any ideas on how to manage this fishery. We have put forward raw material sharing as an approach that was recommended by four different organizations, four different groups, Mr. Speaker, that were paid for by him and his government when they were in power.

Mr. Speaker, we are only trying to implement a system to stabilize the fishery in the short term and the long term. That is what we are trying to do. When will we remove raw material sharing from the table? We will remove raw material sharing from the table when it is demonstrated that it is not working and when somebody can give us a viable solution or a viable alternative. Thus far, nobody on that side of the House and nobody in the industry has provided us with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Government Services.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday gas prices increased again in our Province even though the price of oil went down all week. There have also been occasions when the interruption formula has been used but there was no interruption in supply. When will this government amend the Petroleum Products Pricing Act to fix the interruption formula and prevent prices from going up, like they did last week, when they should have come down, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the government has no control over gas prices. It is beyond the control of government. It is dictated by the world market. As the hon. member knows full well, regulations have been put in place with the prior Administration. Those regulations were put in place to stabilize the prices at the gas pumps, and that is what it has done, so it has worked.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: It appears she is very clear on her portfolio.

Mr. Speaker, gas prices went up last week only because there are problems with the formula that need to be fixed. It is clear. With prices over $1 a litre, the Minister of Finance is awash with cash from windfall profits from taxes collected from gas. When will the Minister of Finance reduce the original portion of tax on gasoline and allow consumers some relief?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The price for gasoline in our Province is not related to the tax on it. The tax -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like for him to let me finish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The tax on gasoline is 16.5 cents per litre, whether it is two cents a litre or whether it is apart from that, or $2 a litre. In fact, it is based on the consumption. When gas is more expensive, sometimes people conserve it and use less, which means we get less revenue on the tax when the price goes up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: On the 15 per cent harmonized tax, Mr. Speaker, while we may lose 16.5 cents on every litre we lose, on the HST portion we will get seven cents on each ten it goes up; but that is tied into the other Atlantic Provinces, a deal that the former Premier of the Province, the Leader of the Opposition right now, their government struck this deal with the Atlantic Provinces, the Harmonized Sales Tax, in which they cannot change it without the majority consent of other provinces. They locked us into a particular deal on this issue. That is the fact of it. They put us into a conundrum on that area. Besides, we would lose revenues if people burned less (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: The answer is no.

MS THISTLE: Yes. I knew it would be no, even though he has the choice. You can change the 16.5 cents on the taxes anytime you want to but you do not want to. That is why we had $100 million extra in gasoline taxes last year.

Mr. Speaker, another issue. The Department of Government Services revealed, during Estimates, that it has put money into the Budget to hire two additional people this year to do a further review of the operation of the department, even though Ross Reid got his work done. Can the minister tell the House why existing staff in her department cannot do the review, and how much is this exercise going to cost the taxpayers of our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, Government Services is, indeed, looking at its role and its mandate. It has been in existence for nine years now and the review was supposed to be done by the former Administration. I do not know why they did not get to it but this department is now looking at the review and we will be completing that review in approximately nine months.

Thank you.

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 Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Will he acknowledge that if it wasn't for his action and the decision of the thirty-three dictators opposite, that fish harvesters in this Province would be sitting down and negotiating crab prices instead of settling in for the long haul and figuring out how they can survive, while this minister presides over the destruction of the crab fishery for the entire season?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I am sure, from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi's comments, that he cannot remember last year, when we adamantly opposed the implementation at that time of raw material sharing, said we were not going to be implementing it, said that we would not put it, in 2004, in the crab fishery. Yet, we had to bring in Bill Wells, Max Short and Joe O'Neill to sit them down with the various parties after a number of attempts to try to get negotiations going. Even then, the price for crab was not settled until May 3; May 3 of last year. In 2003, the price was settled under Final Offer Selection and the fishery closed down in late May for three weeks.

Now, Mr. Speaker, those are the facts. Everybody, including him -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: The facts are, Mr. Speaker, that if we did not have raw material sharing on the table right now, there would still be a racket on the go in the crab fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that despite its faults, Final Offer Selection worked.

Mr. Speaker, back in the national convention former Premier Smallwood labeled those who would refuse even the choice of Confederation on the referendum ballot to twenty-nine dictators. Now we have thirty-three dictators opposite who will turn back the clock and give power to the processors and remove choice from fish harvesters in this Province. When will this minister and his government back off this destructive policy and return to some consensus in the fishery where people can go fishing and have some choice as to where they sell their fish and run the industry properly?

[Applause from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wishes to advise visitors in the gallery, if there should be any further interruptions the Chair will have no choice but clear the galleries. Order and decorum must be respected, must be preserved. That is the parliamentary tradition. That is the role of the Speaker, to maintain order and decorum. I ask you again for your co-operation, but, if need to, we will have the galleries cleared.

The Chair recognizes, I do believe, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we decided to go down the road on raw material sharing based on the analysis that was done by four different groups who looked at the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador over the past four or five years. We took those reports as the basis for the decision that we took. We are trying to implement a system, Mr. Speaker, that will stabilize the fishery in the short term and also to try and set the stage for a more orderly industry, going forward for the next five to ten years.

The system that was in place in the past, in spite of all the protestations from people, like the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo and others, did not work and everybody knows it did not work. There were countless, countless disputes in the industry over the past ten years, many of them leading to extended tie-ups -

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. TAYLOR: - many of them leading to extended shutdowns. Many of them, Mr. Speaker, leading to disorder in the industry -

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: - and many of them compromising people like plant workers and crew members in this industry.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has no choice but to recess the House, have the galleries cleared and they shall remain cleared for the balance of the sitting day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we were obliged to recess the House, I believe there was about a minute and thirty seconds left in Question Period.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said that they were only following the recommendations of four reports of the government.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell the truth, be honest with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and acknowledge that not one of those reports recommended that this government do what they are doing against the will and the wishes and consensus of fish harvesters in this Province? Will he acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker, and tell the truth to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that there were four reports over the past ten years that recommended that RMS be implemented. Those are the facts of the matter, Mr. Speaker. There were four reports that said this was an approach that should be considered, that this was an approach that should be attempted on a pilot project basis, and that, Mr. Speaker, is what we are attempting to do. We are attempting to try and deal with the legitimate objections and concerns of fish harvesters and plant workers. That, Mr. Speaker, is what we are trying to do.

We are not trying to do, like the Member for Twillingate & Fogo did, we are not trying to keep our heads buried in the sand hoping that nobody will find us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, just to raise a point of order from a question and an answer in Question Period. I believe the House is owed an explanation or an apology by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. He was asked three times about the arbitration process and he referred to it an independent arbitrator.

Mr. Speaker, I will just use this one quote from a letter from the Deputy Minister on Friday past, April 15, to all snow crab license holders. It says: The word arbitrator is used only to describe the selection of an impartial decision maker and it is used only as a term of convenience. This is not a formal arbitration because the minister has the final say in these shares.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Fisheries would like to stand up and try to explain to the House how this letter can be out there to all the processors, and how it contradicts his answer, when he is trying to make us believe, where we are sworn to honesty in this House, that it is an independent arbitrator, when this letter says it is only a term of convenience and the final decision rests with the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Opposition and all members of this House would know that points of order should relate to something in our Standing Orders or something in the traditions of Parliament. A disagreement between two hon. members as to the facts is not a point of order. Therefore, the House and the Chair will have to accept, at times, two different versions of the same event, but certainly it is not a point of order.

We were presenting reports of standing and select committees. The Chair had recognized the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Select Committee appointed to draft a reply to the Speech of His Honour, the Lieutenant Governor, I am pleased to present the Report of the Select Committee as follows: To His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, The Honourable Edward Roberts, Q.C. May it please Your Honour: We, the Commons of Newfoundland and Labrador in Legislative Session assembled, beg to thank Your Honour for the Gracious Speech which Your Honour has addressed to this House.

It is signed by myself, the Member for Humber Valley; the Member for Burin-Placentia West, and the Member for Port au Grave.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting further reports by standing and select committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Executive Council Act." (Bill 7)

I also give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 8)

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Teachers' Pensions Act And Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act." (Bill 10)

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Establish A Financial Services Appeal Board." (Bill 11)

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Repeal The Investment Contracts Act." (Bill 12)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Repeal The Literacy Development Council Act." (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a group of fish harvesters, plant workers and crew members in the Province today who are adamantly opposed to the government's decision to implement production quotas.

Mr. Speaker, basically, the petition is calling upon government to shelve this plan, a production quotas plan, up until it is agreed to, if and when it is agreed to, by the fish harvesters in the Province - who, up until this point, I say, Mr. Speaker, have not even been consulted about this plan let alone have the opportunity to be able to sit down with the minister, and with the Premier, who seems to be so adamant in pushing this forward, to be able to discuss their concerns.

Mr. Speaker, throughout this whole debate, in the last week or two, the minister has risen time and time again, along with the Premier, talking about the need to bring some stability to the industry. Even today, when the minister got up in his last statement today, anyone who is out there listening would certainly be led to believe that it is the crab fishermen and the crew members in this Province who are causing the chaos, and that the processors did not play any part in that, Mr. Speaker.

I beg to differ, because the final offer selection model that was established back in 1997 worked quite well for seven years. The only reason that it is not working today is because the wealthy processors from around the Province, as far back as 2002, came to me and said: Gerry Reid, if you do not implement production quotas we are pulling out of the final offer selection.

The reason they did that was to do exactly what is happening here in the Province today, to create chaos in the industry so that a weaker government would bow to their wishes and implement production quotas.

Mr. Speaker, the reason they are doing it today is because they know the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries are on side with this, even though the majority of the people in their caucus who represent fishing districts are adamantly opposed to it, but unfortunately their views and their wishes, if heard, are not paid heed to and they have no say over there.

Mr. Speaker, if there is chaos in the industry, I personally believe that it is being caused by the processors by pushing government for these production quotas, by pulling out of the final offer selection. Unfortunately, we have a minister today whose view is, all chaos in the industry is coming from the harvesters, which is very unfortunate, because he keeps saying that the only way to fix it is to bow down to the processors without even consulting with the vast majority of the people in the industry, and those are the harvesters.

I do not understand how this government, led by this Premier, who happens to be a businessman himself, thinks that he can wake up one morning and tell 6,000 or 7,000 or 8,0000 independent business people in the Province - the harvesters I am talking about - how he thinks that they should not count when it comes to business. It should not count that they have millions of dollars, some hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars invested into a business that they really are not looked at as business people. For some reason he has a different view of business people than those that he looks at in the fishing industry. Maybe the only business people that he has any respect for are those living in St. John's or those who go to meet him in a shirt and tie, because he obviously has no respect for the independent harvesters who, many of whom, have invested in excess of a million dollars into an independent business that this government, led by this Premier, is going to destroy on them overnight. You do not have to believe me, all you have to do is go around this Province, as I am sure the members opposite when they go home to their districts - if they have been going home recently. I understand some of them have not been because of the fear that they have from the harvesters and the plant workers in the area. If they were to go home and listen to what these people have to say (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. REID: By order, to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: For five seconds, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. REID: I would suggest that they listen to their constituents, remove production quotas and only bring them back to the table if - and I say if - and when the harvesters in this Province and the FFAW agree that they should be brought back.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, today, stand and present a petition on behalf of the harvesters, plant workers and all those involved in the industry with regard to the raw material sharing system that is being implemented by the minister.

I want to begin by - I do not want to use this as a prop, Sir, because it is the wonderful Speech from the Throne, but there is something there I want to quote. It says: "It is time to put the bountiful resources of our Province to work for our people so that our sons and daughters can remain here to raise sons and daughters of their own. These sentiments are echoed in the powerful lyrics of bands like Great Big Sea..." It says this, Mr. Speaker, and I am not going to sing it because I might clear the Chambers like you cleared the gallery. Anyway it says:

"In this beautiful life,

there's always some sorrow

It's a double-edged knife,

but there's always tomorrow

It's up to you now if you sink or swim

Keep the faith and your ship will come in."

Mr. Speaker, I say that for a reason. Those people who are out there, who are against this proposal, they have gone through their rough times. They saw times when they were wondering if they were really going to sink or swim in their industry and thank God, they listened to their forefathers, their grandfathers and their fathers, and they built an industry, an industry to the point where they stand today, and they stand very proud.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, the other part of it says: "Keep the faith and your ship will come in." I say to those people, their ship has come in and they are trying to hang on to what they have built over a number of years. Here we are with a system being put in place, and they are very fearful of what is going to happen. It is going to go backwards in their industry. I know the Premier, on numerous occasions, has said that it is only a two-year pilot project.

I want to read from - and this is what was classified as frequently asked questions. It was put out when the raw material sharing system was brought in, announced. It says: Will transfer of shares be permitted between plants, communities or regions? The answer says: No. During the course of the two-year pilot project, no permanent transfers will be permitted and any temporary transfers will be only considered if under exceptional circumstances. However, it goes on - and the Premier of this Province is always saying words are important. Then you go on and they say, "However, if the crab resource goes into serious decline..." -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: It doesn't matter who said it, it was wonderful words.

It says, Mr. Speaker: However - they are important. It goes on to say, "However, if the crab resource goes into serious decline and quotas are reduced significantly, it might be necessary to consider transfers at some time in the future." If this is only a two-year pilot project, why are we worrying about what we are going to do with it in the future? I am saying, and I put a challenge out and a word out to the plant workers because I am going to tell you, what is stated here, a lot of it we are going to see take place in that two-year pilot project if it ever goes ahead.

I have met with plant workers this week at a couple of functions and it is the first time they have really come out and spoken. They said: When you go back into St. John's into the House, give a message to the Premier for us. Just tell him - they were not angry about it. Not one bit. They want to be back to work. They said: Tell him this system is not going to work. Listen to the harvesters about what is going on. They have major concerns about it. There are people out there wondering now if they are going to get back in the plants this year, number one, but a lot of them are very fearful that if the plants do open, with the reduction in the quotas - and we have heard different figures than 90 per cent, and they will all come out in the wash in the next few days. They are really concerned that if they could not qualify last year, how are they going to qualify this year with the reductions that are coming? In my area it is pretty good I suppose because I think the quotas are handy about on par with last year, but there are other areas around the Province where it is not going to happen.

I have to say, and people have said to me: You are only standing up and doing this because you are in Opposition. Farther from the truth. I stood with the plant workers in Port de Grave when our government was in office, when they were fearful their transfer was going to St. Anthony. I will sit -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, want to present a petition on behalf of fish harvesters who are really upset with this whole idea of the Raw Material Sharing system.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard form fish harvesters now, day in and day out, about this system and about how they are having great difficulty with what is being proposed by the government. I should say, what the government is insisting on taking place. The reality of it is, Mr. Speaker - and I am not sure how many people on the government side recognize this - but really there wouldn't be a fishery if it wasn't for our fish harvesters. Where would we be if we didn't have fish to process. I think what we are seeing today, of course, is that because we don't have our fish harvesters out there fishing for crab, then there is not going to be raw material to share with anyone.

Unfortunately, what is happening is that we are going to see a lot of the impact of this, a very negative impact of this, take place in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I am sure many of the members on the government side, just as the members here on the Opposition side, who represent rural districts, must have an understanding, an appreciation, for what that will mean to rural communities; not only with the fish plants themselves, but in terms of the fallout from the fact that there won't be any crab being processed. In fact, what we will see are other businesses feeling the impact of the fact that there will be no income in that community that can be circulated, and see other businesses survive as a result of having a viable fishery.

Unfortunately, what this government is doing is that - the minister keeps saying this - they have four reports that tell them to go down this path, and we know that is not true. That is simply not true, and especially if you want to take the Dunne Report. While it talks about this particular program, what we are seeing instead is Mr. Dunne making it very clear that this should not happen without consultation. How the minister can stand in his place and say, this is a recommendation of four reports, and refer to one of them as the Dunne Report, knowing full well that he is not being upfront in terms of what Mr. Dunne actually recommended - Mr. Dunne was very, very pointed when he said that while this was a way government might go with Raw Material Sharing, you must do it only after consultation with the major stakeholders. Of course, we all know that the major stakeholders include the fish harvesters themselves and the plant workers. That simply is not happening.

What we are seeing is a group of fish harvesters who are very worried. They know history. I listened to a gentleman on the radio talking about being involved in this business for thirty years. When he was asked if he had ever, ever encountered such an abuse of power, of being told what to do without any consultation, he said, this was the first time in the thirty years that he has been involved in this industry that he has ever seen a government behave in such a manner as this government is doing. He called on both the minister and the Premier, whom he felt were the architects behind this, to actually put it aside, work with the fisher harvesters, work with all of the stakeholders in the industry, and come up with a system - if that is what they want to do - that will ensure a viable fishery, but one that is fair to all: processors, fish harvesters and plant workers. He really felt that there is no way he can support this decision, and the way that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

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

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

Before I move to motions of the day, I want to stand on a point of order with reference to what I believe to have been unparliamentary remarks directed at members in the House today by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

It is very difficult in today's Legislature or any Legislature across the country where you can actually produce a list of words which say that is parliamentary and that is not; because, the fact of the matter is, words judged today as being parliamentary may, in fact, be judged unparliamentary tomorrow, and here is why: In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the member speaking.

In this respect, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, in my view, certainly playing to the galleries, directed and called each and every member on this side dictators. Mr. Speaker, that is clearly unparliamentary. It imputes motives on individual members.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi can wink and laugh all he wants at his colleagues on that side, that is fair enough, but I have always known him to be a fairly honourable gentleman when it comes to the practice of Parliament.

The fact of the matter is, he can say that the government has acted in a dictatorial manner, or that the government is dictator-like, but he cannot point to thirty-three members and call them, individually, dictators. That is clearly unacceptable.

It goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, that the person to whom the words were directed - which were thirty-three members in this House - the degree of provocation and, most importantly, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit that any honest, unbiased view of this, of those remarks, were meant and were said in front of an audience who were upset by a decision taken by government, were meant to create the type of effect that they have, and were clearly unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, and in your review - even before you get to review, I would ask the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to do the appropriate thing and withdraw those remarks from the floor of this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a great deal of respect for the Government House Leader, but I would submit that what the Government House Leader is doing today in his remarks is splitting hairs.

The other day, a member on this side of the House used what was termed to be unparliamentary language and the Government House Leader rose and said, you cannot say that about one person, but if you are saying it about all of us it is okay. Now he is saying, because I said something that affected all of them over there, that it is unparliamentary because each and every individual is affected by it.

Mr. Speaker, what I said was that the decision that was made over there was made by thirty-three dictators. I stand by those remarks. It is a dictatorial decision. It is attempting to dictate to the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador against their wishes, against the reports and recommendations that have been received by this government.

I stand by that remark, Mr. Speaker, and I do not intend to withdraw it.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not often agree with the Government House Leader and I find, on this occasion, I cannot agree with him either.

He uses the words quite often here: imputes motives. The word used by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was quite clear. It was descriptive of a type of behaviour by the government. Because somebody uses a word, dictatorial or dictator, as he himself indicates, it depends upon the language that was used and the context in which it was used.

He made it quite clear that the behaviour of the government, everybody on that side - and they cannot deny this - you can talk about what words you do or do not use, but you cannot deny that the type of behaviour that the member referenced is exactly what we are experiencing. We are experiencing forceful, dominating, dictatorial type of behaviour. There are no motives imputed here, as the Government House Leader says. The Leader of the NDP was quite clear and unequivocal. He did not impute anything. He said the attitude of this government is dictatorial, and that is exactly what type of behaviour we have here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I think what we have here is a case where the government members may be a little bit nish, as we would say, a little bit thin-skinned, cannot accept some comment about the government's behaviour. I say, if you are in the kitchen and you are going to cook, and you are going to make some hard recipes that people do not want to swallow, you have to be prepared to have people coming at you and saying that they disagree with you, rather than standing up here and trying to use sometimes archaic rules about what is or is not parliamentary language, to try to squeeze out from what was an embarrassing situation.

MR. SPEAKER: A further comment by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I may add, I went even farther and explained to the House of Assembly the context in which that term was used in a previous Parliament, a national convention, where former Premier Smallwood - he was not Premier at that time - talked about the fact that twenty-nine members of that Assembly removed the choice. When I was talking about dictating, I was talking about the removal of choice. I explained the context, that in a removal of choice situation it was described as dictators, and the response of the label that was place by the former Premier was twenty-nine dictators and I said we now have thirty-three.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot get away from the English language. You cannot avoid the English language. This was a description of an activity, of the removal of choice from fish harvesters of this Province as to where or how they are going to conduct their business, and removal of power, taking away of power, and transferring it to someone else.

Mr. Speaker, I believe, I firmly believe, that those kind of remarks, in that context, are quite appropriate and quite defensible and I stand by them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will review the transcripts and will come back to the House with a ruling, hopefully by tomorrow.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Motion 1, to move that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, commonly referred to as the Budget Speech and the Budget reply.

I believe the Member for Port de Grave was on Thursday, and will now enlighten us with some of his remarks.

Thank you.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to stand and say a few words with regard to the Budget. A lot of people are saying this is a Budget of missed opportunities. I have to say from the outset, no doubt like any Budget, there are many good items in the Budget that people will see and get advantage of - various items - over the next twelve month period.

When I look at the Budget, Mr. Speaker - and I have heard many speakers say this before and I do not want to rehash it - to me it is almost like when you are watching The Price is Right and they have this shell game. There are three shells there with a ball under one of them, and you have to guess where it is in order to win a prize.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is what they have been doing, playing a shell game, because they are trying to tell us that we had a cash deficit when in actual fact we know to this very day that there was a surplus. That is why I say it is a Budget of missed opportunities, because there are so many issues around this Province that a very minor amount of money.... When you look at the $103 million that was taken to pay off some mortgages - and that is wonderful, that all has to be done, but when we look at probably $10 million or $12 million, what it could have done to many areas of this Province. I think it is wonderful to pay down the mortgages, yes, but I think about the facilities and the equipment that they are looking for on the Burin Peninsula. I think about the cancer clinic in Grand Falls. I think about the auditorium in Labrador, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, I think all of those issues could have been resolved and still millions of dollars could have been paid towards the mortgages that we hear so much about.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Member for Terra Nova last week when he was standing and praising the Budget, and rightly so, that is his democratic right. He was put here to do that. He was put here to listen and say what he believes in. I know he made a comment once about how his daughters had flipped out, and I think it was when he was praising the speech about how his daughters flipped out. I have to say, I think the member himself probably flipped out a little bit, because I think he went overboard in praising the Budget. I think he went too far with it, because he mentioned small businesses, and we all know what small businesses mean to this Province. I have to say, the people that we present petitions on day in and day out, the fish harvesters of this Province, to me they are small businesses. They are not looking for money to do anything. They are not looking for handouts. They are just looking for respect that they have had for many years after fighting very hard to receive that respect.

We also know that when he was up speaking with regards to the health care issues, and he said: We all love to have everything in our own areas. That is true, I suppose, but he mentioned that he would love to be able to go back to his constituents and say that possibly they were going to build a hospital in Glovertown. That tells me where his priorities are, when we look at the serious situation in Grand Falls, when we look at down on the Burin Peninsula, where those people have to travel so far to get services and the type of facilities that they are receiving those services in. I mean, to go from Glovertown to Gander is a very short run. I can understand fifteen, possibly twenty minutes, I guess depending on how fast you are going.

Mr. Speaker, the other issue I want to bring up - I want to say that prior to the House recessing, I was asking many questions to the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment about how things are working out in her department and about the issue of child poverty in this Province. She said to me one day: It is not a study or a report that we are doing when we are putting this $200,000 into, it is a strategy. Anyway, I said maybe there is another meaning to strategy that I am not aware of. So I went home, over the Easter break, and took the opportunity to get out Webster's dictionary. I cannot tell you which edition it was, but I read very clearly what a strategy is. It states very carefully: it is a careful plan or a method. It also goes on to say: It is a cleverly contrived trick or scheme for gaining an end. I am fearful that is what they are up to, Mr. Speaker, because they said in their Blue Book that they -

AN HON. MEMBER: Schemers.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, schemers. I do not know if that is parliamentary, Mr. Speaker, but I guess if it is not you will bring me to task.

Mr. Speaker, here we are - and this was a promise that was made in the Blue Book that we were going from a Province with the most poverty in the country in a ten-year time frame to the Province with the least. Here we are, we have two years gone and I am just wondering how good this strategy is going to be. Is it going to be a careful plan where this is going to be eliminated? Or is it a clever plan to say we are dealing with it, but just to get away from really what has to be done?

We talk about child poverty in the Province, and I appreciate anything that government is trying to do to deal with that. There have been many suggestions made, and I guess at the end of the day - and I had major concerns when I heard in the Budget, even though I know the Kids Eat Smart Program, I understand that they have so much funds on hand but each and every year they were allocated $500,000 and this year, Mr. Speaker, it has been cut back to $250,000. I spoke with people within that organization and right now they are not too concerned about it, the $250,000 coming out, because they have a reserve there but if anything should happen and the money they have in that reserve is used up - and they have had a reserve. This is not the first year they have had a reserve. If anything should happen, that they would have to take care of some major issues, would the money be there to come back into it or was the money taken to proceed with this cleverly contrived strategy?

Mr. Speaker, every time someone on this side of the House gets up and speaks and asks for something in their area or how come this is not going ahead, the ministers, or whoever opposite, will always get up and say: Well, look at the mess you left us in. Look at the mess you left. We are up to our ears in debt and we cannot do it. The next day they will get up and talk about: No, don't forget now, we have only been here for eighteen months and in eighteen months we cannot do everything. I agree with that. Definitely cannot do it. I agree with the financial situation but, Mr. Speaker, let's look at some of the things that have actually happened since they took over power, some of the things that have gone ahead. It has nothing to do with the finances of this Province prior to what anyone else has done, and it has got nothing to do with how you look at some situations but it has to do with some of the ideas that they had and they went ahead with.

Let's look at the office that was going to open up in Ottawa, $350,000. It had nothing to do with the financial situation of this Province, nothing to do with a former Administration. They decided they were going to take $350,000, probably more, and open up an office in Ottawa. And who should he select to go there? One of the most popular people in this Province. You see, the Premier was down and out a bit before this happened. He knew that the people of this Province loved and respected this gentleman, Mr. Bill Rowe. Who should he send to Ottawa - because I think he sent him to Ottawa for his own personal gains. I really believe that, Mr. Speaker. Because, what came out of the trip to Ottawa? The only thing we have heard publicly was heard from an MP - I think the federal riding is Mount Pearl, St. John's West-Mount Pearl, I could be incorrect on that - when he said that the only thing he saw from him, he was invited out to a breakfast or a lunch one day. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is anyone there now or not. I know they are going to be looking for somebody to send up there, but we are talking about wasting and spending money. We do not have money to do this and do that. That is $350,000 that could have been probably better spent.

We talk about the $350,000 for the study on the tunnel. The Premier knew full well what was going to come back from that report even before they were asked to proceed with it, Mr. Speaker. Another $350,000 that I believe could have been spent somewhere else. Then we talk about the $800,000 that the Province put in for the additional work that the wardens, people on the rivers and in the country looking after poaching. I am not standing here and condoning poaching, don't get me wrong. Then again, if that is a federal responsibility, Mr. Speaker, why would we, right up front, take $800,000? Hopefully, they are trying to get the $800,000 back. The best of luck if they can, after getting our Atlantic Accord, because I think what we got from Ottawa we got.

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Probably, the letter - my hon. colleague from Grand Falls says maybe the letter is not even written yet. But still, there is $800,000 that was spent on something that could have been spent on the cancer clinic, on the auditorium in Happy Valley-Goose Bay or on the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker.

Then we talk about - I can remember the Premier saying prior to the election and since the election, with regard to contracts. He said: there will be never no more contracts going to Liberal cronies. He kept his word, I can guarantee you that. The other thing he did not say is: I will be giving them to my cronies. Because, Mr. Speaker, there was $200,000 spent on an advertising contract, patting ourselves on the back because we signed the Atlantic Accord, but it has not gone through the House of Commons yet. I hope it goes through tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, because we need it here bad enough.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to contracts, when you say something you have to live by it. We are always hearing different issues like that, Mr. Speaker; $200,000. The courthouse in Corner Brook: I hope the courthouse goes ahead in Corner Brook, and I think it will. To hear the hon. member from that area saying that we have $400,000 on a study on a plant and it will probably be built in the next ten to twenty years - I am not making this up, Mr. Speaker. Those are his own words and they are in print. There is a lot of money being spent in different ways. It has nothing to do with the former administration, it has nothing to do with the finances of this Province, but it has to do, Mr. Speaker, with getting your priorities right.

When the minister stated to me, I didn't know what a strategy was, I looked through the dictionary and there is another word there. It is called compassion, and you have to have compassion for people, Mr. Speaker.

We are talking about road conditions. I have asked numerous questions to different people in my area. What happens to the road conditions in this area? The hon. members across the way were more or less saying, oh, the roads were bad all along, well I want to say to the hon. members, the snow that fell this year didn't fall under the Liberal administration, it fell this past fall, and there is nobody on the roads.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: I have travelled around the bay day in and day out, and I went there more than once in fairly half decent snow storm, not to the point that everything was closed down, but I am going to tell you the plows were scarce. When I talk to the people at the depots, Mr. Speaker, they are saying to me: We cannot do the work, we don't have the forces to do it, we don't have the manpower. What are we hearing now? Thirteen depots closing down, summer maintenance gone all astray, Mr. Speaker, and this is what is happening around this Province.

Contacting out: Oh, no, there is not going to be any contracting out. Well, I would like for someone on the government side to explain this to me. In Bay Roberts they have a loader. What do they do? Because the loader is to the point that they could not drive it up the highway and get it up to the gravel pit, in the pit where they get their sand and everything, what do they do? Rather than put on a flatbed and take it up there, and one of the workers in the Bay Roberts office could operate it and work it all summer, they put a contract out. This guy, God bless him, hope he makes a million dollars from it. He has his loader up there and from my understanding it cost quite a few dollars, and here we are with a loader in the yard. They won't put it on a flatbed to take it up there, they would rather contract it out. We are going to see a lot of that, Mr. Speaker. That you can be assured of.

Another case in point in my area: There are seven or eight backhoes behind the depot in Bay Roberts. None of them are operational today, but for very few dollars, $1,500, $8,000, $9,000, half of them could be up and running. What do they do? They don't put five cents into the maintenance part and getting them going, but contract out and hire a backhoe so that the backhoe can go down to Port de Grave and clear the roads, with all the equipment up there and their workers being laid off, Mr. Speaker, as everything is wonderful.

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible) purchase.

MR. BUTLER: It has nothing to do, I say to the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, when it was purchased. It is having common sense, to put a few dollars into it. The money that was wasted in sending Mr. Bill Rowe to Ottawa could have bought backhoes, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: I say to the hon. members opposite, talking about tendering, and I mentioned it just now about the cronies, the Premier, when he was going around, said there will be no more political appointments.

I guess he is true to his word, as we speak of today, Mr. Speaker, because he has no one else left to appoint. They have all been appointed, every one of them. I have letters in the system asking for information on how they were appointed and so on, but no response back yet. No response back yet, but I guess we will all hear about it. We will hear about it before too long.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about rural Newfoundland - a wonderful place. It is a wonderful place, rural Newfoundland. We talk about rural Newfoundland. When the Budget came down, I understand why the government said at the time, when they came out - I think they were being honest and straightforward - that there could be up to 4,000 people being laid off. We all know what effect that would have on a rural area or an urban area, but now that the finances have become a little bit better, thanks to Ottawa, millions of dollars coming in over the last twelve months, we are saying that figure could be down now to somewhere around 2,000 or less.

So, when it comes down to what I am looking at, did we really have to look at and say we are going to get rid of 4,000 just because of the money purposes, and forget about the services that were being offered to the people? Now that we have a few dollars we are admitting: Oh, we need the people, we need the services; but, surely goodness, the money that I just listed that has been wasted on some of the issues that I have gone through, why put the people in that turmoil, wondering what they are going to do from one day to the next?

We heard, Mr. Speaker - and this has nothing to do with the former Administrations - that there will be no tax increases. Lo and behold, the first Budget came down and there were 153 tax increases. I think it totalled up somewhere around $25 million or $30 million. This was the new approach, and they said there would be no tax increases.

This year we are talking about culture. Wonderful, Mr. Speaker, because we have one of the greatest cultures in this world here in this Province, and I agree with everything that is being done, every dollar that is being planned to spend, but then we read, like the Arts and Culture Centres, I just forget the dollar value now but I know it is quite a dollar that they are being asked to cut from their budgets this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Over $300,000.

MR. BUTLER: Over $300,000, I have been told by the hon. member.

Like I have said, I agree with culture and everything that can be done, Mr. Speaker.

We talk about rural Newfoundland. I do not think there is anything more devastating that is going to happen - and this has nothing to do with any former Administrations, like we always hear back and forth, or the finances of this Province - than the state that we find ourselves into today with the fish harvesters.

Mr. Speaker, that is rural Newfoundland. That is rural Newfoundland and Labrador and, when you listen to those people, they have major concerns - major concerns. They are not just coming here, day in and day out, to look down at all hon. members on either side of the House. They are here because they are concerned. They are here because they do not agree with what is being proposed, and all they are asking is that the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier of this Province do what was said in a letter that was signed off on, that we will sit down with the harvesters and plant works and go over this before anything is brought forward.

The Minister of Fisheries, every day, talks about the four or five reports that he has. That is true, he has the reports, but I am going to tell you, not in either one of those reports does it say: Go ahead and implement this without any concern or compassion for the people who are out there.

Mr. Speaker, if this industry does not get back on track fairly soon, rural Newfoundland is sure going to find the effects of it. I can only speak from my area, and I do not think my area is any different than any other. I can honestly tell you, I have spoken to people out there who are in the car industry, car salesmen, and they are saying that this time of the year, with the fishery about ready to open up, everything would be blooming, and they are very fearful of what is going to happen.

I went to building supply operators out there, Mr. Speaker, and they are saying: Everything is on hold. We do not think we are going to be able to keep all of our staff.

This is a major concern. I honestly think that the Minister of Fisheries - and I said this before - knows what effect this is going to have on the industry. He is a man who was on the boats and sailed the oceans. He was a part of the fishery. I think this is why they are so upset with him, knowing that he knows the system inside out and still he is forcing ahead with it. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that comes right back to the Premier. I think the Premier is the one we have to be after, asking him to really size this up again.

Mr. Speaker, like I said before, there are a lot of good things in this Budget, there is no doubt about it, but there are many things that could be looked at, and some of the money that has been spent, I believe, could have been spent more wisely.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I know my time is coming very closely to an end so I will thank you for the opportunity and take part in the debate another day.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly an honour for me to stand up and speak today on the Budget, and it is particularly good that I speak shortly after the Member for Port de Grave. He is a good friend of mine. We actually spoke - well, we played phone tag this weekend past about issues in the House.

The big issue here, Mr. Speaker, is our philosophical differences about the Budget of this Province, and this is why, and quite obvious why, I stand and sit on this side of the House and he stands and sits on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker. It is not certainly of a personal nature but I certainly disagree with about 99 per cent of what he just said, and I would like to bring up a couple of those things that he just mentioned.

The first thing he talked about was the shell game, the ever proverbial shell game that we are playing. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say that this government has been more than accountable. It has laid its cards on the table. It was very much the last government that played shell games, not only with the finances of this Province but when you talk about the pending election and the amount of promises that were made into the tens and tens of millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker. Where could we afford to do it? The money simply was not there. I mean, if you look at today's deficit, we are looking at a $12 billion deficit that we inherited. That deficit could have gone, by 2008-2009, to $16 billion, Mr. Speaker. We are currently servicing the debt at twenty-five cents out of every dollar collected, and that would have been the forty cents out of every dollar collected by 2008-2009.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about the lack of public services now, or the appearance of lack of public services. Can you imagine if we had to take another fifteen cents of every dollar collected to service our debt and our interest charge, Mr. Speaker? The lack of stuff we would have for health care and so on, and transportation, it would be worse again. Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the people of this Province for finally taking the bull by the horns and making some drastic changes.

One of the things he talked about that I could not believe, actually, I was quite frankly taken strictly aback by, was him saying the inland fishery, he did not agree with it increasing from 350,000 to 800,000.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of meeting with numerous conservation officers dealing with this program over the last year - some of the successes, some of the things they needed - and each, to a man, was proud of the job they did. What they have done is, they have taken a resource that was in declining stock - it is still in declining stock, by the way, I might add. Wait now, let me rephrase that. By 1992 numbers, the stock is not in as good a shape as it was in 1992. However, there has been some improvement in some rivers around this Province. What that does for tourism in this Province, it is another piece of the pie, another piece of the puzzle that keeps tourists coming back here.

I have had the privilege of salmon fishing in the last two or three years, in the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair's district. To see the people from all over the world in her district staying for a night, staying for a week, employing young people who are building camps on the river, who are working, who are guiding, and to say that now we should reduce because it is a federal initiative, we should not spend $800,000. I cannot believe it, Mr. Speaker. This is a resource that the federal government has decided not to protect. Mr. Speaker, I am a firm believer it is our resource and we have no other choice but to protect it. If we do not protect it, in years down the road we will have no salmon fishery, no recreation salmon fishery that tens of thousands of people enjoy every year.

I have corresponded with the President of the Salmonid Council of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as their national body, and I can tell you, they are in 100 per cent support of this. Anglers around this Province are in 100 per cent support of this. Last year the success of that program saw some - I cannot remember the exact number now, but I know there were dozens of poaching charges laid. At last, we are about to curb one of the desperate things that are happening in this Province and try to get it back under control. So, it really shocks me when I heard the member opposite say that was a bad move and that was bad money spent. It certainly bewilders me.

Another thing he talked about was the Ottawa office, and this has brought some public debate for some time. We have to look what this Province accomplished while the Ottawa office was actually there. We had a man there for some time, by the name of Mr. Bill Rowe, and I think he did a remarkable job. During that time we saw a Health Care Accord negotiated worth, I believe, somewhere between $40 million or $50 million. We saw a change in the equalization formula that saw, again, tens of millions of dollars come to this Province. We are now somewhere in the $100 million range. Then we saw an Atlantic Accord deal worked out. An Atlantic Accord which will see billions of dollars come to this Province. So I say, it is billions of new dollars coming to this Province over the next number of years. Having that office at a cost of $500,000 a year, or the initial cost was $500,000 a year, to me, it is money very well spent.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this has been a very good Budget when it comes to the health care of this Province. There was a need, and this government - and I want to take my hat off to this caucus, to this Cabinet, and to the ministers in particular, who had to make some very, very tough decisions around the Cabinet Table. I am proud to say that I sit with this government -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I will always be proud to say, I might add to the Member for Bellevue, that they chose the number one priority of the people of this Province, and that would be health care, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, the first thing, I guess, and the most important thing, was the reduction of wait times in this Province. Waiting times have been climbing. I will be the first to admit, it was an issue for residents in my district. Wait times, many of them had to wait for different services, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to say that there is an initial $23.2 million put into waiting list reductions this year, of which $9 million will be repetitive year after year after year. The $23.2 million was to buy the extra equipment, but we are putting an extra $9 million in year after year after year to reduce surgery lineups in this Province. I am certainly proud to be part of a government that would do this.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to lay out a couple of the changes, a couple of things we are about to do. One is a new MRI unit, at a cost of $2.6 million. An extra 2,500 exams in this Province and will reduce wait lists from twelve months to eight months. A phenomenal achievement, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: As well, Mr. Speaker, there will be two new CAT scanners put in the St. John's hospital system at a cost of $2 million. We will see an extra 4,000 exams next year, and will bring a five-week wait list down to a two-week wait list, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: We will see three nuclear medicine gamma cameras, Mr. Speaker, at a cost of $1.8 million. We will see another 1,000 exams next year and reduce the wait times to three to four months. We will see two ultrasound units, at a cost of $720,000, and reduce the wait times from twenty-one weeks to seven weeks.

As well, Mr. Speaker, and this is one that is near and dear to my heart, the orthopaedic joint replacement program, with a $2.6 million infusion of cash and an extra 340 surgeries. Mr. Speaker, I can say this from a personal point of view and personal perspective. Certainly, my mother, whom I live with currently, had over the years severe arthritis and she has had her two knees replaced now, and her two hips. Mr. Speaker, the quality of life, you cannot imagine, because you live, from the time you lie down at night until the time you get up in the morning, in constant pain. There is no relief for it, there is no pill that you can take, you have to put up with it, there is no way around it. To have the increase in the orthopedic joint replacement, Mr. Speaker, certainly hits home with me. Hopefully, in my mother's case, she won't need any joints replaced. I tell her she is worth a million dollars now. Please God, it will help others, Mr. Speaker, and as I said, the removal of the pain from their day to day lives, although not totally removed, is certainly a plus. I certainly salute the government for making that decision.

Cancer surgery, Mr. Speaker: Everybody's family has been touched by cancer. I guess there is not a member of the House, probably not a person in Newfoundland and Labrador, who hasn't been touched by cancer. In that case, Mr. Speaker, you will see another $3.5 million, another 740 surgeries next year, a 30 per cent reduction in the waiting times for cancer patients in this Province.

I can go on, Mr. Speaker. There is cardiac surgery, an extra $500,000, an extra 184 cases; echocardiograms, $750,000, another 900 exams; and you will see a five-month wait list down to five weeks. That is certainly a significant achievement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, we all, in this political world, certainly, spend a lot of time talking politics. I am sure all members of this House have people - I think, she might be the only one that I have that I don't talk politics to. I have a friend of the family, actually, and we never talk politics. We socialize together, we travel together on times, but politics is not something we talk about. It is just one of those things. Shortly after our Budget, she called one night for my wife - and she works in the medical field - and we talked for a minute and finally she said: Boy, a great budget. I started to laugh. I said, here it comes, here comes a good crack, because that is the only time we talk about politics, is over fun. I kept on talking to her and began to realize that she was very, very serious. No, she said, Terry, I am serious. I said: Gee, you never mentioned politics or budgets to me before. No, she said, but at work there is a new attitude. I said: Is that right? She said - and she has only been in the medical field now for probably three or four years. She was doing her education for probably some nine or ten years to become what she has become. She said: The mood around the health operation where she is at is unbelievable. Because of the new infusion of equipment and the reduction of wait lists, Mr. Speaker, these people, the actual front line workers, have noticed the affect. These are the people, the most important people, and the people we should be listening to. It is good to see that it is really being felt on the front lines of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, another thing I would like to touch on, we get it occasionally: Well, you do not cover everything. This drug needs to be covered, and there is another drug. There is no doubt, nobody wants to take away what drugs need to be covered in this Province. If we had a bottomless pit of money I am sure there is a multitude of drugs that we would love to cover, but we have a $7 million increase in that plan this year, up to a total of $114 million. Mr. Speaker, that is a 10.3 per cent increase in the money we are putting into the drug program of this Province.

We are going to see people with cancer, people with arthritis, people with cardiac disease, people with lung diseases, people with diabetes - in total, 100,000 people in this Province will be affected by this increase in money and will be touched because of these new drugs becoming available. Like I said, there are many, many more that we would like to cover, and hopefully with time and as the finances of this Province improves we will continue to build on that list, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, another item that comes to mind quite a bit, and it has been knocked in this House - members have said it is ridiculous thing - is the Province's commitment to a provincial training centre, and its commitment of $1.3 million toward that training facility. I do not know how many people in this House have had the privilege, but I certainly did, to use the facility in Torbay. That was a facility that was there for as long as I can remember. I remember going there as a young kid, playing junior high sports. I played badminton there, I played table tennis there, I played volleyball there, to provincial championships. People from all around the Province came together, Newfoundland and Labrador, came from all over, and played in this facility, simply because of its size. It was big enough to host the major events. Because of disrepair and rundown, that building has gone the way of the winter hopefully, Mr. Speaker; it is gone. Now, under the guidance of the Newfoundland Rugby Club - which I want to especially take my hat off to, for coming up with a plan to bring us back to some form of provincial training facility. The total cost of that is $4.3 million, of which the government has taken the lead and went out and put the $1.3 million up first. I have every faith in the players involved with the Newfoundland Rugby Union, Mr. Speaker, that they will make this happen. They are a great organization to carry the ball on this, and I know certainly that the other sporting groups and the rest of the sporting community in this Province will certainly come together behind that group.

Another increase - and, you know, some might look at this as a very small increase but it was certainly a significant increase and . I want to thank the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, for coming to the plate for my district last year, and that is dealing with the community recreation grants, and the increase of $100,000, bringing that to $327,000.

What happened last year, I had a group of squash players who play out of a facility, the same facility as the swimmers. It is a squash court and swimming facility all into one. Hopefully it will be reopened soon. It is currently closed, but will reopen any time soon is my prediction. What we saw was, myself and the Member for Topsail put some effort into this and we got a film facility, a camera that can be used underwater for the swimmers of our district as well as for photographing squash players. Now, these squash players are not your typical squash players, if I could. They do not play it for recreation. They play at a very high level. Most of them have been involved in Canada Games and Eastern Canadian Championships. The new level of coaching and technique today is not throwing out the ball and the racquet and saying: Here, boys, go to it, and the last one standing gets to go to the Canada Games.

Now there is a lot more detail put into the coaching aspect. They film the kids. They tell them where they are going wrong. They work on their footwork. They work on their shots. It is a very significant tool. Again, when we see things like this available for our young people, it is all about participaction, it is all about fitness, and it is all about a better quality of life for the residents of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot go on and talk about the Budget without mentioning my district, and how this directly affects my district; in particular, the Multi-Year Capital Works Program on water and sewer. I found out recently - well, I have known for some time but I had to get an actual number of the water and sewer needs in my District of Conception Bay South. By 1998 numbers, of which the last projections were done, it was $19.8 million; $19.8 million by 1998 numbers.

In the part of CBS of the Member for Topsail, we were looking at $5.5 million. So, combined, by 1998 list numbers, we are looking at in excess of $25 million worth of needs. If you put in today's figure, I am sure a $30 million estimate would certainly be within the realm of some accuracy.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs recently negotiated with the town, and with myself, an agreement for $7.1 million over three years for water and sewer and roads. What that will enable the Town of CBS to do, it will enable them to budget for the next three years. I know it is something that the Provincial Federation of Municipalities has been a big mover in. I know every time I have met with our town, that is something that they approve of, and certainly wanted to see a three year plan. It enables them to do the planning, to tie it all into their budget and to make things work.

Mr. Speaker, as it relates to Holyrood water and sewer, we are still working on some announcements for Holyrood. There is currently one in the system, with another couple hopefully coming soon. There are still some details to be worked out, and I certainly would not want to make it public now.

Mr. Speaker, what happened last year was that the Town of Holyrood applied for some green funding under the federal government. Actually, it is from the federal municipal - what am I looking for? The infrastructure, it is the green fund that is run by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities. They were fortunate enough to get, I think, around $170,000 or $180,000 to put an experimental system, if you will - I think there is one in place in Marystown called an Abidas system - and that is going to look after a place in Holyrood called Country Path Road, who would probably never be able to get water and sewer services simply because of the cost per unit, per household. It would have certainly been years down the road and would not have been a number one priority for a town the size of Holyrood, certainly with the needs that they have. What happened in that case was, the federal government came to the plate with a third, the green funding - the town was allowed to use - the Minister of Municipal Affairs allowed the green fund to replace the town's one-third and, of course, then the provincial government kicked in one-third as well.

Mr. Speaker, we are hoping to have that - it is about a $650,000 project - up and started this current year. I say to the residents in the area who have been lobbying hard for that for a lot of years, they have a real problem there with sewer in their area - it is kind of a wetland, if you will, in certain areas - it is certainly good to see.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we currently have negotiated with the Minister of Municipal Affairs again, who has come to the plate for the Town of Holyrood on a rescue vehicle. I do not know how many people in the House know it, but a rescue vehicle, if needed, does a lot of the calls on the Trans-Canada for bad accidents and so on, and, as well, does the other towns in the area. If there is a serious accident, Holyrood will get the call for a rescue vehicle.

Mr. Speaker, the rescue vehicle has not been ordered yet. We are still trying to negotiate some prices with buyers, and with government and so on. Hopefully, that will be done in the near days and weeks. It is certainly a big thing for Holyrood, and indeed the whole area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Conception Bay South that his time has expired.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, if I could, just time to clue up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. member.

MR. FRENCH: I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

In this year's Budget, Mr. Speaker, there was an announcement in road's work for $33.7 million for roads. That is an increase from the previous year, I think it was $23 million. I am proud to say, and delighted with the Minister of Transportation, who last year saw $750,000 in road work being spent on Route 60 in Conception Bay South and Holyrood. As long as I have been alive, I can never remember seeing an asphalt spreader on Route 60. Let me tell you, the roads up there are in disrepair. The volume of traffic that we have to deal with in Conception Bay South, one of the fastest growing municipalities in the Province, is phenomenal. I want to take my hat off to the minister, last year we saw a number of kilometres done, a huge section in Holyrood, as well as a huge section in CBS. We hope to continue on with that program again this year. I have had numerous conversations with the minister. Hopefully, we will get some more repairs done again this year.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for my comments, and hopefully I will some more comments as time goes on.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words here on the Budget. Some people do not understand, I guess in the general public, exactly what we do here and why we are taking turns getting up and down, and having speeches, and why are we here talking about a Budget that was actually read by the Minister of Finance here some weeks ago. Of course, the purpose is that the Budget has not been passed.

The minister announced what he had in his Budget, the details of it, but our role here now as legislators of course, is to debate that back and forth, and at the end of the day there will be a vote to decide whether or not the Budget becomes law, and given, of course, that government have more members in the Opposition, it probably will become law. It is also to point out, of course, to the general public, that not everything that is in the Budget is necessarily good and not everything, of course, that is in the Budget is bad. I am one, for example, I certainly like to give credit where credit is due. There are some things in this Budget that, no doubt, are good. You have to tell it like it is. Where a government, any government, deserves credit for doing some things, they deserve the credit for it.

For example, I am quite pleased and impressed that government saw fit, in the health care piece of the Budget, to add some more drugs to coverage in this Province. It is certainly needed. I have friends and relatives of my own who will use those very drugs, actually. So, it is good to see that governments have, at least, made some moves in the right directions. It did not go far enough. Now, you can use all kinds of reasons as to why you did not go far enough. A person can say we did not go far enough because we need that balance between what money we have in the cookie jar versus what the needs are, and we have to balance it out. We cannot drive ourselves too far in debt. Some people would claim that you should look after people before you look after the cookie jar. That is, I guess, where we come. We are more into looking after the needs of the people. That is why - not withstanding the few things that are in the Budget that are to be commended - there are many things that are not in the Budget that needs to be done. Some of these things, you can take a shotgun approach to this or you can take a general approach, or you can be very specific on issues. It is kind of difficult with the Budget document to get your head around it all in one speaking session.

A couple of things that I noticed, for example, common sense things that are not there do not mean a lot to some people but mean a lot to others. The Minister of Government Services and lands, for example, there is a little reference in this Province, we make millions and millions of dollars a year from the Registry of Deeds in this Province. If you get a mortgage or if you buy any piece of land, for example, by law now you go get it registered, and when you do you will pay a fee. Then, of course, if you go to a law firm to get a mortgage somebody does a search on your property.

There are people in St. John's, for example, who have companies - there are ten, twelve, fifteen of these companies around, searching services, that make a living off searching titles in the Registry of Companies, and all the law firms in the Province, for example, use these searchers. You call in when your client wants a mortgage done. In Port aux Basques, for example, you ought to retain a searcher and they go into the registry and do the search. What happens, that searcher, for example - as much as we have modernized our Registry of Companies, and as much as we charge people for fees - who has all these people employed, who is providing this service for everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, what happens is that person goes into the registry and if they get the information off the computer they cannot use their phone or their computer to get that information out of the registry.

Our Registry of Companies - can you imagine, in this day and age, with all the technology that we have and the massive millions of dollars that we are charging the general public and all the businesses - you talk about rural development, the Minister of Innovation talks about rural development. We cannot even modernize our Registry of Companies so that we can make the Registry of Companies technologically useable, functional, so that a searcher goes in, can get the information, can turn on their cell phone and relay the information to the party who needs it. It is a no-brainer. It is not a big deal, but there are thousands of people in this Province who depend upon that service. Every citizen of this Province who buys a piece of land, registers a piece of land or gets a mortgage, needs that service.

I say to the Minister of Government Services and lands, if you want a good initiative that is going to help Newfoundland, there is one right there, Newfoundland and Labrador. Anybody who lives within the confines of our Province, make the Registry of Companies more accessible. It doesn't take a big pile of money. It takes some kind of wireless system to be set up in their registry. A little bit of technology. There are thousands of people out there who could tell you.

To tie into that, and this gets me into the openness and accountability piece. We have a government who took over here and I was always told: say what you are going to do but, for God's sake, always do what you say. Now, it is one thing to preach openness and accountability and a new approach - nothing wrong with that whatsoever - but you also have an obligation and a responsibility, if you claim to be open and accountable, to be open and accountable, because if you are not, it leads to people saying that you are being deceitful and that you are not being up-front with them. I used the word hypocrisy in this House one time and got in a great deal of trouble because it was said to be unparliamentary. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think you can check any Webster's Dictionary and hypocrisy is defined to mean saying one thing but doing something else. Now, I do not care if it fits the definition of hypocrisy or unparliamentary or not but it is very factual, that if you claim to be open and accountable and transparent and you are not, that is a hypocritical statement.

Now, I will give you some examples. We had a minister in this Budget who said: There will be no fee increases in this Province. That was in the Budget, no fee increases in this Province. That is a pretty simple statement. I also have here in my hand a copy of an Order in Council that was tabled in this House by the very same Minister of Finance four days after he read the Budget. It says - and, again, the Minister of Government Services and lands might be interested in having a view of this and you can get it from the Table - that the Financial Administration Act - this was done, by the way. This is called a pre-commitment of funds. This was done, not in the Budget document. This is going to be done under a special warrant. What do you do? You say one day, in a public statement, no fees. You turn around in this Order in Council under a special warrant, and you say: We are going to preauthorize funds of $844,000 in 2005-2006 and $2 million-plus in 2006-2007 to enhance the Registry of Companies and Deeds online service and, get this piece, to offset an increased service charge - to be offset by an increased service charge - for the registration of deeds and the introduction of a new Internet searching fee.

Now, I do not know about anybody on that side of the House, but I am sure anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador knows that a fee is pretty close to a service charge. If you put it on my motor vehicle and tell me you just whipped me from $130 to $180, I would say you increased by fees. I think if you increase the cost of me registering my deed to my land, you can call it a service charge all you want but it is a fee. People notice these things, so do not have the Minister of Finance on his feet one day reading a Budget and saying to all of the people of this Province, there are no fee increases in this Province, and then four days later he quietly slips across the table a document here, an Order in Council done in Cabinet saying: We are going to have an increased service charge for Registration of Deeds. We just had all of that last year, service fees and whatever, and yet you claim again now, oh no, no service fees, but you do something like this. That is when your credibility comes into play. After a while, if people see enough of this, they cannot believe what you say. If you lose your credibility, of course, you really have a problem.

Again, continuing with that openness and accountability piece, and some examples of where your credibility is going to be put to the test is how you spin stuff. You can tell it like it is or you can spin it. The people of this Province are not fools. They listen to their TVs, they read their newspapers, they watch the NTV and CBC news, and they can tell the difference between what is factual and what is a spin. For example, the Minister of Education went around this Province after the Budget, he said the same thing at Estimates Committees the other day: No, no, no, we are putting back seventy-five teachers into the system. This, by the way, from the same person who when he sat on this side of the House, three years in a row - three years in a row, I say - said one teacher out of the system is one too many. That is his quote, by the way. One teacher taken out of the system was one too many.

Now, that particular minister goes around this Province and he says we are putting in seventy-five teachers, but the truth is - and for anybody out there in TV land who did not know it - the truth is that this government, this year, is taking out 145 teaching units in this Province. You can tell it like it is and say we are taking out 145, or you can try to spin it and say no, no we are putting back seventy-five. We were suppose to take out two something but we are only going to take out 145 and concentrate on putting back seventy-five. That is deceitful to people. That is not telling it like it is.

You talk about openness and accountability. I mean, we have the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's - this crowd cannot even be upfront with their own member. Here you are as MHAs - we all ought to be able to go to government people and particularly to ministers and say: I need a bit of information. Any chance you might be able to provide me with this? I would think that is in the interest of promoting government and seeing that what you did has been done, keeping MHAs informed and so on. Yet, what do we see from this government? We see the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's - he had to write a letter, wrote a letter to the Minister of Works and Services and said: Can I have information relating to a list of all funding and financial contributions to my district. This is from a man who is an MHA, who sits five feet from the minister.

What does that minister tell him, by the way? When you talk about the openness and accountability, that minister comes back to that member and says: Sorry, you did not pay your $5 under the Freedom of Information so we cannot give it to you. Little chance does anybody on this side of the House have of getting information. Little chance does Mr. and Mrs. Joe Q. Public have of getting information. When the member himself, talking to his own colleague five feet away, cannot get the information, what chance does anyone else stand in getting information?

We hear about the Kids Eat Smart program. There are two ways to spin it. They had a budget of $500,000, Mr. Speaker. What was the spin here on Budget day? We are putting $250,000 into the Kids Eat Smart program. They did not tell you that truthfully what they did was axe $250,000 from their $500,000 budget. Yes, it is truthful to say we put in $250,000 but tell the full story. The full story is that you took away the other $250,000. Tell it like it is if you are going to do it.

Road work: We are going to put millions and millions more into road work in 2005-2006 than you have ever seen before. Whoop-de-do! Tell the truth of it. The truth is that there is $22 million in the 2005-2006 budget that is just money that was not spent last year. It is great that you are doing it, it is great that it did not get lost in the shuffle, it is great that it is going to be used to improve the infrastructure of this Province, but people can accept it when you tell them the truth. Why didn't you just simply come out and say, we have $30 million from this year's budget, we had $22 million left from last year, therefore we have a Budget of $52 million. We are going to do some great work with it. Why the need for spinning things? We have a great Budget of $52 million. Tell it like it is. That is where people are starting to pick up on this government because it is not coming out. If you are doing a good deed, you should advertise your good deed. You do not need to be putting a spin on it.

We hear about the balance I mentioned. I commented that some of the drug additions were great stuff, but there is a little bit of balance. The person out in the public - I think every poll ever done in this Province, probably, in the last ten years, for sure, has said that the major concern is health care. I think above everything else, health care is always ranked near the top as the most important concern to the people of this Province. What do we see here in terms of the health care situation concerning the cancer clinic? Not announced in this Budget. The Premier claims he did not know anything about it, never heard about it until he saw the ad on TV, a story done by CBC, and it came up about the beef buckets. Now, I do not know if he did not know about the cancer clinic or he did not know about the beef buckets at the cancer clinic. I trust the bottom line is the issue of a cancer clinic for Grand Falls-Windsor has, certainly, been on the front burner for a long time. In fact, the prior Administration had approved it. Not a case of would they do it, the former government had done it. This government came in and axed it and then this government has still kept it axed despite the obvious need for it.

Then you get people comparing it. Maybe it is not fair to compare it. Maybe it is not apples and apples, maybe it is apples and oranges, but people look at your priorities. You talk about having a social conscience versus watching the piggy bank. People say, you know, we need another soccer pitch in St. John's, or do we put our money into a cancer clinic? That is the kind of comparisons people are starting to make. Yes, we have to try to apply our money wisely but some people think it is an awful waste to be doing infrastructure with that kind of comparison. It just does not compare.

We also talk about rural Newfoundland. The minister just got back from Chicago. A great supporter of selling this Province, I am, personally. It is a great idea. Funny, I had a little chuckle to myself today about the spin. When I was acting minister for nine months, I went down, I believe, to New England State for a similar type of conference and the Independent said I wasted money to go, and this minister goes and does the same thing in Chicago. I am a supporter of what you do in terms of selling this Province and this Province is open for business, and anything we can do to support the businesses here, to make us better, to have more products to sell in this mass markets, by all means, we need to do it.

The balance again, I say to the minister - we have an incident, for example, in Port aux Basques - it is not much point in talking about what we are going to export to Chicago or anywhere else if we do not grow and allow our industries to grow. We have a situation in Port aux Basques, for example, there are two buildings there. Government put a lot of money into them through ENL - a lot of money went in there - and tried to make the project work. In fact, it did not work, for a number of reasons, but that did not keep the people in that area from trying to make it work.

The Mayor of Port aux Basques comes in here last year, meets with the deputy minister of industry, Mr. House, and what are we told? We are told that you must do due diligence. We cannot give those two buildings to the Town of Port aux Basques to go and be used for industrial development. We cannot do that because there is a process. There is a loan on it. The government is owed a chunk of money, and we cannot just give it to the town to use for industrial development. We must go through this process, put it up for tender, and see if there are people who will buy it, because we have an obligation to recover the government's money. That is what was told in writing. The town said, that is pretty good. So they go out and, sure enough, they go through the due diligence process. I am sure my figures are not exactly to the penny, but here we are talking about properties, two buildings that are probably worth in the vicinity of $600,000, situated on the Harbour front, owes about $400,000, and there is one bidder when they go to bid. Now, the town said they wanted it. Give it to us. We will negotiate with you; come up with some deal. We will buy it from you. Let's negotiate. No, no, no, due diligence.

The tender comes in - and, by the way, the town itself is owed, on these two buildings, for several years of back taxes, somewhere in the vicinity of $50,000 or $60,000, which has to come off the top anyway, whatever government gets. So the bidder comes in, about $125,000 or $130,000. Go back to government and say: Here you are, you have a $400,000 debt; you have advertised now with one bidder at $125,000 or $130,000. Under the normal rules, of course, if you and I were going to do it, you would not be able to sell it to the person for that low a bid. When the bid is so far below -

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to bring a little bit of information to the points that the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: In fact, Mr. Speaker, because of the way that the land transaction was handled by the former government, this land, this property, at the moment, cannot be disposed of to anybody. So, in fact, because of the way the whole matter was dealt with under the former Administration, the Province may not - or the town or anybody else may not - be in a position to recoup any of the monies government expended on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I must say, I am glad the minister got to her feet because we have been writing to her - I have, as an MHA, and the town has been writing to her - for several months. In fact, we have not gotten a response out of her. I will tell you right now, if it takes me coming in here and pointing this out to the public, that she is not doing her job, to get her on her feet, I am certainly prepared to do it every day if I have to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Now, if you want to talk about facts, Mr. Speaker, I will give the minister a few facts. This minister who wants to follow process has followed it to the point where we have two properties upheld that cannot be sold now, will not be sold - and this is a great government move through due diligence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: If the government accepts the bid that has been made for $130,000, by the time government pays the town the back taxes - that is assuming the bid ever gets accepted now, by the way, and they are telling us that they will accept this low bid, the only bid - there is not going to be enough money received from the bid to pay the back taxes and to pay the lawyers. Now, that is great rural development, when a town says: Negotiate with me. Let us negotiate and pay you a fair buck so that we can use these buildings for economic development - and I say to the minister, and she well knows this, it is a case already where one person who was prepared to go in one of those buildings baulked and left and did not come into the Province because this government failed - failed, I say to the minister - to consider what rural development was about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Opposition House Leader that his time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity, and I look forward to continuing this comment on rural development.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me pleasure today to stand up and speak to the Budget. I will get ahead with it now in a second, when the crowd on the other side just quietens down enough, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: I am glad I am speaking after the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile because he kept repeating, telling it like it is. The Member for Port de Grave, too, got up and spoke to a couple of issues that I would like to address. The Member for Port de Grave got up and spoke - I referenced this on Wednesday past - to issues on the Burin Peninsula. I am assuming that the man has been there several times and that he is, in fact, quite capable and adapted to speak to that particular area. I would certainly like to speak on that particular issue, as he referred to it, and to just remind people of the Province that there is a constant debate about health care on the Burin Peninsula.

I just want, further to what I said on Wednesday, and in reference to the Budget Speech, I am in no way undermining the need for a facility in Grand Bank, but I think, Mr. Speaker, the decision made by government speaks to the manner in which decisions will be made by this government. They will be planned, they will be organized, and, one thing for certain, we want to be sure that we can pay for them.

I said to the people of the Province, and I say to them again, please consider the Burin Peninsula, with the Burin Peninsula Health Care Centre, consider the driving distance from any point on the Peninsula and you will probably find that 75 per cent of the population can arrive at that facility within about thirty-five to forty minutes. We have one community that is accessible by ferry; therefore, that has to be taken into consideration, and some of our further outlying communities.

I have to ask the people of the Province, and ask the people of the Burin Peninsula, again, if they think it would be a feasible investment to construct a third facility, especially when you consider that the one that was supposed to be the focal centre point is underutilized, and that fifteen minutes from that, in the Town of St. Lawrence, there is another facility, again underutilized.

Mr. Speaker, people can be assured that if there are going to be decisions made, they will be made, first of all, on a sound basis from the advice of experts, and they will be in the best interest of the people of the region.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Port de Grave mentioned the $800,000 that was put into the fisheries protection program. He is asking, wondering, if this government is trying to recoup the money from Ottawa. My question to him would be: Do you want to stand and sit and wait until they recoup the money, or do you begin to address the problem? If we think poaching is a problem on our rivers, than we have no choice but to address it. So, therefore, we are not just going to sit and be inactive, we are going to take the active role and, as was identified in last year's Budget and continued in this year's Budget, we will address the situations as they pertain to our rivers and protect our valuable resources.

The Member for Burgeo & LaPoile speaks about telling it like it is. I think I can pretty well assure him, Mr. Speaker, that the people in the schools and the people in the Province know the situation in terms of teacher allocations. Based on the formula that was in place when they were in government, that there were to be 220 teachers taken out of the system this year, and this year seventy-five of those were reallocated back into the system. Is there enough? Is this enough? Certainly not. I do not think anyone on this side would agree with that, but it is an investment. It is the beginning. Secondly, I would ask in terms of that, where do you begin? All we had to do was follow the media for the past number of months, and we saw evidence of roofs that were leaking, items falling from the ceiling, and, Mr. Speaker, I guess before you start with anything, you have to provide that safe environment. You have to provide a safe, secure environment for students, first and foremost.

So, if the member wants to tell it like it is, I guess I can start by telling him and telling the people of the Province, where do we begin?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West..

MR. JACKMAN: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I guess we need to let the people of the Province know where we began in education. We began first with investing in the infrastructures. You cannot have students going into buildings that are unsafe, water dripping down, things falling from the ceiling. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, that is priority number one. The second priority, putting teachers - and we put them in the primary segment, the area of our education system, to attempt to address class sizes there. Therefore, we began with those priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I would again like to talk a little on the health care initiatives in this Budget. If we again look to where we begin, you start with expert advice and you start with priorities. The number one priority, as identified by the Medical Association in this Province and the Canadian Medical Association, was wait times. If we look to the Budget to see what was addressed in terms of wait times, we look at assessments that people need. The number one item, I guess if we again listen to the professionals, are things like MRIs, where we have heard stories of people who have had to wait for fourteen to sixteen months for an MRI examination. Mr. Speaker, in this particular Budget the numbers have been increased by 2,500. Increasing the MRI equipment that is going in and increasing the number of examinations by 2,500 is still only reducing the wait time by four months. But, Mr. Speaker, we started by taking advice from the experts. We focused on the number one priority, that being wait times, and we listened to the experts and acted accordingly.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, in terms of another one of the priorities, in terms of the wait times, had to deal with cardiac surgeries. There is going to be an increase of 184 cardiac surgeries this year. There is going to be an increase of 900 more examinations in this regard. So, again, we addressed the number one issue of wait times, we listened to the medical experts, and again we acted accordingly and responsibly.

Mr. Speaker, again, this Budget has seen an investment of $225,000 to extend the hours of operation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Cancer Clinic and to increase the number of cancer surgeries by an additional 740. Again, Mr. Speaker, we listened to expert advice. We listened to the Canadian Medical Association, the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, who emphasized that this again was a priority and needed to be addressed. Therefore it was addressed in the Budget.

As my colleague mentioned before, hip, knee and joint replacement, $2.6 million. Again, we listened to the experts, and again we planned and acted accordingly.

I am assuming, Mr. Speaker, things such as the increase in the drugs that will be covered under the drug plan are very much appreciated by the people of the Province. I guess people of the Province recognize that these are benefits that benefit everybody within this Province, and they have judged us accordingly and see this as very positive measures.

Mr. Speaker, likewise in terms of education. This is the profession that I spent twenty-five years in. I go back to my previous statement and take a look at some of the investments that were mentioned in the Budget. Any of us in this House who travels to a school and will probably go in the main entrance area will see a mission statement. This was written and composed by staff, the parents, students, the administrators, all who have a stake in establishing education. There is one thing that you will see in the mission statement, and that is: Providing a safe environment.

Mr. Speaker, if I go back to the Budget, and again speak as the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile mentioned, telling it as it is, telling the truth, telling it openly and accountably. We see a $12 million investment in upgrading the infrastructures of this Province, the schools that our children attend. No one can argue that is not a good investment, because in the mission statement, as it says: Providing a safe environment. The first and foremost thing that we have to ensure is that the buildings that our students go into and our teachers go into and our custodians go into, that they have a safe environment; thus, the investment in the buildings.

As well, a $250,000 plan to look at the long-term needs of the educational infrastructures. I can only assume, that a lot of these problems in these buildings didn't happen in the last eighteen months. I guess it has been an accumulation of not attending to the needs of these structures over the years, and now the need for the investment.

As well, let's look at the busing issue, an investment of $3 million in transportation for our students, and $2 million of this to reduce the maximum age of the buses from fourteen years to ten years. I guess, Mr. Speaker, it would be the wish of people out there making the decisions about transporting students that we have all new ones. We know that is not possible, but let's consider that this year $1 million was invested to buy fifty-three new buses. We are looking at this as a positive measure, again in providing safety for our students.

If we go back to the units, and the openness and transparency that was spoken about, I certainly do recognize that we did have a loss of 145 teachers. There is no disputing that, but to say to the people that, first and foremost, there were going to be 220 teachers lost. As someone referred to, they are pleased that education has made it to the radar screen. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the investment of seventy-five teachers back into the system is a good start; and it is that, it is a start. Certainly, we would love to be able to say we wouldn't take any out, the 220 would have stayed there, but that is not possible at this time, Mr. Speaker, and therefore we have replaced seventy-five of those teachers.

Likewise, Mr. Speaker, $1 million has been invested to allow schools to purchase physical education equipment. We don't have to look very far to see why this should be a priority, and it is something, I think, that in the future we will have to invest even more in. If we look at our youth and consider the obesity problems, the inactivity, the increase in juvenile diabetes, we recognize that a lot of this has to do with our lifestyles and how we need to change these things. Mr. Speaker, investing $1 million to allow physical education teachers to purchase equipment will certainly add to and hopefully be a start in addressing these kinds of problems, and that we can continue to do this over the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like, for a minute, to speak to the rural strategy. We have heard so much, but no one has spoken about the roll out of the rural strategy. If I could, just for a minute or two, take a look at that. This year, Mr. Speaker, we have seen a $16 million investment in the rural strategy. We have identified nine regions in our Province where we collectively come together and build on this and strengthen these particular regions. Areas of strengths have been identified that this government hopes to invest in and build on. We have identified areas such as tourism and culture, agrifoods, manufacturing, aerospace, the forestry, the marine and ocean technology. Mr. Speaker, in this breakdown, we have $10 million that is established in a revolving fund that will help medium and small-sized business continue and improve, but also to help them grow; that we start new small and medium business where potential is available in our particular areas within these regions. We have a $5 million diversification fund to support communities and community organizations who will then, hopefully, be able to use this money to lever other monies.

Mr. Speaker, in this regard, I would like to kind of speak to specifics within the District of Burin-Placentia West. At this particular moment, we have a group called the Marystown port authority who are attempting to develop Mortier Bay as a site to attract business. They have begun preliminary work and have some land cleared there in that regard. I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that they will be able to avail of monies from this particular strategy that will enhance their project and get it moving along.

Likewise, Mr. Speaker, in one of the smaller communities in my district, Baine Harbour, that for years have been developing their harbour and developing the infrastructure there. Placentia Bay, as some people may know, is a wonderful sheltered bay. Hopefully this community too, Mr. Speaker, will be able to avail of monies through these funds and then further develop the potential of this community. Mr. Speaker, we have, on one end, one of our smallest rural communities and Marystown being the larger one, that, hopefully, will be able to avail of money through these funds.

Likewise, Mr. Speaker, Burin. Burin is rich in its tourism. They have a wonderful site in their community that attracts people both within the district, provincially, nationally and internationally. Year after year, increasing numbers come to this particular area. Mr. Speaker, as they continue to build that, hopefully they will be able to invest in this fund and avail of this fund to strengthen what they already have in place.

Mr. Speaker, I think about one gentleman in my district who has a business. He builds cupboard doors and, right now, he has three people employed in that. One of the things that he has been looking for is the opportunity to access and avail of monies that will allow him to expand his operation. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, we see the opportunity for increased production as well as increased hiring. If this gentleman can avail of funds through this particular initiative, then these are the types of projects that will see us stronger within our respective districts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Burin-Placentia West that his time is lapsed.

MR. JACKMAN: By leave for a minute or so, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude by saying that in this Budget there are many, many initiatives that I think the people of this Province need to see in a very, very positive light. I see them and I see the potential. As much as some of the members opposite say the potential is not there or they do not see us presenting the opportunity for rural development in this Province, I see that it is, and a lot of the initiatives that I have just concluded in referring to the rural strategy, I think residents of the Province will see likewise in the coming months.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to rise in the House and have a few words about the Budget and about what is happening in this great Province of ours.

It is interesting that I would come immediately after the Member for Burin-Placentia West who, in his comments, indicated something about the Member for Port de Grave. I would like to remind the hon. Member for Burin-Placentia West, that the hon. Member for Port de Grave was born in the great District of Burin-Placentia West and grew up on an island in Placentia Bay and, as a matter of fact, got his roots in Placentia Bay. That is why he turned out to be such a great person, a great leader, who looks after the affairs in his district and looked after the affairs in the community in which he resided in Conception Bay for many, many years.

It is also interesting to note that the Member for Burin-Placentia West, a couple of days last week, was doing damage control. While talking to people on the Burin Peninsula the weekend, some people said to me: Does he really represent the Burin Peninsula or does he represent Clarenville, because he was talking about building another hospital in Grand Bank. That is not the purpose of the whole health situation on the Burin Peninsula. I do not know if he realizes it or not, but the situation in Grand Bank was to put a clinic - and I would also like to alert the RCMP on the Burin Peninsula for the member, because, if he is talking about thirty-five minutes to get Burin clinic, anywhere on the Peninsula, I would suggest that he is greatly exceeding the speed limit on the Burin Peninsula. There are a lot of people who are saying that he really does not understand the needs of the Burin Peninsula.

The intention in Grand Bank was for a retirement center, a place for senior citizens. Most people will indicate that building that or adding that on to a hospital, is not the right atmosphere, is not the right condition, for senior citizens to be involved next to a hospital. The intention was to put a center in Grand Bank for people who are of Level III and Level IV care. Right now, these are in very dilapidated conditions and are not able to function properly, not able to live properly, and do not have the quality of life. These people, the senior citizens, are up in years and they need that now in their retirement years, the last years they have left in this world. Really, what the Member for Burin-Placentia West has done is turn his back on the people of the Burin Peninsula. Most people up there are referring to him as the former Member for Burin-Placentia West.

I would like, also, to make some comment about the Burin Peninsula and what we have gone through under this particular government. When this government was put together and the Cabinet was sworn in, when I saw the makeup of the Cabinet and the predominance of the people in the St. John's, Metro area and in urban Newfoundland and, as the Member for Gander, representatives of the hubs of the Province, I indicated that we were in for a rough time in this Province. Then one of the major decisions they made was when they amalgamated and put together the school boards in the Province. At one time, the Burin Peninsula had its own school board. I have to say, and I would like to go on the public record, in the years that I represented the communities in Fortune Bay, the way that this school board conducted itself and the way they looked after the needs of the people on the Burin Peninsula was just outstanding. They had a sense of community, every community on the Burin Peninsula. They did proper consultations within their communities and worked with communities, and when there was a need to close out schools, they met with the people and explained to the people and did everything possible to make it a smooth transition for the people within the communities.

When this government came to power it decided to wipe out the school board on the Burin Peninsula. Let's face it, in this day of modern technology with internet and all of the other facilities that we have at our disposal and technologies that are available, the school board on the Burin Peninsula had its own facilities, its own office building. The one in Clarenville had its own office buildings. The headquarters could easily have been put either in Clarenville or up on the Burin Peninsula. But, no, what did they decide to do? They decided to have the headquarters in St. John's, downtown St. John's in Atlantic Place. What did they decide to do? They decided to rent space in St. John's at probably $25 a square foot. We have schools in this Province now with leaks in their roofs and conditions that are deplorable, and the school board is paying a tremendous amount of money for space to be rented in St. John's when they could have easily gotten the accommodations in Burin and in Clarenville for free.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or in Spaniard's Bay.

MR. BARRETT: Or in Spaniard's Bay, actually. Beautiful offices, and they decided to relocate these offices in St. John's.

Where was the Member for Burin-Placentia West when this was happening? Where was the Member for Trinity North, where was the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, when the decisions were made to put the school board office in St. John's? It is amazing that if you are talking about rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it would have been a great economic boost to have the school board office on the Burin Peninsula, in terms of the activities and everything else that are associated with a school board office. The same way with th health care board, put it all in St. John's.

I guess the one item in the Budget that I did not see was the U-Hauls. There was no place in the Budget where the government is going to rent U-Hauls, because it looks like everything is coming out of rural Newfoundland and going into St. John's or Corner Brook or, as the Member for Gander calls it, into the hubs, into the hubs of the Province.

I remember being around and being a part of government when we had an individual who was head of the Economic Recovery Commission. I sat in this House and listened to members on this side of the House get up every day talking about: When are you going to get rid of Doug House, because he is talking about the economic hubs of the Province, the social hubs of the Province? As a matter of fact, the Government House Leader, I guess, had some very, very interesting speeches about what was happening in terms of the Economic Recovery Commission.

MR. E. BYRNE: Read them. (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: I read some of them. I have read some of the speeches, I say to the Government House Leader, and he condemned what was happening in terms of the Doug House philosophy, in terms of creating the hubs along the Trans-Canada Highway. I suggest he go back and check on his notes and check his speeches, because I am sure at the next Cabinet meeting he will bring proposals to Cabinet to make sure that this government changes its focus in terms of wiping out rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Member for Burin-Placentia West had a great opportunity to get this office, the school board office, on the Burin Peninsula, and, of course, there is no reason why the health board office could not have gone into Clarenville and serviced all the Avalon and the Bonavista and Burin Peninsulas. They decided to waste the money, come into St. John's and rent space, and they are talking about how they do not have any money.

It would be remiss of me if I did not get up here and talk about some of the things that are happening in Labrador. I had the distinct pleasure, I guess, when I was a minister, to be in every community in Labrador and meet the people in Labrador. The people of Labrador, I guess, in the last five or six years that we were part of the government, received some special attention. They were getting some money to open up the communities in terms of roadwork. As a matter of fact, I guess one of the big highlights of my political career was going into Pinsent Arm on one Saturday afternoon and announcing that we were going to put a road out to Pinsent Arm, to see the excitement that was on the people's face in Pinsent Arm when they knew that they were going to be connected to the mainstream of the highway. Little did they realize that in a few years there was going to be a Conservative government in Newfoundland and Labrador that had no intention of doing anything in Labrador. I think it was disgraceful this year, that this government decided it was not going to plow the road in Labrador.

I have been on that road in Labrador, and I have been on almost every road in Newfoundland, on the Island, and I can tell you that if we did not pay the attention to the Doe Hills on the Trans-Canada Highway, if we did not actually have the equipment that was side by side there - there is going to be a different tune now because they are closing the station there in Bellevue - but if we did not pay attention to the Doe Hills we would have the same situation. Some improvements need to be made to the rock cuts and that in Labrador. If we did not pay the attention, and have the equipment out there practically full-time, maintaining the road, we would have the same problem on the Island.

Of course, the other road that I am quite familiar with, the Burin Peninsula Highway is another one. If we did not have the proper equipment and the proper depots placed in strategic areas -there are days now, for example, when the Burin Peninsula Highway is closed for four or five days. We need special attention to be paid. What we have in Labrador is just a haphazard way of doing things. I think it is disgraceful that the people in Labrador - there is nowhere else in this Province where it would happen. I can understand the people of Labrador being up in arms. There is no other place in Newfoundland that this would happen, that you would close the main road. We are not talking about a byroad. We are talking about the Trans-Labrador Highway not being plowed. They say they do not have the money to do it. Well, they would have been better off taking the $350,000 with which they sent Bill Rowe on a holiday, and plowed the road in Labrador.

The other thing that they need to address is the ferry service to Labrador. Right now, the ice is out of The Straits. There is no reason why the Apollo cannot be on that particular route. As a matter of fact, when I was a minister, every year we made the decision, because the ice had cleared, that we would put the Apollo on earlier because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: The Member for Mount Pearl was a television prop, and now he turns over notes for his colleagues. I suggest that he keep quite because what I am talking about is a very, very important issue for the people of Labrador. They are talking about the ferry service to the people of Labrador, so I suggest the Member for Mount Pearl be quiet and listen because he might learn something beyond the overpass. It is really, really -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: No, every time I get up here, the Member for Mount Pearl, all he does is spout off his mouth about some old crazy foolish thing. What I am talking about here is a genuine concern of the people of Labrador in terms of their ferry service and in terms of the roads. It is no laughing matter. You can laugh all you like on that side of the House, but over here we take our work that we do very, very seriously.

I suggest that the Minister of Transportation and Works review that particular file and next year keep the road open in Labrador, and also to entertain the prospect of opening and starting the ferry service in Labrador much, much earlier.

While we are on the road situation, I would like to point out that this government has really bragged about how much money they are putting into roads. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth - the big announcement that they are putting $30 million into the provincial roads program. Well, over the last two or three years that we were in government we put roughly about $26 million into the provincial roads program -

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-three.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, you are putting $30 million in the provincial roads program. Last year, you said you were going to put $30 million in the provincial roads program, and what did you put in? You put in $27 million. You only spent $27 million. This book doesn't lie. I don't suppose it does. This the Budget and the Estimates. The figures are coming directly out of this book. You budgeted $30 million and you spent $27 million. They had the big hullabaloo about the great strategy in terms of the provincial roads program, and they were going to spend $30 million. Well, they spent $1.2 million more than the previous Administration - $1.2 million less than the previous Administration.

I heard the Member for Baie Verte on Open Line the other day talking about roads in his district. When I was Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the money allocated to his district was one of the high liners in the Province. We allocated roughly $2.4 million every year we were government, in his district. The figures, you can check for yourself.

I can tell you, for years, in terms of the priorities and in terms of the analysis of the roads in the district, the number one district in the Province in terms of needing roadwork, I have to agree with the Member for Baie Verte, was his district. Do you know the number two district in the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Bellevue. Bellevue was number two in terms of the allocation.

Now, we made some more progress in that, and we are probably not number two now, but do you know what I received last year from this government for road work in the Bellevue District? I received $280,000, and that was for storm damage. No improvements whatsoever in the roads in Bellevue District at all, so I guess the people in Bellevue District do not count.

I can tell you one thing: When I was a minister of the Crown, I did not do the same thing for the Member for Baie Verte and say: No, we are not going to do anything in Baie Verte District because they voted Tory. We treated them as citizens of the Province, which every government should do. As a matter of fact, the Premier campaigned saying that we should be fair and just with everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, I am waiting for the roads work to come out this year because my district, in terms of priority, is probably still the second or third.

The Member for Mount Pearl talks about the Long Harbour Road. Well, I can tell you, there are a lot more roads in my district worse than the Long Harbour Road and, I can assure you, I will be waiting this year to see how much money is allocated for the District of Bellevue in roadwork, because if I only get -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) poll results of the last election.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. You talk about people playing politics.

The other thing is, when I was Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I signed a strategic highway improvement agreement with the federal government.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what?

MR. BARRETT: For work on the Trans-Canada, on a fifty-fifty cost-sharing basis with the provincial government.

Anyway, the Budget that came out this year had some interesting news on that, and we know now why the Trans-Canada Highway from Chance Cove to Goobies was not done. They allocated $15,120,000 last year for work on the Trans-Canada. Do you know how much they spent? They spent $6,510,800.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is all?

MR. BARRETT: That is all they spent.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they do with the rest of it?

MR. BARRETT: I do not know what they did with the rest of it but that is all they spent on the Trans-Canada, and the Trans-Canada Highway from Chance Cove to Goobies is not fit to go on.

It is interesting, during the last provincial election campaign - as a side thing - there was a sign on the Trans-Canada Highway saying: rough road for the next thirty-two kilometres.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the Minister of Transportation then?

MR. BARRETT: No, I was not the Minister of Transportation.

Rough road on the Trans-Canada for the next thirty-two kilometres. Mr. Speaker saw it, I am sure he did. Anyway, I was driving along the highway coming back from the Burin Peninsula and all of a sudden I saw all of those signs, plastered all over the sign saying: rough road for thirty-two kilometres, or forty-two kilometres. Rough road ahead for thirty-two kilometres, and under the sign it said: Vote for Joan Cleary, PC. So, if you want a rough road in Bellevue District, vote for Joan Cleary. I guess the people realized that - anyway, I do not know who put the signs up but it became a bit of joke in the district at that particular time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Yes, they must have voted for her. They got the rough road.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: I do not understand why we had $15,120,000 allocated for the Trans-Canada and we only spent $6,510,000 when roughly 150 miles of the Trans-Canada Highway now is in a bad state of repair.

If you leave here and drive - the divided highway between St. John's and Roaches Line is in a treacherous condition. A lot of it can be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: It happened in the last two years, because right now we have a lot of heavy equipment on the road because the weigh scales are closed.

AN HON. MEMBER: And all those ruts.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, all those ruts are -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Bellevue that his time has lapsed.

MR. BARRETT: Already, Mr. Speaker? That is unfortunate. I only got to note number one, but, Mr. Speaker, I will be back.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was very amused when the hon. Member for Bellevue mentioned the road because it was only yesterday I drove through that section of road and I sort of did a little bit of math here, and I said: well, we were elected just over sixteen months ago. So in one construction season we destroyed the Trans-Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Now, where is the logic to that? One season, one construction season we destroyed the Trans-Canada Highway and, Mr. Speaker, he had the gall to bring up the sign that says: The next thirty-eight kilometres, rough road ahead. That was in his district, and he was Minister of Transportation and never did anything about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Logic defies me. Logic defies me, Mr. Speaker. Logic defies me. Make no wonder Joan Cleary, who was running for us, put a sign there. It was a reflection on the member back here, not on Joan Cleary. I have to say thank you for bringing it up because it was in my notes to bring it up but now that you have brought it up, I can certainly see you can wear that.

He mentioned the Long Harbour Road. Now, Mr. Speaker, if people go back in history, the Long Harbour Road was put there because of ERCO some thirty years ago. The previous government that was in - for thirteen years, that I know of, that they were there - did absolutely nothing with the Long Harbour Road. Now, I can say this because I know the people of Long Harbour are looking at this program today. Some of my relatives are down there and they are looking at the program. They know what the member did down there. Absolutely nothing. So, I tell you, to bring up the Trans-Canada Highway - and, again, I have to say, I can't believe it. Sixteen months we are in, one construction season, and we destroyed the thirty-eight kilometres. We must have had awful big spikes on our tires, is all I can say.

Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, the other thing I want to hit, the hon. member over there from Bellevue mentioned the ferry service. Now, I am not sure but I asked the question in talking - Hull 100. Now, Hull 100 is a secret. They talk about the amount of money to go into ferry service. Hull 100 - was spent $1.8 million. That is the approximate value. The previous government, and we had to continue on, it is up to $9.5 million, almost $10 million. Now, if we had to build one here that we wanted, number one, for another $9 million we would have a brand new ferry that would have done the service for thirty years. Then, Marystown, the hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West would have had jobs in his community. The spinoff would be fantastic. No, we want to refit something that was totally unacceptable. I had conversations with people who were big experts in the area of ferry boats and they told me it was a colossal waste of money. If we had that $9 million, the hon. member would not have a rough road going through his district.

Now, the other thing, Mr. Speaker - it is kind of hard going after the hon. Member for Bellevue, because it ruined my whole speech. I wasn't going to be like that, I was going to be really nice, but it just forced me to go the other way.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, some of the things that went into the Budget - the Opposition will bring out things that, well, this should not have gone and that wasn't there, and that is their job. That is the role of the Opposition to bring out what they think are shortfalls in the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, the educational field: We have talked about what we have done in the educational department. Free tuition - frozen tuition: We froze tuition, not free tuition . Now, the hon. members -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: The Leader of the Opposition, that was slip, and he knows exactly what I was talking about, but he is so quick to try to correct me.

Mr. Speaker, we froze tuition this year and, barring any unforeseen financial burden over the next number of years, it will be frozen again. Now, they are quick to say, oh, but we reduced it by 4 per cent or 5 per cent, but they are not as quick to say, we increased it by 20 per cent or more over their term in office. We froze it.

Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick came out with a new thing just last week about how they are going to attack keeping people within the province. The individual who is responsible for the student council in MUN said the approach that this government took on behalf of freezing tuition was the better way to do it, and he said it was much more advantageous to our students in Newfoundland and Labrador by freezing tuition. Mr. Speaker, I applaud that, because everyone will say prices are escalating all over the place, and we need to be able to freeze that so the students who are going to university will get a reprieve on that, of any escalation in cost of tuition. I thought that was a very, very positive step.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker: We talk about teaching positions. Seventy-five teachers have been redeployed this year who would have been normally laid off. Fifty-two will be redeployed, twenty-three are for the music area, and that is a major concern. A major component of our Budget was the culture. Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that in our culture, a lot of basis goes back to our music. Think about it. Mr. Speaker, I have been across this country and have been in arenas where they have music between face-offs and intermissions and a lot of that music is Newfoundland and Labrador music, and I am so proud to hear that. I think the investment we are making in music teachers in our Province is a very, very positive step for us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, before I go on, the Opposition will say: Well, you are laying off too many teachers. Mr. Speaker, listen to this: In 1996 there were 229 teachers laid off; in 1997, 468; and in 1998, 225 teachers laid off. Also, from 1991, there were 7,951 teachers there; in 2001-2002, 6,264. Mr. Speaker, if you do the math there were teachers who lost their jobs for other reasons, were cut. To say that we cut that many teachers and to say when they were in government they did not do a thing, it is almost like, oh, no, we did not do any of that. They did, Mr. Speaker, they did a big job on them. That is exactly what they did.

Mr. Speaker, they talk about infrastructure within the schools. Again, I go back to say we have only been in for sixteen months but we have made some very, very positive strides in sixteen months, beyond the belief of this government when we came in. We knew we were going to take a positive role and we turned it around, we opened doors. We did not close doors in Ottawa, we opened doors. We got the Health Accord, we got equalization, and we got the Atlantic Accord. Those are three things that the Opposition Leader -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: - could not do. Every door he went to was slammed, jarred tight. We took a new approach on it. He is smiling now. He is over there and he will probably get up and criticize what I said, but, Mr. Speaker, this is the truth.

Mr. Speaker, infrastructure within the schools: All of a sudden, we have destroyed the infrastructure in the schools in sixteen months. We have tried to replace the lack of resources in the schools, in sixteen months. Mr. Speaker, this year there is $26 million in new construction in total. Part of that $26 million would be new school construction throughout the Province in different areas. Sixteen million dollars of that, Mr. Speaker, will be used for infrastructure, to repair the needs of the schools. Is it enough? No, it is not enough, but we needed to look at the envelope of the school. We needed to make it warm, we needed to make it comfortable for both the teachers and the students who attend those schools. We are taking a positive step. I will admit it is not enough, but listen, you get up the stairs by going one step at a time and that is what we are doing and we will get there. We will get their eventually, but we will take the positive route about it, we will not be negative as they are saying.

Now, Mr. Speaker, road work: This year, Mr. Speaker - and I apologize. This is a teacher voice, I tell the hon. Member for L'Anse au Clair. They told me, when I started teaching up in the top floor of O'Donel High School, you do not need a microphone, you could just tear down all the walls and teach the whole floor. I am sorry, but that is the way that I am. Anyway-

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition. That was very cute, I must say.

Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, this year there will be $33.7 million of roadwork done, $10 million more than 2002-2003. That is very, very positive, because there was thirteen years of neglect. I remind the Opposition, the next thirty-eight kilometres, rough road ahead. God forbid they even had the nerve to bring that up here today. The nerve to bring it up today, thirty-eight kilometres. Even if I knew it I would not put up the sign.

The other part, Mr. Speaker, that is very, very positive is the health care. My hon. colleague from Conception Bay South mentioned a lot of things and I am not going to go into all of the details, MRIs, CAT scans, reducing wait times. All of these are very, very positive things that are happening. You know we are reducing the wait times significantly, not only in St. John's and surrounding area but across the Province, Mr. Speaker. That to me is what people wanted. They wanted to reduce the wait times. Now, could they be lower? Yes. But again, Mr. Speaker, we are taking it one step at a time and we are creating a positive feeling within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the next one I want to talk about is municipal infrastructure. Municipal infrastructure that will be announced this year is the Multi-Year Capital Works Program and it is estimated over the next three years, $85 million. In all due respect, the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs tried to implement a lot of this and he did in the last part of his term as municipal affairs. Our government has taken it a bit beyond that, moving into much more a total Multi-Year Program. The minister said, I would like to have it all multi-year, because Mr. Speaker, it does a number of things. It gives municipalities the opportunities to plan, to set their priorities, and get them on a timely basis. People say, well, that is the municipality, but the impact and the spinoffs from that are this: If we do it on a timely basis, if we are able to complete them within the construction season, paved roads won't be done in the middle of December. We will be able to do it in the construction season and people, who are seasonal workers, would be employed earlier in the year, rather than waiting for contracts to the let. That is very, very positive.

The Multi-Year Capital Works Program will be $25 million and the Canadian Newfoundland and Labrador Infrastructure Program will be $30 million. Three programs, Mr. Speaker, will combine to invest a total of $140 million in municipal infrastructure and create approximately 90,000 person weeks of employment throughout the Province. In addition, we will be proceeding with negotiations with the federal government towards concluding the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, that is very, very positive for us. It is positive for this government, it is positive for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has just announced the gas tax rebate, five cents a liter over the next number of years, the next three years; five years, I believe. That will bring in eighty-two point some million dollars to Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, in talking to the minister, there will be no clawback on that, and that is very, very positive for the municipalities.

I can remember one infrastructure program that the previous government did. That was probably one of the first infrastructure programs, one-third, one-third and one-third. The first one came out, and some of my colleagues who were former mayors will remember this. What they did, they did one-third, one-third, one-third, alright, but they did not do the regular Capital Works Program. They scrapped that and let the other one-third in. We are not doing that, Mr. Speaker, we are going to build on that infrastructure program. We are going to make sure the municipalities have the resources, the money, and the time to prepare. That, Mr. Speaker, is very, very positive.

The gas tax again, as I said, will not be rolled back. That will be given back directly to the municipalities so they can put it back as they see fit.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the Budget, when we talk about what is not there, I hope today I gave the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador some idea of what is there and what we have included. Now, I am sure there are people listening who would like to see more, but you cannot do it all overnight. For sixteen months, I think we have taken a giant step forward. We have made positive steps. I think this government, with the vision that we have for Newfoundland and Labrador, is a very positive one. I am very, very optimistic that the future is very, very bright for us.

Mr. Speaker, one other thing before I sit down is the new drugs that were put on the health care. We put twenty-five new drugs in, to include them under our program, twenty-five new ones. All I heard from the Opposition: Yeah, you have twenty-five, but this is what you did not include. They never talked about what we had included, and what was included. That is their job, by the way. That is their job, I do not deny that, but they also have to recognize - they all, over there on the other side, will say: Well, let's give credit where credit is due.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of credit that needs to come to us in terms of our Budget. I think the ministers and caucus came together with a very, very good Budget this year. Yes, there were shortcomings in it that we would like to see; but, listen, we will do that, and we will do that on a very timely basis. We will make sure that the future of Newfoundland and Labrador is very, very bright - I was just about to say Mount Pearl.

Just speaking of Mount Pearl, I want to go back to the amount of work that is going to be done in the District of Mount Pearl this year: $6.84 million in a multi-year program. There will be $840,000 for a water tank that will service the Kenmount Park area because of the water pressure problems. That would be great news for the residents in that area. Also, there will be $2 million a year for the next three years for roadwork. The municipality of Mount Pearl are now sitting down - and I have been only talking as recently today, and I am in constant contact with them to give them an update, and they will give me an update of what is happening there. They are very, very positive about it. They are very, very enthused about it. A lot of this work that is going to be done, as in all my other hon. colleagues' districts, is very, very important money, because again it goes directly to the people.

So, Mr. Speaker, without further ado, I will sit down; but, I tell you, the future of Newfoundland and Labrador is bright. We have taken steps forward, we will take steps forward, and we will make better gains in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to rise and have a few words on the Budget. I am going to tell you, I could hardly get myself up out of the seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, let me start off by thanking the members opposite for the wonderful welcome back to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Absolutely, no doubt, it is a pleasure to be here, a pleasure to stand in my place and represent the good people of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, Mr. Speaker.

I was sitting in my seat, listening to the Member for Mount Pearl. Mr. Speaker, I listened to him as he talked and praised the wonderful works crafted in the Budget by the Minister of Finance. I said to myself, the Member for Mount Pearl needs to get out more, Mr. Speaker. He needs to get out more around the Province. That is his problem. Mr. Speaker, if he cannot get out, he can turn on his e-mail and he can read some of the e-mails that I am sure he, as well as members like myself, are getting from people from rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I have a whole litany up there from a man named David Boyd, from the Northern Peninsula. I can guarantee you that he does not share the tremendous optimism of the member opposite, the Member for Mount Pearl, when it comes to the Northern Peninsula and to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, nor do the people who are in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen, in the fishing industry in this Province, unrest, yes, before, and I have seen disputes between harvesters and processors, between plant workers and processors, between governments and business, but I have never seen an impasse like the one that we are presently experiencing: a situation whereby government has dug their heels in so far that they are willing to compromise the entire fishing industry and the entire crab fishing industry of this Province for this season.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what that translates into? It translates into hundreds of people in this Province who would be going without employment, communities that would have a loss of industry. That is what it translates into. It is more than just a stubborn argument that exists between a couple of parties, I will say that to you.

Mr. Speaker, this approach of my way or the highway is just not going to work. The people in this Province, when it comes to dealing with their livelihood, when it comes to dealing with the issues that are important to them, their families and their communities, they want dialogue. They want to be a part of the decision, Mr. Speaker. They do not want to be dictated to. They do not want to be told how things are going to run, and they do not want a heavy-handed approach that is certainly being laid out to them right now by the Minister of Fisheries and by the Premier of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat in this House for the last week and I have listened to the Minister of Fisheries get up on his feet every day and try and hide behind recommendations in the Dunne report. I might add, Mr. Speaker, a report that the minister frowned at, frowned at only two years ago when it was commissioned to be done, basically had nothing good to say about it whatsoever, and absolutely turned his nose up at it. Well, today I listened to him stand in his place saying that he is defending the recommendations in this report and that his whole decision with regard to fixing the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is based on those recommendations.

Well, one thing that the minister failed to do was to take the recommendation for the intention that it was directed. That did not happen. When Mr. Dunne recommended that there be options like raw material sharing looked at within Newfoundland and Labrador, he said that those options should only be implemented with the co-operation and the dialogue of the harvesters as well as the processors and all the people who are engaged in the fishing industry. That is where the minister fell down on the job. He failed to consult with them. He failed to seek out what their views and their opinions were in regard to this, just like he did last year when he came into this House of Assembly with a piece of legislation that was going to put an auction system, a hail-at-sea system, for the shrimp industry. Well, it never saw the light of day. We stood in this House of Assembly day after day, night after night, debating a piece of legislation that the minister never, ever, was able to use because the fishing industry objected to it. They were not in support of it, and therefore they were not prepared to use it.

Well, here today, again, we have the same minister standing in his place day after day trying to gag the fishing industry in this Province with a piece of production quotas for plants that harvesters just do not want. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not a fit. It is not a fit, and it is not going to work. All this is doing is causing even more unrest in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to say to the government opposite, I want to say to them, you can get up member after member over there and you can praise up the things that are in this Budget. I will tell you, I will be the first to admit, there are some good things in this Budget. Any time you can address wait lists in hospitals, and things of that nature, add more diagnostic equipment, it is a good thing; but, Mr. Speaker, this government also has to give back some dignity to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and that has not happened.

You know, they have stood here time and time again and talked about the well-orchestrated plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, Mr. Speaker, the communities are not seeing it. My district is definitely not seeing it. So, wherever this new orchestrated rural development plan for Newfoundland and Labrador is, I would suggest to the government opposite, it is time for them to haul it out and to put it to work. Put it to work before these communities are completely demoralized. Mr. Speaker, it is awful what is happening. It is absolutely awful. It is time to restore the dignity to the people who live in those communities and to the people in our fishing industry. Anyone who knows this Province will know that rural society is built in this Province on one main industry. There are others that contribute to it but the main industry for us is the fishery; always has been and will always be one of the mainstays for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I looked at this Budget, as I am sure other members did. I am sure my colleague, the Member for Lake Melville, had a good look at this Budget on Budget Day and I would say that the member was as unimpressed as what I was when it came to how they were going to deal with issues in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, not only in the past year have I had to deal with the contempt of the Minister of Transportation and Works when it came to dealing with roads and marine services in my district, but the saga continues. It has not ended yet. It is still continuing. But do you know something? I looked at this Budget and I said: How could a government, that preaches bringing Newfoundland and Labrador together as one Province, omit something as large as any real commitment to Labrador? I asked myself that question, and do you know something? I looked at it and I said, I hope it is not a vengeance that is here. I hope it isn't, because as you know, in Christmas when the Premier went out and got upset with Ottawa and stomped his feet and came home that time, he hauled down all the Canadian flags in Newfoundland. But in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, they did not take down their Canadian flags did they? They did not take them down, simply because they felt more of an allegiance to Canada than they did to Newfoundland and to that Premier and to that government, Mr. Speaker. Then I had to ask myself: Was the whole flag flap the issue why Labrador, in itself, did not get addressed in this Budget? I certainly hope that was not the case, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to have an explanation for it, and hopefully in the days I will have an explanation for it. I can tell you right now, there is no other area in this Province that is in greater need of having issues addressed by the government than Labrador is, itself.

Mr. Speaker, when they looked at putting diagnostic equipment, in this Budget, all across the Province, where was the one area that was out lobbying aggressively for kidney dialysis and got left out, omitted, did not even get considered? It was in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker. That is who got left out. The families who are in Labrador right now are moving to the Island to be able to seek this kind of treatment. Is that fair? We did not see it as an argument of fairness.

When they looked at road services I had to practically beg the Department of Transportation and Works, as well as make call after call to the Premier's Office, as well as calling the new Minister of Labrador Affairs, just to get a snow blower put on a section of highway in my district to get the roads cleared. We did not see that happening down in the District of Baie Verte this winter, did we? We did not. The road blocked down there for five days. The government went out to a private contractor, hired the equipment, put it in there. I do not even know what it cost. I can throw around some figures based on what equipment rental is these days, but, Mr. Speaker, nobody hesitated. Nobody hesitated to clear out the Baie Verte Highway in five days, working around the clock, private equipment, everything they could do.

When the road blocked going to the Port au Port Peninsula, another area where there is a Conservative MHA, did they hesitate? The weather cleared the next morning. They had equipment on that road, every bit of equipment they could find, because I made the calls to the West Coast myself and found out. They cleared those roads in record time, but in our district, in my district, we had to get on the phone and plead and beg to get equipment on that road. Is that responding to the needs of people? I do not think it is. It is not responding to the needs of people in the way that a government should be. It is responding: when I feel like responding. That is basically the attitude that I have gotten, and that is unacceptable. I do not care where you live in this Province, that is unacceptable.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are out lobbying trying to get the ferry back on the Strait of Belle Isle. We have had no ice in the Straits for almost ten days. We have had two ferries down from the Quebec North Shore docked in Blanc-Sablon, offloaded their goods, loaded up and left again. We have had small boats crossing over the Strait of Belle Isle on a daily basis in that area and we are trying to get a response from the government: Are you going to put the ferry service back into schedule? Mr. Speaker, it would not happen anywhere else in the Province. There was a time when it was acceptable that the ferry was not there because of ice conditions, because of the situation in the Strait of Belle Isle and it was impossible to operate it. Such is not the situation today. Things have changed and you can operate that ferry there longer in the winter and earlier in the spring, and people expect that. We have been without the service since January 9. January 9 since we have gotten goods and services in there. Now we are running out of product and we have to fly everything in by aircraft, and it is very expensive. Do you know the government's response to us, when we talk about putting the ferry on? It is going to cost us extra money. Well, are you going to take the ferry off other areas in the Province because you have to pay extra money to operate it on a year-round basis, or operate it for eight or ten months out of the year? To me, that is a lame, lame argument, and certainly one that I do not buy into, one that the people of this Province do not buy into. What it comes down to is government unwilling to commit to put a proper service in that particular area.

Mr. Speaker, we will keep lobbying. We will keep asking, we will keep calling, we will keep begging, because that is what you have to do with the government opposite. You do that until they put their foot down, and once they make a decision there is no going back. The fishermen know that.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at this Budget, there was not a lot in it for Labrador. I have not heard the Member for Lake Melville up, like the Member for Mount Pearl and the Member for Conception Bay South and everywhere else over there praising this Budget up, and I doubt if you are going to see him up praising this Budget up, because the one thing that his district wanted in this Budget was an auditorium for the children in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It was approved under the previous government. This government, when they took office, put that initiative on hold. Everyone just assumed - the people in that community lived in hope of having a government member on the government side in a government that had new-found wealth going into 2005. There is nothing to stop us now; we will have our auditorium for our children. Well, guess what? The Budget came, the Budget went, and there was no auditorium for the children of Labrador and the children of Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Is this acceptable? Of course it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable when you are living in a region of our Province that has some of the longest and most unique history that this Province had to offer, in an area where the entire landscape is founded on culture and heritage, and the pride that people have in that. All of a sudden the one forum, the one stage they had to display all of that has been taken away from them and not being given back by this government and this Administration.

Do you know something? It absolutely sickens me when I hear the government opposite talking about the rich and unique culture in Labrador, the diversity of our Aboriginal people, the need to preserve the heritage there of the communities, but yet they fail to invest such a small amount of money into preserving those very things that are so important to the people of that region.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot talk out of both sides of your face. You either believe in the statements that you make, and you either believe in preserving the culture and the heritage of regions of our Province like this, or you do not.

I would say to the Member for Lake Melville, I can understand why he has not stood in this House of Assembly to praise up the Budget that was delivered by his colleague, the Minister of Finance, and the Premier. I can see the reasons why, because things like that have to be awfully disappointing for a member like him.

Mr. Speaker, why don't we talk about the long-term care facility, the one thing that they did mention in the Budget for Labrador. Mr. Speaker, what kind of a commitment was it? It was a commitment of $200,000 to do what? To do what? To commission an engineer to have a look at a report? That is about the only thing that I can surmise from it, because if you look at the investments that were made in one of the Tory districts, in Trinity North, and in one of the other PC districts in the Corner Brook area, there was well over $1 million invested in each one of those regions for long-term care facilities, but it did not get invested in Labrador, did it? It did not get invested in that region of Labrador where the need is every bit as great, the circumstances every bit as equal as they are in the other regions, but it did not get addressed in the same way.

Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of things in this Budget that were disappointing for people in Labrador, but do you know something? The most disappointing thing, I think, for us in the past year was the fact that we saw almost $800,000 spent in studies for districts like mine, by this government, and what did we see as a result of it? We had a full study that was done on marine services operating out of Cartwright. The recommendations of the report were dismissed by the government because they did not meet what the expectations of the Minister of Works and Transportation were. They were dismissed, Mr. Speaker, so that was money spent. There was a study done on the tunnel across the Strait of Belle Isle. Why was the tunnel study done, Mr. Speaker? Because, the Premier, in an election, went up to the Northern Peninsula and said: We are going to look at building a tunnel across the Strait of Belle Isle. The people on the Northern Peninsula will not be forgotten. They will not be forgotten. We are going to go out and we are going to look at putting a tunnel there.

What did he have to do after? He had to try and make some good on his word, so he went out and commissioned a study; a study, Mr. Speaker, that he commissioned to build a multi-billion dollar piece of infrastructure at the same time that he was standing up talking about the deficit that we were running in the Province and how we will never get out of the hole. That was the foolishness of what he was doing, one day standing here talking about debt and the next day out commissioning a study that was going to be multi-billions of dollars to even address that kind of an infrastructure need in the Province. When the study is done, $350,000 later, and a report is on his desk, he says: Oh, we cannot do this. We cannot do this. Mr. Speaker, we all knew that from the beginning. He did not need a study to tell him that. He knew it, I knew it, and so did the other people.

Mr. Speaker, then they went out and did a study for the Hay Group, another couple of hundred thousand dollars, over four hundred thousand dollars, I think, altogether, the study for health care. What did the study on health care say? It did not make any recommendations to improve health care services in the region. It did not make any recommendations, Mr. Speaker, to increase accessibility to services for people who need it. No. The only thing that it did was it recommended how you could save money in health care. Saving money in health care, Mr. Speaker, means reducing the kind and the quality of service that you provide to people. We all know that.

I am going to guarantee you, that is what we have seen in my district from this government in the last year. We have seen over $800,000 spent in studies with no benefit to the people in the region and no benefit to the communities in which they are. They would have been better off taking the $800,000 and putting it into snow-blowers to clear the roads in my district this winter, Mr. Speaker - that would have been a better option - or taking it and putting a ferry across The Strait of Belle Isle earlier this year. But no, we did not see that happen either.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of other things that I want to talk about from the Budget, and I know that I am running short on time, so I will conclude my comments for the day. Before I conclude, I want to say this: Earlier today, the Member for Conception Bay South was up talking about money going into a conservation program in the Province and he was referring to my district as one of the districts. Yes, indeed it is. There is a great deal of angling that goes on there. It is a big tourism industry there. There is a lot of salmon fishing that happens there. Mr. Speaker, do you know the biggest problem we had in that industry last year?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of minutes to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave for some concluding comments?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to finish the point I was making. The biggest problem that we faced with the angling industry last year was trying to buy a salmon licence, I say to the member opposite. Your government changed the regulations, which made it almost impossible for people coming in from other parts of the country and the United States to buy salmon licences, because retailers could not carry the licences unless they bought them upfront. There was no goodwill shown to the industry and as a result of it, Mr. Speaker, we ended up having to have salmon licences purchased in other areas and practically flown in so that people who came there from other regions could go out and salmon fish last summer. That is one of the things that certainly needs some work on.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I know the Government House Leader is getting restless over there and I certainly would not want to delay him any longer than necessary, so I will conclude my comments for today, and I am sure I will have another opportunity to speak on the Budget.

Thank you.

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

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

I move the House now adjourn and return tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourn until tomorrow April 19 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.