April 27, 2010                       HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                  Vol. XLVI  No. 11


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to extend a special welcome to the Barachois fifty-plus group of Come by Chance from the District of Bellevue. They are accompanied today by their president, Thelma Pevie; Recreation Director of the Town of Come by Chance, Mr. Roger Goobie; as well as their bus driver, Amy Vardy.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today the Chair would also welcome the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland; and the hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate the members of the St. Anthony Polars Midget Hockey Team, who, with the help of three members of the Twin Town Icebreakers, won the provincial Midget C hockey championship at a recent tournament in Whitbourne.

In particular, I would like to congratulate the athletes: Alexander Campbell, Matt Bartlett, Riley Ricks, Stevon Fowler, DJ Elliott, Rikkie Burden, Joanne Payne, Ian Warren, Sarah Blake, Marc Green, Randy Pittman, Alexander Powell, Jonathan Young, Joshua Penney, Blair Whiteway, Brady Francis, and Joey Cornick. I would also like to recognize the coaches: Todd Blake, Brandon Genge and Andrew Roberts for dedicating their time and effort to the youth and to the game of hockey.

I would ask all members of this House today to join with me in congratulating this team and wish them well in the future competitions.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House to recognize the Barachois fifty-plus club from the Town of Come by Chance.

This club was formed three years ago and is currently very active in their town. This group took on the role of the Tidy Towns committee and they have developed a beautification program for their town. Each year, Mr. Speaker, this group of fine people plant flowers on council properties and organize a cleanup throughout the Town of Come by Chance. With the assistance of the Town of Come by Chance recreation director, the Barachois fifty-plus club, partnering with their youth recreation group, has developed a healthy and active living program.

I would ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Barachois fifty-plus club from the Town of Come by Chance for their achievement and development in beautification and active, healthy living of the Town of Come by Chance.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Southern Shore Folk Arts Council in Ferryland on its St. Patrick's Day celebrations held on Saturday, March 13.

Irish roots in Ferryland date back to Lord Baltimore's original settlement in 1621, when he first came to the New World with a group of Irish Catholics. The early part of the eighteenth century saw a major influx of Irish fishermen and, certainly, women to the settlement as well. It was these Irish settlers who built homes and started families along the Southern Shore. For generations we celebrated the customs and traditions of the beloved native Ireland through humour, music and song and no better day to celebrate these customs and traditions than on St. Patrick's Day.

I had the pleasure of attending the afternoon events which included a youth session for talented young performers from the area to showcase their talent. Those young performers put on an incredible display of talent, and I would to like to recognize them. The performers included: Kelsey Arsenault, Sarah O'Brien, Faith Hamilton, Maria Fitzpatrick, Jane Hutchings, Amber Hynes, Kyle Dalton, and Raylene Mackey.

Also, in the afternoon there was a poem recital by eighty-four-year-old Mrs. Lizzie Croft of Aquaforte that was written by her and reflected the history of Lord Baltimore's settlement and how he may perceive the town today in the twenty-first century. The afternoon events were followed by an Irish stew supper and an evening session with performances by local entertainers which included: Bobby Walsh, Adrian Kavanagh, Maxine Dunne, Sheila Kavanagh, the Reddy family, Melanie O'Neill, Judy Brazil, Jimmy Ryan, and a dance to end off the festivities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing the Southern Shore Folk Arts Council and the many volunteers for the tremendous job they did in organizing this event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very talented young man from my district, Mr. Chris Kirby, son of Sheldon and Maureen Kirby, of Norris Arm.

Chris graduated from Lewisporte Collegiate in the year 2000. He then began a career in music performance while also studying electrical engineering at Memorial University. In 2006, Chris earned his degree and he also released his first solo recording entitled: Chris Kirby on Rum & Religion.

Rum & Religion earned MusicNL and ECMA nominations in the blues categories and created opportunities for Chris to perform on prestigious international stages including Fredericton's Harvest Jazz & Blues Festival, the Toronto Blues Summit, and the Folk Alliance conference in Memphis, Tennessee. It also attracted the attention of Gordie Johnson who produced Chris's sophomore album, Vampire Hotel. This record has earned the artist significant success including the 2009 MusicNL Jazz/Blues Artist of the Year award and also four nominations at the 2010 East Coast Music Awards.

Chris has completed multiple tours of Atlantic and Central Canada, and in February of this year he performed at the Olympics in Vancouver; 2010 is shaping up to be a very busy year for Chris and his backing band, the Marquee. In May, Chris Kirby and the Marquee will embark on a tour of Southern Ontario and upstate New York.

Chris likes to keep very busy. In addition to carving a career on the Canadian music scene, he also works full-time as a software engineer with Rutter Technologies in St. John's and produces recordings for local music artists.

Members of the House of Assembly please join with me in recognizing yet another spirited, talented and passionate young man from our Province, Mr. Chris Kirby.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the significant contributions of early childhood educators across Newfoundland and Labrador during Early Childhood Educators Week which runs from April 25 to May 1.

Research shows that children's experiences in the first five years of life have a lifelong effect on well-being and overall success. It is in the earliest years that children gain the fundamentals of learning.

Currently, there are over 1,500 certified early childhood educators across our Province. These dedicated individuals work with families and children in a variety of settings including child care centres, family child care homes and family resource centres. Many other ECE professionals act as instructors and consultants in a variety of sectors.

The provincial government recognizes the importance of this work and is committed to attracting and retaining ECE professionals in this Province through educational supplements of up to $6,600 annually; loan forgiveness or bursaries of $5,000; and by facilitating professional development opportunities.

We also partnered with the College of the North Atlantic to introduce the ECE program on-line last year. This makes early childhood education as a career choice more accessible to a wider range of people, especially those in rural communities. It also makes it easier for those already working in child care to upgrade their qualifications. I am pleased to be able to say that this investment has led to an increase in enrolment.

In addition, we have also worked to make child care more affordable and accessible for families in Newfoundland and Labrador. The eligibility threshold for the child care subsidies is one of the highest rates in the country. Currently, over 1,900 children in Newfoundland and Labrador are able to attend a child care centre as a direct result of the subsidy program.

We also have a capacity initiative in place that assists community groups in rural areas to start child care services. Through this initiative, we have created over 160 spaces since the fall of 2006, and there are nineteen projects currently in development with the potential of creating over 300 more spaces in places such as Bay Bulls, Bonavista, Twillingate, Port aux Basques, Postville, and Sheshatshiu.

As Minister of the newly formed Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, I thank the Association of Early Childhood Educators in Newfoundland and Labrador and all the ECE professionals across the Province for the passion they have for their work and for their commitment to fostering the healthy development of children and families throughout the Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I am certainly pleased to acknowledge Early Childhood Educators' Week. Actually, that proclamation took place in 2002, and I remember my colleagues at the time introducing it in the Legislature and proclaiming it.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important group of people in this Province. They play a tremendous role as early childhood educators in the development of our youngest students and our youngest minds. I think it is important to recognize that education does not always begin with a child's introduction to kindergarten, but rather, Mr. Speaker, it begins much earlier. We, as a government, and as a society, have a role to play in ensuring that there is an availability of child care spaces in this Province but also an affordability to these families who need it.

Mr. Speaker, I know that there are a number of people in this Province today who would open more daycare centres. In fact, one particular daycare owner said that they could open essentially up to five other centres across the Province if they could get the trained staff. This is one of the problems that we see existing, because although there is a demand for the service, we do not always have the early childhood educators to be able to work in many of these centres. While government is recognizing this is a problem and putting some incentives in place, it is obviously not enough, and it is obviously not meeting the demand that is out there. So I want to encourage them to do more of that.

The other thing I want to do, Mr. Speaker, is for them to be cognizant of the affordability of child care services in this Province, because it has been recognized nationally that 77 per cent of Canadians of all age groups and 86 per cent of Atlantic Canadians believe that a lack of affordable child care is one of the most serious problems that they face. We have seen the same in this Province, where we have many women who work, Mr. Speaker, for minimum wage jobs and pay out a lot of their income for child care services; many of them who cannot participate in the workforce because they cannot afford those child care services, even if they are available in certain areas. We do know that there is a demand for more spaces. We know in the St. John's area that this is specifically a major problem. That was confirmed by the President of the Association of Daycare Administrators just recently.

So I ask government, that while they recognize the role of early childhood educators, the role they play in shaping the minds of our youngest children in this Province, that they should also be cognizant of where the gaps are, the need for more spaces, the need for affordable child care services and the need to have more trained early childhood educators.

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

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

I too thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I am quite pleased to stand with the minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition in honouring early childhood educators. The work that they do, as we all acknowledge, is extremely important and it is work that needs to be supported and increased for the good of the children in our Province. We recognize that when we talk about early childhood learning, we also need to talk about not what happens once children go into institutions but what happens long before that. So we should always make sure that we are talking about early childhood learning and child care, because these two things go together.

I note that we have come to the end of the Early Learning and Child Care plan that was based almost solely on federal funds. So it is time for the Province to invest substantially more in both areas of the children's development, and especially in child care. I would hope that the government will look seriously at maintaining the capacity grants that go to community groups to get child care services going, but not just maintain what is there, to increase those grants so that people will be encouraged to set up more centres throughout the Province. We also need better wages for the early childhood educators and we need an increased capacity in the urban centres as well. The needs are all over, Mr. Speaker.

As the next step, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the government establish, as soon as possible, an early childhood, child learning –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I thought members' statements were statements that were non-controversial and a person could make a statement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

I ask the hon. member to conclude her remarks.

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

I know the Budget announced that there will be work going towards an early childhood plan, a framework for an early childhood plan. I would encourage the minister to make sure that we are looking not just at early childhood but also at child care as well, and I will look forward to receiving that plan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to announce the delivery of the Province's first new Bombardier 415 water bomber. The first –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: The first, I say, Mr. Speaker, of four new water bombers that the provincial government has purchased -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: - has purchased from Bombardier Aerospace in an agreement worth approximately $120 million.

The delivery of this new Bombardier 415 signals the beginning of a renewal process that will see the modernization and upgrading of Newfoundland and Labrador's vital emergency fire suppression capabilities. With this purchase the overall firefighting responsibility, shared between the Departments of Transportation and Works and Natural Resources' forest fire management services, will be enhanced. This is another significant piece of infrastructure that will be added to this government's growing list of strategic investments and infrastructure improvements that benefit all residents of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the Bombardier 415 is a state-of-the-art aircraft that has proven its capabilities throughout the globe. This aircraft has now arrived in Gander and our crews will begin training over the next several weeks. Once our flight crews have completed this training, Mr Speaker, this new aircraft will be put into service.

Our current fleet of six CL-215 water bombers has been in operation now for several decades and has served us admirably. Although these planes are still fully operational and capable, four have reached a point in their lifespan where they are due for replacement or expensive overhauls. While we feel that we have maintained an effective firefighting capacity, it is in the best interests of all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador that we invest today to ensure we have the necessary, most modern and reliable tools available to us tomorrow and for many years to come.

This government has a long-term vision for an overall improved and upgraded provincial infrastructure. Reflected in the theme of Budget 2010: The Right Investments - For Our Children and Our Future is our continued commitment as a government to improve this Province and to leave it in a better state for the many generations that will come after us.

Mr. Speaker, as announced in Budget 2010, the overall provincial infrastructure investment is valued at an unprecedented $5 billion over the next several years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: In this year, 2010-2011, $50.3 million of this investment will go towards the purchase of these four new water bombers, another fine example of our commitment to see our strategy and commitment through.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. With so much money being thrown around today I hope the minister can sit down with some of his colleagues and probably straighten out the air ambulance issues that we have in this Province. If we can protect the forest, and we have to do that, and the lands, surely we can protect the lives of some of our people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: I just want to go back, Mr. Speaker, to April 7 of last year, when the then Minister of Transportation had to give up negotiations with Bombardier on the four water bombers, but it is good to see that we do have one on stream and hopefully we will see the other three fairly soon. We know, Mr. Speaker, that here in the Province this year we have already received warnings that possibly there could be a very serious year when it comes to fires. It is good to have the good firefighting equipment.

The other thing I want to say to the minister, this is a good news story, minister. Even though I made my comments in the front - and hopefully before this week is out we can hear more good news from your department so that the people on Fogo Island and Bell Island can have their ferry services straightened out as well this week.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am happy to hear the news that finally the first of the four needed water bombers is arriving. We started to see the money for the water bombers back in 2007, in the Budget then when $20 million was set aside. I am hoping now - though the minister did not say exactly when we are going to have the four water bombers in place. I am hoping that it is going to be before this year is out. I do not know how quickly Bombardier can spit these out from their manufacturing, but I hope the people in the Province will know that they will be safe in the summer. In particular, when we do have our forest fires because this is a health and safety issue for the people of this Province. It is something that the government has serious responsibility to take care of, and I am glad to see that they are seeing their responsibility and making sure that this is being put in place.

The minister refers to this as an investment in the infrastructure. Well, it is putting into our infrastructure something that is essential for the lives of the people. I am sure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially those who live in areas that are most affected by forest fires, will be happy to know that their safety is now in better hands with these new water bombers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, from January 18 to January 20, I had the honour, at the invitation of the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, to visit each of the six communities on the North Coast of Labrador. We were also accompanied on this visit, Mr. Speaker, by my colleagues the hon. Minister of Labrador Affairs and the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works.

Mr. Speaker, it was my first trip ever to this most beautiful part of the Province. It was in the dead of winter, beautiful sunny skies, no wind, bone crushing temperatures; absolutely a delightful trip. In the words of that famous general, Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly return.

While in the community of Postville, Mr. Speaker, we had a meeting with the AngajukKak and the community government. During this meeting the community government members expressed concern that their community was the only one on the North Coast without a Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment. Later that evening all ministers held a public forum in the community where various issues were discussed, but it was clear during the course of the meeting that the topic of most interest for the residents of Postville was the desire for an increased RCMP presence. While they believed that the officers who police the community from Makkovik are dedicated and professional officers, they felt an increased presence was warranted.

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP district commander for Labrador was present that evening and in response to the concerns raised, the RCMP have provided a short-term strategy for Postville. Patrols from detachments in Makkovik, Hopedale and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, including weekend patrols, have been increased. I believe the RCMP should be commended for this quick action.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the passionate case for an increased police presence in Postville was deeply moving and compelling to all ministers present at that community meeting and our government was quick to take action. In Budget 2010, we funded two new RCMP members for Labrador at a cost of approximately $273,000 annually. These officers will serve as part of the current Labrador Relief Team in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and will increase the complement of officers on the relief team to six. Two new officers will now be present in Postville, Mr. Speaker, for patrol twenty days each month.

Our commitment to policing in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is unquestionable. In Budget 2010 we have also provided the RCMP Major Crime Unit in Gander with a second Child Exploitation officer at a cost of $100,000, which will serve the entire Province. Since 2004, we have put fifty-seven new RCMP officers on the street, including funding the Labrador Relief Team in 2007, and increased the force's budget, Mr. Speaker, by $19 million.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, for the invitation to visit the beautiful North Coast of Labrador and for her representation on behalf of the residents of Postville. The opportunity to visit these communities, meet with residents and discuss their issues first hand, Mr. Speaker, is worth a hundred briefings. I look forward to continuing to work with the minister, with the Postville community government, and its residence to ensure a safe community for everyone.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate the minister providing me with an advance copy of his statement.

I guess I will respond to it with mixed feelings, actually. It is great to see that the people of Postville will have an enhanced RCMP presence. They have been lobbying for years for such an improved presence for the RCMP and it is good to see that the Province is in the position that in fact we can provide extra policing. Postville is not known, of course, for an extensive or an unusual crime rate or statistics or anything, but of course any time you have a police presence in your community, and particularly if it is improved, it gives that community a safer feeling. So it is great to see, and that is the positive piece of the announcement.

Unfortunately, I would be remiss after doing Estimates this morning, if I also did not comment - particularly after hearing the Minister of Transportation raving about the infrastructure improvements. I found out this morning from the Minister of Justice that they have scrapped the women's and youth detention centre in Labrador. Now, you cannot get up and blow your horn on one thing – we did not see any announcements on that, we did not see any press releases out there. This government spent $500,000 after the Citizens' Rep. said we had deplorable circumstances in Labrador for Aboriginal women and youth, came out and committed to do it, and we find out this morning through an Estimates process that this minister and his department, this government has scrapped it. Tell that to the Aboriginal women of Postville and the rest of Labrador, and to the youth.

I say to the minister that is why I say this with mixed feelings. It is good to applaud what you do, but you should also be equally important and open with the people of this Province, and when you do not do something, you should have the courage to stand up and tell them why you are not prepared to do it. I say shame, Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Obviously, I am pleased to see this announcement for the North Coast of Labrador. It is very good to hear that government is consulting with the community to come to this arrangement. They did it in other places, for example with Rigolet earlier on, and the more that we can meet the needs of the people on the North Coast of Labrador when it comes to policing, the better it is for the people in Labrador.

I have to say, too, Mr. Speaker, that as a person who also was at the Estimates Committee meeting this morning, I was very concerned that this government, who here is saying they see policing as so important, does not see it is as important to make sure that Aboriginal women and youth who may become incarcerated do not have a place to be in Labrador where they can be treated with dignity and respect.

While I know the minister said this morning in the Estimates meeting that this is now going to be part of a bigger plan, my message to the minister is: We have the proof that the facility is needed in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; it stands alone. The Citizens' Representative said clearly in his report in 2007: This should not be considered as a prison. So, it is not part of the whole system of the correctional facilities themselves. It is a stand-alone project that needs to happen and it is an insult to the Aboriginal people of Labrador, the women and youth in particular, that this project has been shelved while they are doing ongoing study.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Natural Resources. Mr. Speaker, last week we learned the true nature of government's bungling of the Abitibi file when they admitted that they accidentally expropriated the mill and other assets and liabilities in Grand Falls-Windsor.

I ask the Premier today: Can you confirm that this mistake was realized in the summer of 2009? I ask you: Who confirmed that this was the case, and why did you not release that information to the public at that time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: A couple of things, Mr. Speaker. She has asked a question both of the Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier. I can only speak for myself.

The second piece is it was not just revealed last week due to her questioning in the House of Assembly. We pay attention to the news releases they put out; I suggest they do the same with ours.

I announced this on February 5, and as a matter of fact, there was quite a bit of news coverage right across the Province on the fact that I announced that we had inadvertently expropriated the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor. This came to our attention at the end of May in 2009. It came as a result of work that was being done by a company called Enda Searching. Part of the $8 million you have been asking about was paid to this firm for the land registry consolidation. They found the error, Mr. Speaker, and reported it to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the government knew about this, as the minister says, since May of 2009, and yet they did not release any information until February and no details until the last few days.

Mr. Speaker, this is a mistake that could cost the people of this Province hundreds of millions of dollars. The time for this government's cavalier attitude has passed, I say to the Premier, and for the rhetoric to be put aside. We have not seen the potential for such a costly mistake in this Province since the Upper Churchill deal forty years ago.

I ask the Premier today: Where was the ministerial oversight, the legal due diligence from what he said when he said he had the best minds in the world on this particular file? I ask: How was such a huge mistake made when all this money was being paid out for lawyers and legal advice?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the Leader of the Opposition, over the last week, make a number of wild claims about the costs of this to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to know where she is getting her figures and what is it that she talking about, because we certainly do not understand it on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is a principle in all of our environmental legislation, as well as in the expropriation legislation with regard to the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor and all the properties that we expropriated from Abitibi that the polluter pays. So, we have not taken on any responsibility for remediation by this action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious that the government knew about this for well into ten months before releasing it to the public. It is obvious that they are not even reading the information that they are filing in their own court documents, I say to you, Minister, because that is where I am getting my information.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today, because he clearly stated in the briefings and the media interviews at the time that the mill and the associated liabilities would not be expropriated. I ask him today: How could his government make such a blunder and absolutely a wrong decision in expropriating these liabilities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government clearly takes responsibility for an error that was made. Now, Mr. Speaker, we do not make mistakes on purpose.

MS JONES: Expensive error.

MS DUNDERDALE: She says an expensive error. Please tell us how it is an expensive error. Mr. Speaker, the polluter pays and under no circumstance will we be responsible for remediation that Abitibi is responsible for. That is the bottom line.

Mr. Speaker, we made a mistake. We expropriated 1.6 million hectares of land. We expropriated a generating facility that was attached to the mill in Grand Falls, in fact, you had to go through the mill to get into the generating plant.

Mr. Speaker, on the side of caution we erred and we ended up expropriating parts of the property that we did not intend to. Our original intention was to return that to Abitibi via legislation in this House. We are prevented from doing so by the CCAA process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that it remains to be seen if the polluter pays or the people pay as a result of this mistake.

Mr. Speaker, is it true that the government accidentally expropriated half of the Town of Grand Falls; and, if this is the case, I ask the minister, or the Premier as well, if they can tell us what other assets and liabilities they have accidentally expropriated in this mistake.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, inadvertently we expropriated the mill, the manager's house and Grand Falls house. These were the properties - it was not our original intention to expropriate, but that is what happened in terms of the legislation.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, in my last answer, originally we were working towards returning that property to Abitibi through legislation here in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: The CCAA process, Mr. Speaker, does not allow us to do that. So, right now we have secured the property, we are looking after the property, and we do not have any intention of disposing of the property in any way at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec courts have already ruled that this government's attempt to be reimbursed for Abitibi's environmental liabilities is disingenuous. The comparison is that if you take somebody's land and assets then send them the bill to clean up the property that you took. At least that is what the courts are saying and seem to think in the documents that I have looked at.

Now we know the Province is appealing, but I ask the Premier today: Can you explain why you are expecting AbitibiBowater to submit an environmental remediation plan for properties that they no longer own?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that a thoughtful Opposition might have posed that question when we were briefing them back in December.

Mr. Speaker, our legislation tells us that the polluter pays. Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that Abitibi is not interested in remediating the mess that it left behind in Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing a move in the CCAA process where Abitibi is trying to take its properties from Botwood and Stephenville, put them in a subsidiary and bankrupt that subsidiary in a hope that it might relieve them of their remediation responsibilities. They are properties we had nothing to do with.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, through all of the ins and outs of that, we might end up with remediation that really is the responsibility of Abitibi that we may end up having to do, but it will not be as a result of this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How soon the government forgets, but those questions were asked, I say to the minister. Mr. Speaker, so were a lot of other questions, including this one. The potential $500 million NAFA bill and the cost of the environmental liabilities have yet to be tallied but the people of the Province could have a significant bill on their hands.

I ask the Premier today: What happened to your commitment that this expropriation deal would be a net zero cost to the people of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are not finished the process yet. As I stated earlier, Mr. Speaker, we have 1.6 million hectares of land, formerly belonged to Abitibi. We have generating facilities on the Exploits River that we have. We have assets. The Leader of the Opposition is flinging numbers around left and right. She is not being held accountable on where she is coming from on any of them. She was here in the House last week talking about $500 million that we owe Abitibi. Mr. Patterson himself publicly stated that his high number was $300 million. She does not know what she is talking about, Mr. Speaker, but that is no surprise to anybody over here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows the information that I put out there in the public has come from the documents that have been filed in the courts on both sides. I say to the minister today, Mr. Speaker, she knows that the bill to the people of this Province is going to continue to grow on this file, and I ask her to come clean today, tell the people of the Province how much this is going to cost them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Tell them! Come on, tell them now –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. Members cannot ask questions and sit in their seats and shout while the answers are being given. I ask members to the back of the hon. minister to listen to the answers.

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition shouted across this House yesterday: Abitibi lies on your shoulders, Premier, the full responsibility of it lies with you. Mr. Speaker, that is a responsibility that we embrace. At the end of the day our position will prove itself out, in terms of value that we have and what we have to expend. That is not talking about the intrinsic value, the importance of having those assets remain in Newfoundland and Labrador for the use of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We are not second guessing ourselves on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we did the right thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I guess we are going to embrace the bill too, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, probably for thirty or forty years on the backs of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that this government made another significant mistake, as they like to call it, that will cost the people of this Province $5 million for errors related to salaries at the College of the North Atlantic in Qatar. Within days of each other, Mr. Speaker, government admitted that they accidentally expropriated the Abitibi mill in Grand Falls-Windsor, and now we find that they have overpaid some employees and they owe the State of Qatar millions of dollars.

I ask the minister today: How can such careless mistakes happen and why is this becoming a trend of the Williams government? Where is the due diligence on behalf of the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that Question Period lasts for a half an hour. There are important questions to be asked and important answers to be given. Members should not be shouting or interrupting while either one of those processes are taking place.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me start by saying the member opposite obviously has not done the research on this and has no idea or comprehension of the issue we are dealing with.

I made a release yesterday that fully disclosed to the Province an error that has been made to the tune of approximately $5 million. I also made it fully clear that this is not a decision of government that made this error; it was a decision made by the College of the North Atlantic which is an arm's-length corporation of government, Mr. Speaker.

I also say to the member opposite, Mr. Speaker, that if she were to read the legislation she would understand very clearly that I am taking my role as minister very seriously and government is taking this issue very seriously. We are reacting as we ought to do. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition would like me to react as the Leader of the NDP suggested yesterday, to abdicate my responsibility and to forget the fact that there is a $5 million price tag on this. Well, I say to you, we are not prepared to do that. We are prepared to work with the college to solve this problem and we are prepared to find the answers to it. We are not prepared to do as the Leader of the NDP suggested yesterday, to wash our hands of the solution and back off and leave the taxpayers in limbo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister wants to talk about research but who is the one who had to go back to the mikes three times yesterday to try and clarify the information on this issue? Minister, maybe it is you who should be doing your research.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is saying that this is an arm's-length from the government; that it is not our mistake, but, Mr. Speaker, this government is accountable for the operations of those institutions in our Province. Mr. Speaker, in contrast to government's response to the Abitibi blunder in which there was no scapegoat, they absolutely found a scapegoat yesterday.

I ask the minister: Why was Ms Madill so quickly departing from her job?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Again, Mr. Speaker, I will try and take us back and talk about the facts and move away from the rhetoric that comes across from the other side of the House.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, what we announced yesterday is that we would do an external review for the purpose of trying to determine exactly where the College of the North Atlantic made mistakes that led to the error that has been identified. We work collaboratively with them, Mr. Speaker, to try and find the solution to the problem, and I say, Mr. Speaker, not unlike we have done many times in the past. For example, it is only about a month and a half ago, Mr. Speaker, when the former president of the college decided, without the proper authority and authorization, to sign a one year extension to the current contract in Qatar, that we work with them to find out why that decision was made independent of the process that was expected and we opt to solve the problem.

I also say, Mr. Speaker, that the series of events that have occurred in the last five days, some have been in my control and some have not been in my control. I can only say to the member opposite that I received, at 4:00 o'clock on Friday, a letter of resignation from the former President of the College of the North Atlantic. Any details that surround why that person chose to submit their resignation, that question, Mr. Speaker, ought to be put to that individual.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, according to a memo that was circulated by Ms Madill herself, it basically said that she was instructed to be out of the college and off the campus by 4:00 o'clock yesterday afternoon by the Department of Education.

I ask the minister: Were those orders issued through his office?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, at 4:00 o'clock on Sunday I received a letter of resignation from the President of the College of the North Atlantic. The President of the College of the North Atlantic said to me, as the Minister of Education for this Province: I no longer have an interest in working for this government and in working to provide leadership to the College of the North Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, upon receipt of that, I acknowledged that the intent of the former president was made to me and I gladly accepted her resignation. Mr. Speaker, absolutely yesterday, as any position of that nature would be addressed, when the intent was made aware to us, the person ended their employment with us yesterday and we will proceed. Currently, the deputy minister will act for a few days, Mr. Speaker, but we will proceed and we will fill that position, Mr. Speaker, but we will fill the position with somebody who has the interests of this Province and the interests of the College of the North Atlantic and more importantly, Mr. Speaker, somebody who wants to do the job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister admit that it was this issue around Qatar and also the actions of the government that prompted Ms Madill's resignation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions, I can only repeat myself and say to the member opposite that the whole purpose of the actions of this government over the last twenty-four hours was to make the public fully aware, first of all, to fully disclose that an error has been made by the College of the North Atlantic. We have done that, Mr. Speaker, and we recognize that it is a huge responsibility for us to uphold the accountability of the College of the North Atlantic and make sure that we make the public aware of what is happening. We have done that, Mr. Speaker, and we made those intentions known to the senior executive and the President of the College of the North Atlantic.

Now, why the College of the North Atlantic former president decided to resign is a question that she can answer. It is not one that I am going to even speculate on. I can only say to the member opposite, if she is interested in listening to my answer, is that those are the series of events and this government is going to move forward. We will put somebody in there who is interested in providing the leadership that we need for that college, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I rose in the House yesterday to highlight the issue of government's poorly made decision to relocate the air ambulance from St. Anthony, and it is an issue that continues to be less than acceptable and tolerable to the people of my district.

I rise today to highlight another failure by this government, and that is to provide financial support to kick-start the crab fishery. Mr. Speaker, there are 13,000 people approximately that live north of River of Ponds to the end of my district; 2,300 of those have a direct connection to this fishery getting underway.

I ask the minister: If he would explain why government is not willing to provide immediate and short-term help to these 23,000 people, or have you and the Premier –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, if he would like to pose his question.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister explain why government is not willing to provide immediate and short-term help to these 23,000 people or have we again been forgotten by this government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, what I see more and more in this fishery is frustration, total frustration that on an annual basis they find themselves in this situation.

Mr. Speaker, a short-term solution is not the answer. Mr. Speaker, some short-term solutions have been the Vardy report, the Cashin report, the Dunne report, the Jones report and, Mr. Speaker, what do we find? We find ourselves back in the same situation.

Mr. Speaker, I have come up with a word that I think would truly reflect what needs to come out of this fishery, total exposure, Mr. Speaker. In order to make changes within this industry, the total fishing industry needs to be exposed and see what needs to change. We are not dealing with the root cause of the problem in this fishery, Mr. Speaker, and that is what my intention is and that is what the intention of this government is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, there is a very significant and important short-term issue, and that is the fact that it is now three weeks since some of those people have had an income. A long-term solution will not provide short-term help to these people.

Mr. Speaker, the urban-rural divide is alive and well in this Province. Provincially, there are 20,000 incomes that depend on the fishery and yet this government refuses to invest in the industry in the short-term to get the season underway.

I ask the minister: If there were 20,000 jobs that were at risk in St. John's today would this government be willing to invest to ensure that those jobs would be protected?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the member opposite, before he got in government I was on an EPC trip to his district where one of the businesses that we invested in was his, Mr. Speaker. That is the investment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we announced a $1.4 million commitment to the removal, or the balancing of processing fees to processors. Not a lot of those, Mr. Speaker, are located on Water Street. They are all located in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, take a look at what we offered. We have offered - in the fishing industry renewal we offered to buy the marketing arm. The Minister of Transportation and Works offered last year to establish a marketing council, and, Mr. Speaker, we put $800,000 into the working of the MOU. Mr. Speaker, we are doing everything we can to see that this industry changes, and, Mr. Speaker, in the long-term we will make that change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, as an entrepreneur, that I have been trying to create jobs in this Province and I would suggest that other people might want to do similar, might want to consider dealing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If members are going to continue to interrupt while questions are being asked and while answers are being given, the Chair will have no other choice but identify the members that are causing the disruption and disorder in the House, and the Chair will certainly do that if it continues.

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in the House we asked the minister to table the external legal opinion he uses as a reason not to assist the industry. He failed to do so, and today we are giving him the opportunity to make this document public.

Minister, will you table this report and indicate whether it was an opinion that was solicited by government, and if so, when was it requested and received?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be due diligence if we did not check into the possibilities of what could and could not happen.

Mr. Speaker, the important thing here right now is that we have to get the two sides, that being the FFAW and the processors, together and arrive at the price.

More importantly, I put out an invitation yesterday to the leader of the FFAW and the Leader of the Opposition to come in and review these documents. I am pleased to report that Mr. McCurdy, at 9:00 o'clock this morning, came and reviewed those documents. The Leader of the Opposition and no one across the way has even countered my offer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my questions have to do with the situation at the College of the North Atlantic with regard –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Gander, and the Minister of Labrador Affairs for their co-operation.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are related to the issue that we have at the College of the North Atlantic with regard to the mistake that was made. Mr. Speaker, one result of this situation so far, besides the fact the Province now owes $5 million, has been the resignation of the president. Very little detail has been released on what has actually happened. Mr. Speaker, the former president has said that she cannot be supportive of the manner in which the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador handles issues related to the college.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, how exactly has his government been dealing with the College of the North Atlantic.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me correct an error in the member's preamble. The Province does not owe $5 million. First of all, the $5 million is an approximation; and secondly, it is an error on behalf of the College of the North Atlantic, not the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think the member needs to understand that very clearly.

Secondly, the member is asking what exactly this government has done. Mr. Speaker, I say to you, what this government has done is within a matter of four days we have acted to call for an independent review to try to determine all of the details that people want to know about why this happened, and to make changes so that it does not happen in the future.

I say to the Leader of the NDP: Would she rather that we did as the Opposition Leader would want us to do and hide the $5 million, and walk away from it and not let the public know that there was an error made? We are not prepared to do that, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to take real leadership and to act on the issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am really glad to know that the minister understands the difference between the government and the college because, obviously, a big mistake was made at the college. It is also the responsibility of the president and the CEO to deal with mistakes, whether they are big or small.

Mr. Speaker, the implication of the letter distributed by the former president is that she was not enabled by government to deal with the error that happened. She says she has all of the responsibility and none of the authority.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier why his government did not let the president of the College of the North Atlantic manage her own institution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the second question in a row, let me correct the member opposite. The former president does not own the College of the North Atlantic; it belongs to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, for people who are in the gallery or watching this at home, I think that we need to remind people this is a very serious issue, and let me just remind the member opposite what has transpired here.

An issue was brought before me as the minister and before us as government that indicated that the College of the North Atlantic and employees therein made an error to the tune of approximately $5 million, a number of which will be confirmed. The reasons upon which that error was made will be confirmed through an external audit that this government has called, Mr. Speaker.

Let me remind the member opposite when she asked the question about what we are doing, we have called the review because we want to find out what has happened here, why the decisions were made and why we arrived at this error.

The second thing, Mr. Speaker, that we are committed to doing is we are committed to putting mechanisms in place in collaboration with the college so that on a go-forward basis we do not get put in this situation. I say to the member opposite, we take the responsibility very seriously and that is why we are where we are today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have had an opportunity to check Hansard and yes, the minister did invite me to come to his office to look at those documents. I guess I inadvertently did not hear him when he made the invitation because I had to go back to Hansard and look it up. It would be obvious to understand why I would not have heard him because you see the kind of noise that goes on in Question Period in the House of Assembly and oftentimes it is difficult to hear the responses, but I will be down, Minister, to look at those documents -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the Transparency and Accountability Act it is my pleasure to table the 2009 Annual Report for the Chicken Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has Been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1 is the Budget Speech and we are presently debating the sub-amendment.

Are there any speakers on the sub-amendment? Is the House ready for the vote?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I do not mean to rush here, but I think there is some confusion as to who spoke last. We have been following a process here and I think the last person to speak was the Leader of the NDP.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay, there has been some confusion. In that case, Mr. Speaker, I will be the next speaker on the sub-amendment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity in the past couple of weeks to speak. We are here, of course, talking on Motion 1, which is dealing with the Budget. I have had the occasion to speak I think it was for three hours the first day, at length, about the Budget, what is in it and what is not in it, what is good about it, and some of the concerns that we have about the future direction of the Province as to where we are going.

Of course, I also spoke for an hour after that on the non-confidence motion. Some members on the government side voiced some concerns, wondering why somebody might show non-confidence in this government; but, of course, there are a lot of reasons for that. Question Period today was probably a very good of example of why one might question the confidence that they might have in this government, based on the questions, or more properly based upon the answers that we saw today, or lack of answers.

Now we have an opportunity, or I do, Mr. Speaker, and this is the last time I will be speaking on the Budget, and it is to the non-confidence motion. When you talk about the Budget, of course, there are so many facets to it. It governs all of government's activities. There may be different policies or there may be different programs but, of course, virtually everything that a government sets out to do is impacted by what is or is not in a Budget.

I would like to go back and review. For example, this government stands up - and the Minister of Finance was on his feet for quite some time on Budget day and he talked about: this is what we have done, and this is what we are going to do, and keeping commitments. We just had the Minister of Natural Resources stand up and talk about openness, accountability, transparency and so on.

I think people like, sometimes, to be reminded; because when you constantly hear things from a government as to what we are doing, you sometimes forget about what they said they were going to do but did not do, and also what they fail to tell you that they did. If it is a mistake, for example, they do not like to come out and disclose those things. Sometimes they tell you they are going to do something and they actually change their mind but do not come back to tell you that they changed their mind. That, of course, has happened with this government repeatedly, and I am going to get into some of those examples.

For example, we go back to as early as 2003. A lot of the members on the government side - I have been here since 1999. In 2003, when the government changed, all I heard was: You did this; you did that. Every time an Opposition member would stand up and say something, the government members would throw across the alleyway here: Oh, what about this you did? What about something else you did?

That is the benefit or the beauty of time. I guess time sometimes puts you in a position where you can go back and evaluate what you have done. It is history. A lot of times you can go back now - they have a bit of history. This government has about seven years of history now, and some of it they do not want to hear about.

I say to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, don't be blowing your horn over there now; because you are the same minister who is looking after that office in Ottawa that we have a lease on until 2013, that is costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars, that we have nobody in. So, don't go blowing your horn about what the government is doing.

Anyway, let me go back because I would like to be factual. I like to be factual, Mr. Speaker, in what I am saying. When the government came in, when they were in Opposition, they created this famous document called their Blue Book. I would just like to explain a couple of the Blue Book things that they said, and we will see where they have gone with that.

First of all they talked about setting up legislative committees in key policy areas, with the power to initiate legislation, propose amendments to government legislation, and investigate and report on the progress of government programs in their policy areas. Now, that is what they said they were going to do. They committed to that: legislative committees.

Folks, if you go back and look at Hansard since 2003, this Opposition - the Opposition that was there from 2003-2007 - repeatedly asked for legislative committees to deal with different issues that cropped up in our Province. Never once did this government commit and follow through on that commitment. I will give you a couple of examples.

We dismantled FPI. There are a lot of things, by the way, that we do not have in this Province any more. We do not have the old flagship of the fishing industry, FPI. That was all scrapped and done. That is the case when everybody would want to remember, we had a special session of the House of Assembly. That is the one where the Premier, who heads this government, created a bill to destroy FPI. Actually, that is exactly what it was; it was to get rid of FPI. Guess what? The same Premier who heads the government that brought in the bill to get rid of FPI, he got up himself and voted against the bill - unheard of; unheard of.

Imagine, in a democratic system, that the Premier disagreed with it, did not want to do it, but he allowed the government – he probably instructed everybody else: this is where we have to go, but I cannot get up and say that.

I think the word he used was: being a lawyer and so on, there might be too many loopholes in this. I cannot be involved in this. So he voted against it, but he told everybody else to vote for it.

Meanwhile, I digress because what we had asked for there, of course, was a legislative committee to deal with that. No, no, no, that was not on. We could not do that. We have asked for legislative committees on a dozen things. No go.

They also said there would be the appointment of a special committee of the Legislature that would ensure proper scrutiny and public discussion of federal proposals in areas of provincial concern. Now, can anybody on the government side tell me that you have done that, or would I be fair in saying that you did not keep that commitment? We are seven years in and you did not do that. You broke your promise. It is pretty straightforward. In fact, the only thing you have done with the federal government – talking about federal government policies and initiatives – is that the Premier had a personal attack on the Prime Minister. We have all heard about ABC and everything else. We certainly never had much oversight from the Legislature by any special committees to look at anything.

There was a commitment to limit political contributions by persons and corporations. I do not see much of that gone on in the last seven years. So, what is this? This is just a wish book that you put out, is it, when you are trying to get elected? You tell people you are going to do all of this stuff, and then when you get in government you change your mind, but that all comes back to haunt you. Somebody over there is going to wear this. Eventually, people will make you wear this. You cannot get away with that forever and a day. People say: If you tell us something, you should follow through; and, if you do not, you should tell us why you are not.

That is like the example I referenced today. I attended the Estimates Committee in this House this morning with the Department of Justice. That is an opportunity, for those who do not know in the public, the viewing audience, to understand that it gives you an opportunity to question what government said in their Budget this year, where are they with certain programs and things they are going to do?

We found out this morning, in the Estimates, that this government had committed to building a women's and youth detention centre in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Now, the Minister of Labrador Affairs, who is the Member for Lake Melville, we had him up shouting and screaming and bawling up in his district last week, touting the fact that he got the air ambulance service. He was pretty proud about that, even though it may have negative consequences for someone else. He was up shouting to the rooftops about how effective he was, and how much pull he had to get that done and to bring it up to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Well, I never heard him out shouting and bawling about the fact that he is not going to get his detention centre. I never heard that. I never saw any press releases on that. That was hid away in a little document thing. That was hid away in the Estimates that he is not going to get it, confirmed this morning by the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of this Province.

I noticed a little expenditure there last year for $2 million, but when it was revised it said $250,000. So the logical question of course, and the Leader of the NDP asked the same thing, was: What happened to that? What is that all about? The minister said: Oh, we were going to design and we were going to build a detention centre but we changed our mind. So I said, you spent a quarter of a million dollars plus, you scrapped it. When did you tell anybody that? Did you tell the Minister of Labrador Affairs? I am sure he would be excited about that, knowing that the detention centre was not going to his hometown. He would have been out and had his people in his district all upset about this. This was infrastructure that was going to go in his town. This would have created some employment in his community. Did you tell him that? Did you tell the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs? She comes from the North Coast. She represents a lot of Aboriginal women and youth. I wonder, was she told that this got scrapped? I did not hear her out screeching and bawling about it. No.

So the government is right there to put out press releases. We have had more press releases in this House in the last three years about the Red Tape Reduction Committee than you want to care for. If you go back and size it up, we probably could have kept Abitibi and Stephenville going from the paper that they have generated. No, we did not see that. That quietly gets done, snuffed and slipped under the carpet, and this government, no members in it says anything about it. I think there is a commitment; there is an obligation on you as a government. You normally just disclose what you want to disclose and you hide the bad news. If you are totally responsible, transparent, open and accountable, you would tell all of it and give your reasons.

I am sure the Minister of Finance, who was the former Minister of Justice, he would have done the right thing. No doubt about it. He would not have left it to be found in an Estimates Committee, that you scrapped something. Lo and behold, that is what happened. So that is just an example of some Blue Book commitments, we call them, that were not ever kept. Have never been kept and will never see the light of day, unless people raise them, like we are doing here, and let people know in this Province that there are lots of opportunities here to look at this government and say why we do not have confidence in them. How can you have confidence in someone who tells you one thing, do not do it half the time, changes their mind and do not tell you about it? I think that is a good reason to lose confidence sometimes. I think that is a very good reason actually; a pretty legitimate one.

Another reason, I dealt with this in Estimates the other day with the Minister of Industry and Trade. We had this big ballyhoo about the fibre optic cable back a few years ago. The government put $15 million into a company that was owned by the Premier's buddies. The company's name was Persona. We stood up here in this House; we asked questions repeatedly day in, day out: What is it going to do? What are the benefits of it? What is the money going to be used for?

What happens, Mr. Speaker? We quietly get a press release come out of ITRD from this minister, five years after the fact, a little one or two liner and says: It is not on. It is cancelled. It is not going to be done any more. We had these big grandiose plans that as part of what we were going to get for our money, we were going to connect all the government offices and agencies in the Province. It is not so bad in St. John's were you have high-speed Internet, but the plan was to link together all of the social service offices, the courtrooms, the police detachments and whatever in rural Newfoundland, so that they would all be high speed, more efficient.

All of a sudden we get told this year, quietly, in a little - I am not sure if it was a Friday afternoon when it came out, but that seems to be the usual play. It might have even been a Friday afternoon, if we go back and check. It is scrapped, because it went from $200 million to $500 million. By the way, we only found any of this out because we asked questions about it. Nobody came out and said the real detailed reasons as to why this was not on any more. If you go back and check it was found in the body of a press release that was totally unrelated. That is openness; that is accountableness. I did not see anything out there from the minister saying: we have cancelled the project to put high-speed Internet to all of our agencies and government offices. That would have been pretty open and accountable. I do not think that headline was out there, folks. No.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, on a point of order.

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the reason you did not hear me stand up and say that we cancelled the project was quite simply because the project has not been cancelled. It would be incorrect of me, it would be false information. It would inaccurate. It would be me telling things that were not true to the people of the Province, if I were to say that. Now if somebody else were to say that, that would be a different thing.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Obviously, there is no point of order here. The minister gets his opportunity to respond, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that you are hitting home when the minister has to come to his feet to try to pipe you down because of what you are saying is true. What I am saying here is absolutely truthful. This minister told me in this House this week: that idea of connecting it right now, if something does not happen, it is dead. It is dead! What we intended to do is dead!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. minister has a point of order I ask him to make it now.

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

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just stand again to say that the comments that are being made were not comments that were made, and if one were to check Hansard one would see that those comments were not made by me.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The minister is just trying to use my time, that is all he is doing, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that was just one. The broadband, I talked about that. I talked about the shutting down of the detention centre. Nobody knew about that. Another one is the fish and wildlife officer's report. Now the Minister of Finance currently, he knows all about this. That was the case of retired Justice Marshall. Maybe there is an intention to give us that report, too. We have a partial one. The Premier, of course, when it came on some years ago there were some problems in the inland wildlife officer's enforcement program. So we bring in Justice Marshall, retired, to get a report. We have a partial one. He told us he was going to give a final report. We asked here in this House, we asked in letters, we went to the Department of Justice. We went to the Premier and said, where is the report? I asked this morning. The Deputy Minister of Justice tells me he has no idea; no timelines. He does not know if we are ever going to get it. It is up to the good justice, whenever we get it. We are four years out. This is the government that likes to be cautious but at the same time deal with issues. They do not know where it is.

There was some suggestion even in, if you read carefully, the media. The Premier was out for years saying we are not going to talk to Hydro-Quebec when it comes to the Lower Churchill. We want nothing to do with them. We are going alone. That is where we stand. If you go back carefully and you check the records you will find out that this government indeed, quietly, secretly, talked to Hydro-Quebec about taking an equity stake in the Lower Churchill. That is contrary to what anybody told us they were doing.

We also have the cases of the privacy commissioner having to go to court because this government refuses to release documentation. The current Premier stood up here in this seat over here back in 2002 and talked about how the act was flawed. Even though the government of the day, by the way, made the first overhaul ever of the Freedom of Information Act in twenty-odd years, made giant steps as to where we were, to where we came, and putting a process in place - and tacked on to that, of course, the issues of privacy as well. Lo and behold, Opposition becomes government; all of a sudden the gates get shut. Our Privacy Commissioner, information officer, he has his hands full trying to contend with court documents to squeeze information out of this government. He spends most of his time in court, trying to get documents that he thinks everybody should have but this government says, now: No, no, no, no, you cannot do that.

It is like school air quality reports - just to touch on a few - can we put these on-line? No, no, you cannot get them. I mean, that is like hauling teeth, your own teeth, trying to get school air quality reports. Restaurant inspection reports - big deal; they are done. They are in the government services. We say: Can you put them on-line? Oh no, no, we cannot do that. We can put everything else on-line in this world today and we cannot put the restaurant inspection reports on-line? Come on; get serious. How bad is it to put it on-line? How costly is it to put it on-line, to do that?

It is even laughable. It is like the briefing notes thing. You talk about government is open and accountable. We had the former Minister of Health, the Member for Terra Nova, who really tried to pull a fast one. He was so smart, and he had such a good memory, that he did not need a briefing note. Now, I do not know about the rest of us; we probably have half-decent sized brains and memories, but he went out before the media of this Province and said: I do not need a briefing note. I only have the biggest department, probably the most important department, with the biggest budget and the most programs within the government sphere. I do not need a briefing note. I do not need that.

I do not know if that was arrogance or if that was just a case of not wanting anybody to say: show me the briefing note. I think it is more of a case of: we do not want to show you the briefing notes. The reason, of course, is, you might know what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, my time is up for speaking and, because of the nature of what I am speaking and the truthfulness of what I am saying, I am not even going to bother to ask for leave.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate on the sub-amendment of the Budget?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly happy to get up and speak here today because, yes, I have been blamed for being very active in the House of Assembly sometimes and, yes, I must agree with the Speaker and I must agree with other people in this hon. House and the people actually who look at it on TV, that I do engage at times. It is just because some of the comments that some of the hon. members across the House make incite me, Mr. Speaker. I have to apologize for that, because it is only in my nature to get up and actually say what is on my mind, especially when I hear things that are as far from the truth as what they are. That is what really incites me, Mr. Speaker.

I was here last Thursday and I engaged, as you probably know and remember, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes maybe you have had to remind me to actually quieten down at times and whatnot. I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, for that, but I cannot tell you and promise you today that I am going to stop that and I am never going to do it; because the simple reason is that I again have to say what is on my mind when somebody is putting things out there that are not entirely true.

I was here in the House last week and I listened to the hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition, talking about various members on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the way they represent the people they were elected to represent. Really, when you listen to what she said, she was implying that they do not represent them in the correct way; they do not represent them to the best of their ability.

That is not what you see, Mr. Speaker, at all; because, as Minister of Government Services, I can look around this room right now, this very House, this hon. place, and I see just about every member here has been in my office over the last four months, six months, three months – whatever it may be – advocating on behalf of their district, advocating on behalf of their constituents. That is exactly what they do.

I said last week, and I do not mind saying again, when I looked over at the Leader of the Opposition and she was talking about this member and that member, I said: My God, it was the resurrection of the dead – the resurrection of the dead - because when I was elected in 2003 the then Leader of the Opposition was Roger Grimes and I saw him going through caucus and trying to advocate that they were not representing their districts and representing their constituents, and trying to tear them apart personally.

Well, as we saw and see in the polls every single day - we see every single day - the polls clearly, clearly, show that does not work. Then we see the next Leader of the Opposition - I think Mr. Gerry Reid - he did exactly the same thing. Then on Thursday, lo and behold, the current Leader of the Opposition, or Acting Leader of the Opposition, who is trying to be the Leader of the Opposition and certainly has indicated that she is going to be running for the leadership of the Opposition come this October in Gander – maybe I should drop into it, I suppose, and see what in the hell is going on down there; because they will not have enough people there to vote, probably, because they will not get enough in there, because they are only around 8 per cent in the polls. I was saying last week they are probably going to be at minus two by the time she is over with it, going through the hon. Member for Lewisporte, who advocated on behalf of his district, worked with the minister, worked with ministers, and really influences, as MHAs always do, influences government as a whole. That is exactly what they do on a daily, daily basis.

I am the Minister of Government Services, a department that is purely a service department, a regulation department, an enforcement department. Each and every day we touch the lives of somebody, people in this district, be it from births to death to inspection processes in regard to electrical or environmental.

I just heard the member when he talked - the member on the other side - about environmental health, and the posting of those environmental health inspection processes on-line. It just came back in my mind, and I know that it is not related to what I am going to talk about here this afternoon, but that is a big issue. We have been endeavouring to post everything on-line. We believe in transparency; we believe in accountability. You know, each and every time that there has been a request come into my department, we turned it around in twenty-four hours with regard to any issues regarding food premises and whatever else they wanted; we did it. Now, at this point in time, because of demands on government with regard to software and those packages around IT, we just cannot put it on-line. It is not that easy. It is not like you just stick it in there and it is all up there; you have to do it right. You have to do it right in the first place. You just cannot do it. They make it sound like we are not doing it for reasons that they think: that it is because we are trying to cover things up. It is not that at all. It is just that you have to do it right and you have to have the right processes.

I hear, too, and I think it was last week as well - you know, we have challenges right now in the fishing industry. The Minister of Fisheries is trying to address the issues. He is not willing and we are not willing - this government is not willing - to put a Band-Aid on the issue, that has been put on it for the last number of years. I often say, which is a little bit of stretching the truth, that we have had problems in the fishing industry since John Cabot threw the first basket over the side of his boat. We have, and we recognize how important that fishery is to Newfoundland and Labrador and the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we also recognize that it is very important to rural Newfoundland and Labrador because that is where the main crux of the fishery is. That is where they employ people. It is very, very important; but then, in turn, we cannot continue to just throw money at it, make it go away for a year, and then have it back on our plates the next year. We have to have sustainability. We have to have a future to the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we have to have. That is what it is all about.

When you hear the Leader of the Opposition talking about the fishery, and talking out of two sides of her mouth – because we must remember, she used to be the Minister of Fisheries at one time. That is exactly what she was, the Minister of Fisheries. Where was she? She was probably in a helicopter flying around Labrador, all above it, doing nothing about it. Then, all of a sudden, she is over there with all the answers. Well, I am not really sure if she has the answers, but she is implying that she has all the answers, but she does not come forward with all the answers in Question Period. She comes forward with nothing - absolutely nothing. I have not heard a thing, not a thing from the hon. member, in regard to that fishing industry. Not a thing, other than talking out of the two sides of her mouth, throw the money at it again and make it go away for this year and let it go. Absolutely, we want everybody back fishing. We want everybody processing fish. We want people working, absolutely we do.

I think that the fishing industry, the people who work within that fishing industry, want long-term sustainability as well. That is what they want, absolutely. In the long term, that is exactly what they want. So they all have to come together and work it together. That is what they have to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: It drives me crazy to listen to the Leader of the Opposition going on with the rhetoric and trying to imply that members over on this side of the House are not doing their job. They are absolutely doing their jobs. You went through several members last week, and I just could not sit in my seat here and sit back and take that. I just could not do it. It is not in my nature and I never will. As long as I am elected in this House of Assembly, I will not be doing it; I will be honest with you. I am vocal in the House of Assembly, I apologize - but I make no apologies for that because I always will be.

We hear from the various members on the other side of the House, the Opposition, they all talk about rural Newfoundland and Labrador, because it is the only thing, really, that they can put their hook into, because it is a kind of – as I would say, as a member – a grey area. You cannot really see the significant growth that you would see in an urban centre in rural Newfoundland because it is so spread out. I got up in this House of Assembly, which the people of rural Newfoundland clearly understand - you will not have manufacturing plants in Terra Nova at such a degree that you would see in Scarborough, that you would see in London, Ontario. You will not have that, because it is just not there to be had, because the people, in regard to human resources and challenges, et cetera, it just will not be there.

Can you grow the economy in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Can you grow the economy and diversify the economy? Well, yes, we have; and yes, we are. Of 80 per cent of $11 million from the Regional/Sectoral Diversification Fund, where has it gone to? In rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that is where it is going. Absolutely diversifying the economy, that is exactly what it is doing.

Then they are out there and they talk about strategies. One minute they are saying you have a strategy for this and you have a strategy for that, and you have a strategy for this and you have a plan and blah, blah, blah. Then they put down all the plans and that kind of stuff and all you do is develop strategies. Then, all of a sudden, I remember last week - I cannot quote it exactly - they were asking for a strategy. Where is your strategy, they said, in Question Period? Where is your strategy, where is your plan? All of a sudden again, they were talking out of the two sides of the mouth.

I was in business for thirty-odd years and every single morning I got out of bed I had a plan; I absolutely had a plan. I had a plan to make money, and that is exactly what I had; I had a plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did it work?

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, it did work. I say to the hon. member it did work and I did make money, absolutely. I do not make any apologies for that either, Mr. Speaker, because that is called growing the economy, that is called employing people and that is exactly what I did. I did not go looking for government help in regard to the businesses that I was in; not one red cent. I went to the banks, I invested, I took risks and I employed people and I grew the economy. That is what I did. I employed people, a good many of them, not only in this country but also in other countries as well. I am proud of it; I am absolutely proud of it. I am proud of all the other entrepreneurs that are out there in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and out in Newfoundland and Labrador in general that does that as well. Absolutely, that is what it is all about.

Now sometimes we do have to help. We have to because there are challenges, because there are certain areas you just cannot develop that easily and just go to the banks and that kind of stuff and they are going to invest because of the risk. Sometimes, because of the risk, you have to help that particular entrepreneur to get off their feet and get moving. That is exactly what we do in regard to the investments that we have made. We have made various tax credits and other incentives across Newfoundland and Labrador and people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador avail of all those as well.

I heard the hon. Leader of the Opposition, she was talking about Gander. She was talking about how important rural Newfoundland and Labrador was to Gander; that is my region. I will be the first one to say that one of my businesses, in particular, was built in regard to the rural people of that region supporting me in business, travelling in over the Gander Bay road, which is now all paved. It is just about all paved down to George's Point, so now they have a pleasant ride into Gander to diversify our economy, to support the economy of Gander.

I also will be the first one to say that Gander would not really survive without the investments from rural Newfoundland and Labrador, from that region in particular, and how important it is in regard to the fishery, Beothic fishery down in Bonavista North, out in the Twillingate area, out in Fogo area and all of that kind of thing. That is exactly what grows it all. Then, when they get up and talk about rural Newfoundland and Labrador and how this government has forgotten rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it just goes right through me. What little hair I have left on my head stands up, because the simple reason is we have invested heavily in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We have spent our time in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. What was one of the first things we did in the 2004 Budget? In the 2004 Budget, one of the first things we did was we started to build a foundation from the ground up. Where we started that was in provincial roads program, because we saw that it was absolutely important to have good transportation -

AN HON. MEMBER: There are no roads (inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: No roads left, I agree with the hon. member.

I remember when I was up on the Northern Peninsula as well in regard to - the hon. member mentioned to me about tires last night, studded tires. He was talking about campaigning up on the Northern Peninsula. I was up on the Northern Peninsula as well and I remember saying to a particular constituent, I was at the door and they asked me why they should vote for our particular candidate. I said: Well, you do me a favour now. Before you vote on Tuesday, you get in your vehicle, you drive to Deer Lake and you drive back and then make up your mind. I would hope after that drive, if that particular person took that drive, they would have voted for us because I was up there in 2001-2002 and it was a cow path, a total cow path all the way from Deer Lake to St. Anthony. Now it is totally resurfaced all the way, a pleasant ride, absolutely, a long ride but an absolutely pleasant ride, all the way from Deer Lake up to St. Anthony.

These are the kinds of investments that we have made in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is exactly what we have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: We have not forgotten other districts as well that we do not even hold. Even the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has a brand new school going into her district.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: Look at this - two. She says two. Well, I tell you it is one of the first times that I have seen you stick your hand up and say good work, absolutely good work of this government, and I commend you for that. Now, you are not going to be allowed to cross the House, and I am not going to help you win the leadership in Gander and that kind of stuff. All I am going to do is advocate that you go, as I indicated, to Wal-Mart - I spent lots of money in Wal-Mart; I spent lots of money down in Canadian Tire - $200-and-some-odd on Sunday morning, I think it was, or Saturday morning in Canadian Tire, and that kind of stuff. You have to, when you are there, spend your money, all fifteen of you, because that is all there will be at the AGM, I guess, fifteen or twenty. Anyway, try to spend as much money as you possibly can.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely! Shaking, I am sure they are. I say to the hon. member, sir, there is nobody shaking in – all that is shaking in Gander is the economy, because if you go out there you will see growth, you will see housing at the highest; 100-odd houses are going to be built in Gander again this year. That is because Gander is in a positive mode; it is in with this government. We are doing well off this government. Council is working hard in regard to what they do, and Gander is the growth area in this Province. That is exactly what it is all about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, the expansion of the James Paton Memorial Hospital redevelopment, another $3 million-odd gone into the James Paton Memorial Hospital. They have $300,000-odd gone into the MRI in regard to establishing that and regard to operational issues surrounding that. We have another $1 million-odd gone into St. Paul's High School. Why? Why did we have to put $1.5 million or $1.8 million into that school? It is because of the growth of population of Gander. That is exactly it. We have a growing population. We have a growing population; we do not have a decrease in population. We have a growth area in this Province and that is exactly what it is. That comes from hard work, hard work by all the stakeholders, not only myself. There are a lot of stakeholders involved in that growth and there are a lot of positives. There is a lot of confidence in Gander in regard to a growth area.

Certainly, I am proud to be the Member for Gander because we have growth in Glenwood, we have growth in Appleton, and we have absolutely fabulous things happening in Benton, too. We have growth in Bonavista North as well that supports Gander, and Gander supports Bonavista North. All of the investments, any investments that I see going into Bonavista North, I am proud of it, for the simple reason is that it is a benefit to Gander as well, because we are all neighbours. We are all in it together. That is exactly what it is. That is why we invest in the districts that we do not even represent, because for the simple reason, it is in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what it is. Because when we were elected, regardless if we owned the seat or not, we represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a government and we have made conscious decisions for the best of the people.

Some of the decisions we make may very well not stand good in regard to some of the districts that we have, and that kind of stuff. They might not agree but we do it based on data, based on information and based on making the right decisions to get the best bang for the dollar. The bottom line of it is that we are spending the people's money regardless of where it comes from. Be it from the industries, be it from taxation, be it from the oil industry, be it from whatever it is, it is still the people's money. We have to protect that money. We have to get the best bang for that as we possibly can, and one of the areas that we have to get that is in our health. That is what we have to have. We have to provide the best quality health at the best dollar value that we possibly can to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is exactly what we have to do. That is wise, fiscal management. That is exactly what we have, and that is the reason why we find ourselves here today in this time in history that we have weathered the global recession better than just about anywhere else in this world. Better than anywhere else in this world.

The Leader the Opposition can go out and she can shop tonight in the Avalon Mall with relative ease because the retail sector is up in Newfoundland and Labrador. Absolutely up! She can go and she has a wide array of things to look at and consider for her to buy. That is exactly what she has, because the retail sector is up. People are moving forward in this Province with confidence. That is exactly what they are doing. Confidence, it is all about confidence in the economy.

Mr. Speaker, when I go back again, when I see a member across the House trying to relive things in the past and talk about MHAs personally in regard to how they conduct their affairs and how they represent the people and put out false accusations in regard to how they do that, false information in how they do it. That really gets to me, because I had to get up in the House today - because I did not get the chance to get up in the House on Thursday but certainly this is the first opportunity that I have had to get up in the House and –

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): Order, please!

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

MR. O'BRIEN: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not be too long, Mr. Speaker. I will not go on because I think people in this House and I think people out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and people in Newfoundland and Labrador got the message that every member in this House of Assembly is here to represent the people that elected them, number one. They are here for the best of the Province; that is where they are. That is the reason why they put their name on the ballot, because it takes a lot of guts to put their name on a ballot, I will guarantee you that. That does not come easy. People think that people jump on the bandwagon for various reasons and whatever it may be but that takes guts to do that, and you want to do the best possible that you can for your people, for your district, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the reason why we sit in this House.

So when I sit here and I hear someone across in the Opposition, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, who will pinpoint MHAs because they think they might have something little on to them in regard to the way they represent their district. Well then, certainly, I want to get up and counterbalance that, Mr. Speaker, because I can say categorically, I can say truthfully – and even for themselves, you try to represent your people to the best of your ability.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am seeing that the Leader of the Opposition wants me to clue up now. She gave me leave, now she is taking it away. So I do not know where I am in regard to where I am speaking here today. I will tell you, and I will leave you this thought, Mr. Speaker, one thought and one thought only. Keep this in your mind I say to the Leader of the Opposition, this government will never forget rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to rise and speak to the main motion that is being debated today. Mr. Speaker, I will try and keep my comments to the point because I know you have just listened to a whole lot of drivel for the last twenty-five minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose a couple of insightful comments from the Member for Gander -

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

I am looking for direction from the House, if we will vote on the non-confidence and the sub-amendment before we move back into the main motion on the Budget?

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the sub-amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The sub-amendment has been defeated. The nays have it.

On motion, sub-amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: Are we ready for the question on the amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the nays have it.

On motion, amendment defeated.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad we got that over with. I do not know if we should have a recount. I do not know if we should have a recount. I will have to check Hansard tomorrow to actually see how that vote is being recorded, Mr. Speaker, because I think at one point you actually overturned the government on the first part of the motion. Anyway, we will have to check Hansard tomorrow and see how that was conducted.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, there are a number of points that I want to make. I know that we have just heard a lot of drivel from the Member for Gander. Of course, he likes to talk about how he is so active in the House. I mean, the most activity you have is the heckling that he has on the other side, and every now and then he will get up and say a few words, and when he does he does not say anything, Mr. Speaker. It is one thing to be active and it is another thing to be productive, I say to the minister - which are two very different things.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I was very flattered by the comments he made about me, especially when he was talking about how, when the Leader of the Opposition is up speaking, she drives me crazy, he said. Then he went on to say: You start to go right through me.

I say to the minister that my colleague there, the member for Bay Roberts, has lots of Pepto-Bismol, so if the next hour is going to be a little bit tough on you, Minister, we will send you over a few scoops.

Mr. Speaker, the reason that I hit a nerve with the members opposite is because they know what I say to be true, they know what I say to be factual, and they cannot own up to their mistakes that they continuously make. They do not want to hear about it. They do not want to hear about how they are destroying and destructing rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, in this Province. They find that unbearable. That is the kind of stuff that really drives the minister crazy, and that is what he refers to.

He does not like the fact, Mr. Speaker, that they have their mistakes pointed out to them, and how they are draining the public purse; how they are pouring money down the drain every day because of the decisions that they are making, and the mistakes and the errors that they are making on behalf of the people of this Province. Those are the kinds of things, Mr. Speaker, they do not want to hear.

The minister came in today to play defence. He was happy to play defence for his colleagues today, Mr. Speaker, trying to do a little bit of stickhandling on the floor of the House of Assembly, because he knows that in the comments I made last week, I referred to the members on the government side who did not stand up for their constituents because they were afraid that they would be barred from the blue room - the caucus room, the Tory caucus room - they would not stand up. The ones who did stand up, the ones who did have enough nerve, a little bit of nerve, enough backbone to actually go out there and say, I am going to stand with my constituents, within twelve hours they were kowtowing to the government, back on their knees apologizing, Mr. Premier, apologizing Mr. Minister: I did not mean to say that; I will never stand up for my constituents again because I want to be in the circle. I want to be in the big Tory circle in the big blue room.

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of stuff that drives them crazy, and I am glad he admitted it today. I am glad he admitted it today because, Mr. Speaker, it shows that the truth hurts. It shows that you do not want to hear about the blunders, the Williams' government blunders, Mr. Speaker. These are the things they do not want to hear. They will get up every day and they do not even say the government any more, when they stand in the House or anything; they say the Williams' government. They do not refer to themselves as the government of the people; because governments are of the people, I remind hon. members. They are of the people, for the people, but over here it is not about the government of the people; it is about the Williams' government. Every thing is about the Williams' government.

Let's talk about the Williams' government now for a few minutes. Let's talk about the Williams' government. Let's talk about the Abitibi deal, the most costly mistake of any government on a deal since the Upper Churchill was signed forty years ago. That is the legacy of the Williams' government today, Mr. Speaker. They knew they made a mistake and they waited ten months - ten months - before they put out any release to the public, and guess when they put the release out?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just a reminder to the hon. member that we are not supposed to use names.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I will not, but it is the members opposite who refer to their government as the Williams' government so I thought it was acceptable. Every one of them, I think, has used it on occasion, Mr. Speaker. The government I am referring to is the Williams' government. I will put that on the record and I will refrain from using it, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just say this: what they do not like is their legacy that they are leaving now on Abitibi. They knew about this mistake since May 2009. They chose, Mr. Speaker, to put the release out to the public in February 2010, ten months after they knew that they had expropriated the mill, that they had expropriated the liabilities, and that they had expropriated half the land in Grand Falls-Windsor. They waited ten months before they put it out to the public. When they put it out to the public, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: I say to the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor, the Department of Justice, the lawyers in the Department of Justice, gave us the information. You go check with the lawyers in the Department of Justice. They are the ones who gave us the information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members to address the Chair, please.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, what they do not like and what they did not want people to know was the big mistake they had made, the costly mistake, the most scandalous mistake of a government in forty years in this Province. They are trying to duck it, they are trying to hide from it, and they are trying to hope that it goes away. It is not going to go away. It is not going to go away.

Mr. Speaker, they waited ten months to tell the people of the Province, and guess when they told them? They told them in a press release. No big press conference this time, Mr. Speaker, no big press conference this time; no bunches of Cabinet ministers and MHAs all popping in, down in the Media Centre, taking their chairs to hear the big announcement. Oh, no, none of that. One press release on a Friday afternoon, and guess what Friday it was? It was the Friday that the Premier was in Florida having his heart surgery. They waited for the Premier to go to Florida to have his heart surgery; then they put out the release that they had made a mistake, a booboo, an oops, on the Abitibi file. That is when they released it.

The same government who ridiculed Eastern Health for putting out a release late on a Friday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the same government who was going to go down and said they should all be taken out and shot because of how they handled the issue, putting a release out on a Friday afternoon, well, what did the Minister of Natural Resources do? She waited until the Premier was out of the country, in a hospital having surgery, ten months after they knew what was going on; that was when they put the release out, on a Friday afternoon.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what were they trying to hide? What were they trying to hide? Why was there no big media conference like when they were going to sue Quebec, when they were going to take on this one, when they were going to take on that one, when they have the big media shows and they all pile in, Mr. Speaker, in the Media Centre? They take their chairs, one by one, all in their suits, tapping and clapping, Mr. Speaker, of the wonderful news of their government and their Premier. Well, we did not see any of that. There was no glory in this, Mr. Speaker. There was no glory in them having to admit that we have made a mistake that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the people of this Province, the very people today who do not have a paycheque because the fishing industry is shut down and they will not invest any money in it. Those very same people, Mr. Speaker, the very same people, they are all one people. They are all one people.

Mr. Speaker, that is how they dealt with Abitibi, and what are we finding out now? They stand up and say, Mr. Speaker, how do you know how much it is going to cost? It is laughable that a minister of the Crown could look at me and say to me, where are you getting your numbers and how much could this cost, when all the court documents that have been filed in the courts in Quebec with Abitibi and with the Province have all the information in them. You are the minister of the Crown, you are in the big inner circle, you are in the big blue room and you come in here and you ask me where I am getting my numbers. It is laughable. I tell you I bet there is hardly a minister over there who read the documents yet. I bet there is hardly a minister of the Crown who has read the court documents themselves. That is what I would guess, Mr. Speaker.

Now it took a while to get them; we were a few months. We were since February trying to track down all of the information and get all the cases, but we got the information. It is unbelievable when you get up and you talk about - Abitibi's court case in the courts explicitly lays out every single dollar that they are looking for in terms of $500 million. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when we were given the briefings on December 16, I think it was when this bill was coming into the House, I believe we were called up to the Premier's boardroom at noon on that day, the bill came in at 1:30, or whenever the House opened that afternoon. Mr. Speaker, we were told in those briefings that Abitibi could be seeking compensation of up to $300,000 for these assets, but guess what else we were told? We were also told that Abitibi would have to pay for the environmental liabilities. When you look at the cost for Buchans, Botwood and Grand Falls and all of the different aspects of the deal, it would be a net zero the Premier says, a net zero cost to the people of the Province, assuring us that there would be no money on behalf of the people of the Province outside of legal fees or the legalities of what needed to be done.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was in an interview, a scrum right outside of this House of Assembly, at that same time and this is what he said: There is a real possibility that the Province will not have to pay Abitibi for expropriating its brick and mortar assets either. He said: When the Province expropriated the company's water and timber rights about a year ago, it said it would fairly compensate Abitibi for things like dams and power plants. Williams said severance payments and the company's environmental liabilities would be subtracted from the fair market value of those assets. He said, and this is all quoted, "If the assets do not exceed the liabilities then there would be no cash payment coming from the government," said the Premier. "Our assessment, at this particular point in time, is that there would not be a net payment to Abitibi."

That was what he said, Mr. Speaker. Those were the comments. There was a big picture of the Premier there, having a media scrum, going right along with it. It was not going to cost us anything, the people of the Province. It would cost us nothing when everything is said and done. What we are finding out today?

We have already been through the courts once, and we were told: You expropriated the assets; you cannot now go after Abitibi and ask them to come and clean up the mess. You now own it. It is your mess; you have to clean it up. We had to go through the courts, Mr. Speaker, for some judge to send us home and tell us that.

Then in addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we find out we have expropriated more assets than we wanted; things such as the mill which is probably going to have the biggest environmental liabilities attached to it. We know already the bill is going up.

In addition that, Mr. Speaker, they have decided that on the severance payments, which they initially said we should get our money back, that they are not even going to pursue that one now in the courts because they know that there is no security for it. They know that is not a secured piece that they would be awarded any money on.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, we still have to deal with the NAFTA challenge because we have expropriated a publicly traded company; we are subject to the international laws. Although, the case may be against the federal government, the federal government can certainly come to look for that money from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not know what will happen at that time when those things happen but my guess is, it is going to be a long time before they see a dollar under NAFTA coming out of this Province, or I would hope so because that in itself could be another $500 million.

We could be looking at essentially a billion dollar mistake. They look at it and they say we made a mistake. Mr. Speaker, there are mistakes and then there are big mistakes. Any time that you are prepared to just say I made a mistake and prepared to let $500 million, potentially, of people's money pour down the drain - that is how this government operates.

When the Member for Gander was speaking, he was referring to the fishery and he said: All the Leader of the Opposition wants is for us to throw money at it. Well I say to the member that is your style. Your style has always been to throw money in this Province, Mr. Speaker. That is the style of the government. Every time that there has been a problem, it has been if we can throw money at it and we can fix it, not a problem. Guess what? When the money starts running out and they no longer have the big stog of cash in their back pockets to throw at every problem, what happens? We see what happens. They have no answers; they have no solutions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having great difficulty hearing the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly cannot speak any louder, so I hope you can hear me.

What I am basically saying is that this government is throwing money at every problem that has come up in this Province that they could fix with money. The problem that they cannot fix with money is where they have been unable to find solutions. It has been easy for them to do, because they have had the money to do that. They have had millions and billions of dollars, owned by the people of this Province, and they were able to take that money and spend it however they wanted.

Mr. Speaker, what is really ironic about all of this is that when the Premier came out and said about the mistake on Abitibi, he said: I can live with this. This is what he said: I can live with this. Well, maybe he can live with it, but all the rest of us have to live with it as well. All the rest of us are going to have to live with this as well. Whether it takes us twenty years or thirty years to pay for this mistake, we all will have to live with it.

Mr. Speaker, to me, that is not good enough. That is not acceptable. When we asked questions in the House of Assembly on this file, when this legislation was being done, this is one of the things he said, "We did not want to act too quickly, on the basis that we wanted to make sure that we had done the proper research and the proper preparation and had brought the best minds that were available that we could bring to the table to look at this." This is what he said, giving the people of the Province the impression and the assurance that every single thing that needed to be done was done, that the proper protections were there for the people of this Province, and guess what? They were not. We are finding out today they were not there. It was empty words. Who were the best minds, Mr. Speaker? We understand that it was someone, a planner who was looking at the geographical piece of this who actually realized that they had expropriated everything. So who were the best minds? Who were the people that we paid the $8 million to that were supposed to be the real legal advisors making sure every "t" was crossed and every "i" was dotted? Where was the ministerial oversight? The Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Environment, it was their responsibility.

The Minister of Environment stood in this House of Assembly and told me, going back to December of 2008, Mr. Speaker, to rest assured, all the environmental liabilities are looked after. She said it more than once in questioning in this House under that piece. Rest assured! The member can rest assured that all of the environmental piece will be looked after and will be protected. That is what the Minister of Environment said on several occasions, going back to December of 2008 when I asked her the first questions around the environmental liabilities of Abitibi.

So where was the ministerial oversight, Mr. Speaker? You had two Cabinet ministers, besides the Minister of Justice, which makes three, plus the Premier on this file. I can only imagine that the Member for Grand Falls may have been in on some of it. I have no idea, but she is at the Cabinet table. It was in her district. So I do not know how they operate. I do not know if you get in the door or not, Mr. Speaker, but maybe she was in the door, too. I am not sure how that operates.

Mr. Speaker, these are his comments when we were asking him in the House: We have the best minds that were available to be able to look at all of this and to bring this forward. This is what we were told, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of language that was used. When we questioned the environmental piece we were told to be rest assured, not to worry, everything was going to be looked after. I guess we find out now, Mr. Speaker, how it was all looked after.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, when we asked about the contamination with their operations in Botwood and around the mill in Grand Falls and the logging operations and the rivers and all the rest of it. This is what they said. There may be some environmental fallout from that and that has to be quantified. If that is quantified, then that would be offset against any responsibility for compensation. If there is an excess of value over liability, then that would be the amount that would be paid. That is what the Premier said in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. That is what he said during those proceedings when those questions were being asked.

Mr. Speaker, it is all right for them to take hundreds of millions of dollars of the people's money to pay for their mistakes because they did not do diligence on a deal. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the worst mistake of any government, as I said, in forty years in this Province. Mr. Speaker, this is what we hear from the members opposite, is that it was a mistake and that they can live with it - or at least the Premier says he can live with it. I am not sure if the rest of us can live with it because you know what is happening in rural Newfoundland today. The people in rural communities today are not feeling the have of this Province, I say to the members opposite. You go into these communities and you have meetings in those communities, and you ask them, Mr. Speaker, do you feel like you are a have Province now, that you are a have community? The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. The answer is no.

Now members find this hard to listen to, Mr. Speaker, because they like to keep their head in the clouds, but the reality is this. You go into these regions and you have these meetings, and they know the rural-urban divide is stronger than it has ever been in this Province; stronger than it has ever been in this Province, Mr. Speaker. The people in the rural communities of this Province, they have had it tough; they have had it tough for a very long time. They have waited through the lean years, Mr. Speaker, when there was no money, when this Province had no money to spend, and now they have twice the money to spend –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - and these same communities, these same people, still do not feel like they are have, Mr. Speaker. They feel more have-not than they ever felt.

MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: I say to the Member for Gander, you can speak my dear from now until the Budget closes. It has nothing to do with me, and if you do not say any more than you said the last time it will not be much of a contribution anyway, I say to the member. So sit back, relax. I have thirty-six minutes left to speak and, Mr. Speaker, when the member was speaking for his twenty minutes I never interrupted him, not once.

Mr. Speaker, they do not want to hear the truth, and the truth is that there is a rural-urban divide in this Province. Despite the fact that they have twice the money to spend, people in rural communities are not feeling the wealth. I know that members will get up and they will say: Oh, she has two new schools going in her district. Well I have been six years listening to the members opposite announce these schools. Finally they are getting built, Mr. Speaker. The children who were in Grade 7 were graduated before the school was built. That was the time frame in which it was done. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, they will get up and they will say: you know, we did the roads in this community and we did the road in that community. God knows there are a lot of roads that need to be done, Mr. Speaker, but people in rural communities need jobs as well. They need jobs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the collapse in the forest industry has had a real negative impact on many of these communities. What is happening in the fishery today is having a negative impact on these communities, and you cannot say they are not.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at a place like Twillingate, New World Island, where you have a population of 8,000 people, and over 1,000 of those people are directly employed in the fishing industry - over 1,000 of them just in Twillingate, New World Island. Now, Mr. Speaker, just think about that for a minute. A rural community depending upon the fishing industry, the most people in that area, in that community is employed in the fishery. What does it mean to those people today in Twillingate, New World Island, those 1,000 people, 1,000 families in those communities if they do not have an industry, if they do not have a job to go to? How do you think they would feel today when they listen to the government putting money into the big oil companies and investing in the equity in the oil but will not put a dollar into the fishing industry? How do you think they would feel this morning when they are getting up wondering how they are going to pay that mortgage on their boat or if they are going to have a job to go to in the fish plant? I bet none of you would want to be that 1,000 people today in Twillingate, New World Island who are wondering if they are going to have an income from this industry this year.

The truth is this, Mr. Speaker, if this fishery does not open this year, if the government is prepared to lose this season, which is what I hear from them in the crab fishery, than what does that mean for another year? Because I can tell you, most of these people will not survive to be in that industry next year, and we know that. We know that the banks will be on most of these people before they get a chance to turn around. What other options do they have? There is no loans program, there is no credit line; there is no financial bridging for any of them. They do not have those options available.

Look at the Northern Peninsula, one of the areas of the Province that you have practically written off because not everybody up there bowed and kissed your feet, so you have practically written them off because they do not go down on their knees and kiss your feet every time someone walks into pavement up there.

Mr. Speaker, on the Northern Peninsula, where there is 13,500 people from River of Ponds north, from the Member for St. Barbe's district to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North district, there are 2,300 of those people in that area that are directly employed in the fishing industry – 2,300 of them today who do not know if they are going to be back on the water; 2,300 of them today who are listening to their radio and hearing that our government does not want to invest in the fishing industry. Using excuses like challenges under the North American Free Trade Agreement; this is what they are saying. It did not stop them when they expropriated Abitibi that they were going to have a 500-million-dollar court challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement, but no, we cannot put a dime into the fishing industry. That is what you are telling these 2,300 families who are employed directly in the fishery on the Northern Peninsula today. That is what you are telling them, because we are afraid that we are going to be challenged.

Well, you had no fear on Abitibi. Even the Premier stood up in the House and said they could go to court; they could take us to court under the North American Free Trade Agreement. It all falls back on the federal government. You are foolish if you think they are going to get a cent out of us under that court case. Well, I hope he is right because we are going to have to pay out enough as it is under the other court cases that have already been filed.

Mr. Speaker, the people in the fishing industry are being told we are afraid to put any money into your industry because we are afraid that we might get charged under the North American Free Trade Agreement. We may be contravening the act. Now, talk about talking out of two sides of your face. There it is right there. On one investment, we do not care. On the other investment in the fishing industry, oops, we have to be careful; we have to watch what we are doing.

Well, Mr. Speaker, on the Connaigre Peninsula there are 8,000 people and over 1,000 of those people are employed directly in the fishing industry – the commercial fishing industry. I could give you every example from all the areas right around this Province, and guess what? They are all rural areas; they all have hundreds of people who work in this industry. They not only feel that they are not have, and that this government with its double the budget and multi-billions of dollars is not investing in their communities, but they feel that nobody even cares if they have an industry. They are feeling, right now, today, that no one even cares.

Do you know what they have said to me? I do not know, Mr. Speaker, for what they are not right, they have said to me: Listen, no one is going to do anything because everybody knows, everybody feels that we have to rationalize in this industry, they are going to throw their hands up in the air, they are all going to walk away and they are going to see who survives and who does not. They are going to see what plant stays open and what closes, what fishermen escapes bankruptcy and what ones do not. That is what they are telling me. The people in the industry today really do feel that they are being left out there to sink or swim on their own. It is not about the fishery; it is all about the communities as well. The fishing industry is rural Newfoundland. That is what it is. The fishing industry is rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we will talk about tourism. We have a great marketing campaign going. I am really proud of the work that was done with the marketing campaign for this Province, but tourism alone is not going to replace this industry, and more has to be done. Mr. Speaker, we have to look at more viability in our markets. We have to look at that. We need to look at what products we can be putting out there.

When I was in Grand Bank on the weekend, on Sunday morning I was over on the wharf talking to some fisherman there from Grand Bank. They had just come in then from their lobster pots and they were landing their lobster - getting $3 a pound at the plant for their lobster. How are people going to survive? How do they survive? We have to start investing in this industry, investing in product development. The government likes to talk about research and development. Well, what about in the fishing industry? What about developing products that add value to them that give them a better price to people, that land us in a different market? That needs to be looked at.

Mr. Speaker, we have not spent the time on doing those things; we have not spent the time. In fact, this is one industry that one would have thought that in all the money we have in this Province at this time in our history that this would be one of the key industries were government would have strategically invested in every component, but that has not happened. In fact, we have seen just more financial burden being added. Processors who pay high licensing fees, they have to transfer that cost to their fishermen. Fishermen, Mr. Speaker, have to pay high licensing fees, they have to pay monitoring fees, they have to pay observer fees, and all of these fees go to government. It is what makes their enterprises less viable.

Do you know how hard it is now to be paying all of those fees when you are only getting $3 a pound for your lobster, when you do not have any crab to fish because there is no where to land it where you can make a decent price, where we have no markets for cod any more? That is going down every single day. This is what is happening in this industry, but more importantly, what is happening to our communities. How sad it is, Mr. Speaker, when you go into communities and people do not know if they are going to have work, or they are getting a lot less work than they were getting, or they are not getting enough work to even qualify for their EI benefits, and nothing is being done to be invested in these communities and in this industry. Do you know how frustrating that is? It is very frustrating, and it is happening all over this Province.

People in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, they have pride too and they have dignity. All they are asking is for a fighting chance. Give us a fighting chance. Believe in us. Do something for our communities. That is exactly what they are saying.

On the weekend, I talked to some people who were attending some forums that the FFAW were holding - maybe some of the MHAs might have been there. They held four public forums around the Province. I think - I am not sure now - I believe there was one on the Northern Peninsula and one in New-Wes-Valley. I believe they had one down in Fogo, Twillingate area. These forums were not just for fishing industry people; they were for the communities. The town council showed up and the zonal boards and the development corporations showed up. People in the industry showed up and business people showed up. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? Their messaging was all the same. In all four of those forums their messaging was the same. That is: Why do we have the rural-urban divide? Why is it that no one believes in our communities? Why is it that this government does not want to invest in the fishing industry, because without it we do not have a chance?

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the minister is taking this seriously and I hope that he is prepared to take some action. I hope that members in this House who represent rural districts are lobbying the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier today for money to be invested in the fishing industry. Do not be afraid, I say to them, do not be afraid to step up for the rural ridings that you represent. Do not be afraid to step up and demand that your government invest in the fishing industry, because that is what needs to happen. That is what needs to happen, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know that members do not always want to hear this stuff, but that is the way it is. That is the reality of it all. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to push the issue. We will continue to ask the questions and we will continue to ensure that rural Newfoundland and Labrador has a voice here. We will continue to question the government on their actions as it relates to those communities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the situation at the college, what is happening with the College of the North Atlantic, because I think in the last day I have received dozens of e-mails from people. Do you know what the e-mails were about, related to the college issue? You guys, I am sure, have received them as well. Mr. Speaker, the e-mails were all about the fact that government said they were not going to claw back the money that they had overpaid to the workers who were in the Qatar campus, over in the State of Qatar. That was what most of the e-mails were about. Do you know why? Do you know who a lot of those e-mails came from? They came from people who were either on social assistance, Mr. Speaker, and were overpaid by the government, and guess what? The government clawed back their money. The one e-mail I had from this lady last night, she said: When I got overpaid, they came looking for my money. They took my money back, and I am a social services mom with children. That little bit of money meant a lot to that family, but they had to pay it back. It was all taken out. That is what was upsetting people, Mr. Speaker.

What we would like to know is how did this happen? How did this happen? The government back two years ago appointed a new president of the college. They went on a witch hunt, Mr. Speaker, and got rid of all of the ones over there and people in different positions. Then they went out and they put the new board in place; they put the new president in place. You hired them. You hired all the people to take responsibility. You signed the contract three years ago. You obviously did not look at the details in it. That is what we are trying to get to, Mr. Speaker. What happened here?

I came into the House of Assembly at 1:30 yesterday. I just sat in my seat when I had an envelope put on my desk and it was a press release sent out by the Minister of Education at 1:30; embark until 1:30 - knowing full well, Mr. Speaker, that by that time we would be in our seats in the House of Assembly. This is the transparency; this is the openness and the transparency in how they operate. These are the kinds of things they do, yet they say that people at Eastern Health should have been taken out and shot because of how they communicated stuff. At 1:30 yesterday I sat in my seat, got a press release dropped that came out from the Minister of Education, only released when the bells rung in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, only released it when the bells rung, because he knew that if we would have gotten it five minutes before Question Period, then he would have gotten the questions yesterday. That is what it was. That is the openness and the transparency that goes on. If you have nothing to hide, Mr. Speaker, what is the problem? What is the problem?

They could not send out the press release, Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning, and then he had to go back to the scrum three times. He had to go back to the scrum three times to give them the proper information. That is what happened yesterday, Mr. Speaker, because when it was discovered that workers were overpaid at the Qatar campus, when it was discovered that they did not pay the full amount of their contract to the State of Qatar, when that information got out there, we were already in the House of Assembly.

Not long after that, Mr. Speaker, we discovered that the president of the college had resigned. The president that they appointed only a couple of years ago, she had resigned. Now we did not know why she had resigned. We did not know if she was told to resign. We did not know if she was fired. We did not know if she just decided that she is leaving, and she picked this day to leave when there is a big scandal going on. It is kind of ironic, Mr. Speaker, all the same, that you would just be moving on to a new job and you picked the day to do it when there is a big scandal breaking around how money was overpaid and not paid on contracts and to workers at the college.

So, Mr. Speaker, the minister goes out and does a scrum. Then a few minutes later, Mr. Speaker, I go out to do a scrum and I mention to the reporters about how the president had resigned, and they said that the minister had indicated that no one would be let go. No one would be moving; nothing would be changing. Then he had to go back out to the microphone again, Mr. Speaker, and say: oh, well I did not mention that earlier because I did not know if it was out there yet. Then he had to explain that she resigned, but she did it of her own will. It had nothing to do with all of this. She just decided to pick today to tender her resignation. Then he came in again, and then the Leader of the NDP went out. When she went out she showed the letter to the reporters, the memo that the president sent around the college yesterday afternoon thanking all of her employees for the time that she spent there and the work that she did with them, and said: I have to leave because the Department of Education has told me I have to be out of the campus by 4:00 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of ironic that they are saying that nobody is getting their head rolled here. They are saying that no heads are rolling here, yet the president has resigned on the day of the scandal and the memo says that she was told by the Department of Education to get out by 4:00 o'clock yesterday evening. So then of course the minister had to go back out to the mikes again. Three attempts by the Minister of Education yesterday to try and get the message out as to what was happening over at the College of the North Atlantic around the Qatar campus in a contract.

Mr. Speaker, what we still do not know is how all of this happened. We still do not know that. I am assuming the investigation will tell us something. There might be something more to all of this. There might be something bigger, we will have to find out, or it might be nothing, it might be just trivial, Mr. Speaker, who knows. I guess they know something; they should know something. So, we will have to see where it goes. What has people irate is the fact that the minister said that they would not clawback the money that was overpaid to the workers. I do not know why that is because he did not provide an explanation. Maybe they have a contract that was signed, that is what was in the contract and so on; maybe there are some legal reasons why they cannot claw it back –

MR. KING: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The Minister of Education on a point of order.

MR. KING: I just want to correct the member opposite. What was just relayed in this gallery here today is not accurate information. When I spoke to this issue yesterday, I very clearly talked about employees having contracts that would be honoured and it was very clearly laid out in a press release from my department that there were contracts in place that would be honoured. For the member opposite to stand here and say something to the contrary to that is certainly not right and it is fear mongering.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition - are you speaking to the point of order?

MS JONES: No, I did not think there was one, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

I recognize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe what the minister should do is clarify his comments because what I am asking him is a question. What I am asking him is a question and it is not a statement. I am asking him: Why is the money not going to be clawed back from the workers that were overpaid? That is the question. Is it not going to be clawed back because of some terms in their contract? It has nothing to do with ending their contract. It has nothing to do with not renewing their contract. It has nothing to do with not meeting the commitments of a contract that was signed onto. It is a very simple question. The question is: They were overpaid, you are not clawing back the money, you are not asking them to pay back the money that they should not have gotten, and I would like to know the reason for that. So would other people in the Province who had school tax fees owing to this government, that when they came into power they resurrected them and clawed them back. So would the people on social assistance you has money clawed back all of the time, the lowest income earners in our Province. If they are overpaid $100 by the department, it does not matter if they used that money for baby formula or for teabags they have to pay it back. If they were not supposed to have it, they have to pay it back.

So the question is: Why is it that this money will not be paid back? It is a very simple question. If the minister wants to stand and answer that, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to share some of my time with him to do it. We will have to wait and see what happens around this particular issue, but there are more questions right now than there are answers. We know what government wants to do and that is to distance themselves from it, put it back into the board and the management, in the hands of the college and distance themselves from it.

MR. KING: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education, on a point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I just want to, once again, correct what appears to be less than 100 per cent information that is floating from the opposite side again. This government and I, as the minister, have actually done the opposite of trying to distance ourselves from this. I stood in this House very clearly today for ten or twelve minutes. I did a scrum on three separate occasions yesterday as has been referenced, because I might add, the reporters came up with new questions each time I left, not because we did not provide information, and people need to understand that. I was called back; I did not go back on my own accord.

Secondly, we have done nothing in this Chamber to distance ourselves from this issue whatsoever, quite the contrary. It is this government when we were presented with a problem that called for an immediate external review of the circumstances that led to this overpayment. As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, we have also done, very clearly, what the member opposite is suggesting. We are saying we want answers to questions as well. We are not hiding anything. If were hiding anything, as some members opposite suggested earlier in the day that we should distance ourselves, we never would have disclosed to the public that there was a 5-million-dollar error made. We did the opposite, we disclosed to the public that it exists and we disclosed what we intended to do to try to rectify the problem. Part of what we proposed as a solution, Mr. Speaker, will result in answers to the questions being proposed by the member opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I recognize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister, obviously, wants to stand and make a few speeches here, but he does not want to answer the questions. The question was: Why are you not clawing back the money? Why will you not answer that question when you stand up and give your explanation why you had to go to the scrum three times to clarify information and all of this stuff, but do not want to answer the question.

No doubt, Mr. Speaker, I agree that they are having an investigation or whatever it is. They are asking for an external consultant to be hired to review the financial irregularities, and that has to happen. One would think that would happen; that would be the first action that would be taken.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, the minister did stand today and told me to go read the act with the board of governors, I suppose, or the college, or the responsibilities. Trying to distance himself right away, Mr. Speaker, from what government's role is and what the role of the college is. Mr. Speaker, I can get the Hansard for him; the statement that he made today is in the Hansard.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we will see what happens around this issue and maybe we will get more information the next time we can question the minister or the next time we can get him into a scrum. Maybe we will get it all in one scrum this time; we will not have to do three to try and pry the information out of him.

Mr. Speaker, I only have a few minutes left. I want to talk about a couple of others issues and I am going to move on to do that. Obviously, we could talk all day about air ambulance, about the fishery, about Abitibi, about what is happening with the college, and what is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We could spend hours in this House talking about those issues because there is so much to talk about.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take an opportunity to talk about my district as well for a little bit, because this district that I represent, every single community is a rural community – every single community. The populations of the communities range from forty people, fifty people, up to 600 and 650 people in every single community. That is the population base that you are dealing with.

Most of the district, Mr. Speaker, is connected by a highway. From the Labrador Straits, from L'Anse au Clair or the Quebec border down to Red Bay there are paved roads, but I can tell you that they are paved roads that are long overdue for roadwork. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting to find out what my roadwork budget is going to be for my district this year. Now, I know a lot of members have had their money announced, they know what they are getting, but I have still not been told what my road budget is going to be for my district. We have a lot of road. From Red Bay north to Cartwright, it is all gravel roads. Most of those roads have been built now for ten years or more and they need to be resurfaced.

I do not know how many members of the House actually have gravel roads in their district where they have to drive hundreds and hundreds of kilometres over gravel roads, which is what I have to do, where I have children in my district who have to be bused over gravel roads to go to school. Well, Mr. Speaker, these roads, many of them, has not been resurfaced in ten years. We have not had a bit of crushed stone put on them and they are starting to get bad. In fact, do you know something? The roads were so bad this spring in the district that they even set up sites on Facebook. So that people started posting pictures of every kilometre of road that they were driving over, how bad it was. The ponds and the pools of water in the middle of the road that was washed out, Mr. Speaker, all the areas that was nothing only potholes for miles and miles, just continuous potholes. People, they know that government does not have the money to come in and resurface the entire road this year but they want to see at least some work done.

So, Mr. Speaker, there needs to be some gravel put on some sections of those roads. There are local community roads. Let me tell you, the community of Black Tickle – I could spend another hour just talking about the community of Black Tickle. On an island, Mr. Speaker, on an island they have no drinking water, only what they put through a purification system, and guess what? They waited three months to get some money from the government opposite so they could get the system up and running. Guess what? They had to go miles to another island over winter ice this winter to get water in that community because they did not have their pumping station working and they did not have the money to get it fixed. Finally, when they went on the radio and they started causing a lot of disturbance, they got a little bit of money, but guess what? It was only enough to do half the job. So who pays the other half? The local service district that is in debt about $50,000, that has a community where most people's income is $800 a month or less, except senior citizens who probably have the highest income in the community because they are getting $1,100 or $1,200 a month in Old Age Security and Old Age Pension? Everybody else, Mr. Speaker, is getting less than $800 a month. How do they fix these things? This community has not had their roads graded or upgraded in ten years. A gravel road through this community and they have not had crushed stone on this gravel road in ten years. Then you talk about all you are doing for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, when you have communities out there like that.

Williams Harbour, the same thing, have not had crushed stone on their road in ten years, on the local road. Every year it goes to the department to be done as a priority and every year it gets rejected. In seven years that you have been in government you have not spent one dime in doing anything with the roads in these communities. In seven years. It is not like you formed the government yesterday, but in that seven years you have had double the money to spend. Double the money to spend and you could not find a way to do local roads.

I have people in Black Tickle calling and e-mailing me today. Do you know why? It is because the road in the community is so bad that they cannot even run the ambulance over it to take the patients to the airport to have them flown out to the hospital. Now, when a nurse has to call you up and say that it is so bad that they cannot put the ambulance on the road, they have to take it off the road that is how bad the roads are. Mr. Speaker, the request is in the lap of your government, it is in the Department of Transportation and Works to get this road done in that community. It is not a lot of money. It is not a lot of money to do this, and it needs to be done.

Mr. Speaker, these are rural communities, and that is what I am talking about. Communities like Williams Harbour that could have had a road connection today if the government opposite was willing to spend $6 million to give them one. Guess what? It was not a priority for you. So they are left out there on an island totally isolated. They cannot get off this island unless they get an airplane in or get a boat in. People have nearly drowned trying to get in and out of that island.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have forty-five seconds or something left and it is very unlikely that they are going to give me leave, not withstanding the fact that we gave leave to all of their members yesterday. We gave leave to their members today who asked for leave, Mr. Speaker, but it is very unlikely that I will get any leave today to finish up what I am saying about my district, but I will try.

Mr. Speaker, Williams Harbour, for example; Williams Harbour was scheduled to have a road connection. It was going to cost about $6 million to put a road there. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the government said we are not going to do it, it is not a priority. Well, do you know something? These people live on an island; break up and freeze up they cannot get off this island. They have had snowmobiles go through the ice -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

MS JOHNSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation, on a point of order.

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I understand when I was outside the House the Leader of the Opposition made reference to the fact that I made comments in this House in December 2008 around the environmental issues around Abitibi. I would ask if perhaps she could produce the Hansard of that, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that she would do some research on that, because I was not in the House of Assembly at all in December 2008. In fact, I was off on sick leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we could not have had any better demonstration of what is going on in the House of Assembly here today than the point of order just made by my hon. colleague, where we heard the Leader of the Opposition speak about comments she made to her during the Abitibi debate when in fact the member was not even in the House. Now that is the kind of malarkey and baloney that we have been listening to here. She starts off - Mr. Speaker, she reminds me of a gunslinger at the O.K Corral. She is up and she is in fine form. She is ready to go, and she shoots all over the place. She does not particularly care where she is aiming. She wants to take somebody down and she is does not care who it is or how she does it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's get one thing straight. This government is not trying to cover up in any fact, in any way that we inadvertently expropriated the Grand Falls mill, the mill manger's house and Grand Falls house. We did it; we take full responsibility for it. Mr. Speaker, we did not expropriate half of Grand Falls. Another claim that she has been making in the House, fear mongering. We have people calling us from Grand Falls saying: Am I going to lose my property? Mr. Speaker, she did not even - now talk about – what we had to put up with in the House of Assembly here when they were looking for research money. They got hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in research money. If just once, Mr. Speaker, I could get some indication of where they used the money, it would be some kind of a relief, because they did not even bother to read the bill. They did not even bother to read the bill that we brought in here to expropriate the assets of Abitibi, because we were quite clear, there were no third party assets expropriated. In fact, the piece of legislation speaks specifically to it. The only lands and properties that were expropriated belonged to Abitibi. Anybody who owns private property in a subdivision, or a house, or a commercial area, or a property that was given to the town, lies still with the town –

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We did not say that government expropriated private property; we said they expropriated half of the Town of Grand Falls. The information was given to us through the Department of Justice and we are aware, Mr. Speaker, that it was lands that had previously been owned by Abitibi.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I recognize the hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, she has just made it worse because she has just confirmed that she is fear mongering. Half of Grand Falls is not empty property. Half of Grand Falls is not unpopulated, Mr. Speaker. She needs to take a trip to Grand Falls, and have a look at what it looks like and where people are. Half of Grand Falls is not unpopulated. You are responsible for the fact that people have to call today to see whether or not their private property is secure. That is shocking, Mr. Speaker. That is shocking and that is irresponsible for the Leader of the Opposition to be making such claims – reckless, reckless claims that are upsetting people.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of information. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice to table in the House of Assembly the expropriated boundaries of Grand Falls-Windsor as it relates to this deal so that the public can see the lands that were expropriated and the minister will not have to get up on her high horse and apologize later.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice does not have to provide anything to the House; read Bill 75. You voted for it, surely you should have had a read of it. If you have done nothing else, you should have had a read of the bill that you voted for.

Mr. Speaker, we may have some difficult roads ahead of us in terms of still dealing with Abitibi. We are only part way through the process. When we expropriated Abitibi's assets, as the Premier said in Question Period the other day, we did not expect them to lie down and take it. We certainly knew that they were going to try to continue to exert their right to own and control that property, and we knew that they would use whatever processes that were available to them. What we had to be assured of, to the best of our ability, with the best advice we could get, was that we were acting appropriately within the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is exactly what we did.

Mr. Speaker, she has gone on and on and on about the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador like she is the patron saint of rural Newfoundland; I beg to differ. She has been speaking for a week how we did the wrong thing in expropriating the assets of AbitibiBowater in Central Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, Abitibi could very well and would have had to sell off those assets. God knows where they could have gone, to somebody in New York or some other part of the world. We could have had somebody from Europe over here harvesting the fibre and selling it in Europe taking it offshore. That fibre and that generating capacity belong to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: It belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because of the actions that this government took. Yes, they went along, but they did not come along for the whole ride, it did not take them long to jump ship.

When she said to the Premier earlier this week the total responsibility for Abitibi lies on your shoulder, then that is a responsibility that we are prepared to take on. We will take it on. We own our mistake, but we will try to find a silver lining to that mistake as well, and we continue to work every day to find the silver lining.

Mr. Speaker, we know also that Abitibi will try to get away from its responsibilities with regard to remediation. There was a hearing in the CCAA courts yesterday where they tried to take the properties from Stephenville and Botwood – which we did not expropriate – put in a subsidiary, then bankrupt that subsidiary in a hope that it will free them from their remediation responsibilities in Botwood and in Stephenville. We do not know what the ruling is going to be because the case was heard yesterday. So we have to wait and see what the rulings will be.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if Abitibi goes bankrupt and if all of their assets are taken to pay out different creditors and we are far down the list, they may not be in a position to pay any of their remediation requirements here in the Province in any case, and that is a risk you run all the time when you are involved in these kinds of processes.

Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of having expropriated the assets of AbitibiBowater is the fact that we do have 1.6 million hectares of property – forested property. The advantage is that we have the generating facilities and these will generate funds, these will generate prosperity again for the people of Central Newfoundland, and from that money we will be able to fulfill the responsibilities that they advocate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are a long ways off from that point, though. The principles are clearly laid out in our own Environmental Protection Act, they are clearly laid out in Bill 75 in terms of what Abitibi's responsibility is with regard to remediation here in the Province, and the principle is very simple, Mr. Speaker: The polluter pays. If we find ourselves in a position in this Province, if somewhere in the CCAA process or any subsequent court legal processes that principle is not upheld, not only do we have a problem in Newfoundland and Labrador but we have a problem in this country. We have a very serious problem in this country if some company can come in and because a subsidiary of that company goes bankrupt, that somehow they are relieved of their environmental responsibilities because to do so brings no benefit back to the country. Then, that is going to send a shiver down the spine of every government and every municipality in this country.

We hold firm to the principle that the polluter pays. When we expropriated the property from AbitibiBowater, we clearly stated that we would pay them for their hard assets, that we would pay them for the generating facilities. Now, Mr. Speaker, when we did the severance for the mill workers and the silviculture workers and the loggers, we did that knowing that we had expropriated those assets and that those assets had a value, and when it came to negotiating with AbitibiBowater, that the value of the assets would have subtracted from it their liabilities.

Their environmental responsibility would certainly be a liability, as well as severance and the other measures we have taken. The environmental remediation – $9 million we are going spend this year in Buchans. What would the members opposite have done for the people of Buchans? They certainly would have let Abitibi off of the hook. They are responsible for the mess that has been left behind in Buchans, and we will endeavour to do everything we can to ensure that they pay, but at the same time, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador suffer. We are not going to let the people of Buchans, the children and the mothers and fathers, once we know of the problems that exist there, we are not going to allow them to continue. We are going to spend the $9 million, and we are going to trust that we are going to get it back from Abitibi, but if we do not get it back from Abitibi it is going to be money well spent. We are not going to have the people of Buchans suffer any more than they have already suffered. Once we were aware, that was it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we will do the same, in terms of what we have to do to try to return our environment to a pristine state – the same as we are doing in Baie Verte; $10 million we have spent already and more has to be spent to clean that up. There are other sites. Mr. Speaker, we are extremely responsible in terms of how we allow industries to operate in this Province now. If you are going to mine or do anything in this Province now, you have to have financial assurances registered with this government for your remediation before you are allowed to put a shovel in the ground. So we are ensuring that this kind of thing never happens again.

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the position of the Opposition, really, what they are telling us – it is one thing to castigate us for making a mistake. Mr. Speaker, I have broad shoulders, I can stand here and I can take that because we admit that we made a mistake. We take full responsibility for it. Now, Mr. Speaker, tongue and cheek at the JUNOs, people referred to the Premier as the Pope. We all had a good laugh, and that is what it is, a laugh, because nobody over here pretends to be infallible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Every now and then we make a mistake, and when you make a mistake, Mr. Speaker, you have to own it and we owned it. The people of Grand Falls-Windsor and the CEP union are absolutely delighted that we made that mistake. They are delighted that those properties rest within the hands of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador because they see in it an opportunity. They see in it hope.

If, at the end of the day, Abitibi is not held responsible then we will have to weigh that off against the assets that we expropriated, which is a darn sight better position to be in, I suggest, then having let them dispose of those assets however they chose last year and then end up in bankruptcy protection not able to live up to any part of their responsibility in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are left holding the bag and somebody else is gone off making the money from the fibre resource and from the generating capacity that was built on the Exploits River. That would have been a mistake. That is what you call standing up for people. That is what you call protecting the rights of the people who live in rural parts of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the people of Grand Falls-Windsor and the region were very, very clear with this government in terms of what they wanted, what they expected, what they prayed for and it has not been easy for them. They knew that it would not be easy. Time and time again, I would say to them as we met on these issues, you know that if that company closes down, you know if we seize all of that property, you know that the people who are at greatest risk for pain and suffering and the consequences of all of those actions are the people who are directly employed in that mill, in that whole operation, and the people who rely on them for indirect employment.

They knew it, they understood it, and they knew the risks and they said do it. I will endure the pain of whatever it is so that my children and my grandchildren can live in this place, have a means to support themselves and to support their families, and this region of the Province can continue to grow. That was not wrong when we listened to them. That was not wrong when we represented the people who elected us and put us here. There will be no apologies from this side of the House for the action that we took in terms of the expropriation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we ended up with three pieces of property that we did not intend to expropriate. We will do our best to take what some people might describe as lemons and make lemonade. We will continue to try and find opportunities to generate economic activity out of those properties, but the one thing that you can rely on from this side of the House are the facts. We have numbers – Mr. Paterson, the President and CEO of AbitibiBowater publicly spoke about the value of the assets of AbitibiBowater in Newfoundland to be $300 million. He has upped it in the CCAA process. We understand all of that and we understand why people do that, why they try to maximize the value, drive it right through the roof so somewhere you might come out somewhere in the middle where you ought to be. Three hundred million dollars is what he said, and in talks that were held the number went even far lower than that.

Mr. Speaker, we have a fair idea in terms of what is required. We still do not know – we have the Leader of the Opposition shouting out $200 million here, $300 million there and $500 million there. We have not put a number to remediation at this point in time. My colleague, the Minister of Environment and Conservation, has spoken quite well in this House explaining why we have not. That will not hold up the Leader of the Opposition.

So what you have to do, Mr. Speaker, is sometimes - a reference I always make is in Greek mythology to Theseus, they were going to put him in the maze. They did not think he would ever find his way out of the maze, but Theseus took a ball of wool and he tied it at the entrance. As he worked through the maze he took the ball of wool with him. When it was time to come out, he wound it back up and he found his way out of the maze. You have to be like Theseus with his ball of wool with the Leader of the Opposition, because her rationale and her logic is so flawed that there is no other way to try and follow it. Mr. Speaker, the information that she provides on a regular basis is incorrect and we have had a number of demonstrations –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS DUNDERDALE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier, by leave.

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we need to be sure of what it is that we are talking about here. We are only partway through this process. At the end of the day, I am confident that the people of Central Newfoundland, all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and history will judge the actions of this government to be well thought out, to be visionary and in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to stand today and to speak to the motion with regard to the Budget that is on the floor. We have had a couple of opportunities to speak to the amendment and to the sub-amendment, and now I get to speak to the Budget itself.

It has been very interesting, Mr. Speaker, over the last few weeks because with the concentration on the Budget one is constantly reading it into various documents. Also, because we have our Estimates meetings, some of us are living, sleeping and eating the Budget. It is always a very interesting time of year when it comes to debate here in the House, when we have the Budget to deal with.

When I spoke initially to the amendment to the Budget, Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out the ways in which the Budget was deficient with regard to taking care of the needs of people. Some of the things I talked about I have paid some concentration to, and I did that yesterday and last week, but there is an area that I mentioned and it is an area that is very important to me and that I bring up very often here in the House, is the whole issue of home care and long-term care.

That is what I want to concentrate on today, Mr. Speaker, is talk about how I see the Budget being deficient when it comes to home care and long-term care. I think it is important to point out that home care and long-term care are essential parts of health care, that as people age or as people develop chronic illnesses – and one does not have to be elderly to have a chronic illness – being able to be taken care of, either at home or in an institution sometimes becomes necessary and essential. It is not that the persons requiring the care need to be in a hospital, in a tertiary care hospital, but they need to be sometimes in a facility where they can get special services or to get services at home. The home care is also long-term care but it is not in an institution. The home care can be chronic care as well, but not in an institution. However, we use the terms to mean, home care means being taken care of in your home and long-term care we sort of have attributed to the care inside of an institution, whereas you could have long-term care at home as well.

I want to concentrate on this a bit today because I know government says that it does care and it certainly has made some improvements to home care. For example, in this year's Budget we have new money with regard to home care. Some of that started in December of 2009. This Budget has honoured the thing of putting more money into home care so that people can do much better now than they used to be able to do – some people. I think it is important to say some people can do better now than they were able to do before December of 2009. People who require assistance, people who need home care but who do not have large pockets of money, some of them are now able to access much more money support from the government than they were able to do before.

Why do I keep emphasizing some? Well, the reason I keep emphasizing some, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a cap on the assistance that is allowable. There is a subsidy, and people can apply for that subsidy but they have to have an assessment done and the financial assessment will show which box they fit in. The government believes that doing the subsidy this way is the best way to do it, but I want us to look at what we know about that subsidy and the assessment.

For example, Mr. Speaker, prior to December of 2009, if an individual had a monthly income of $2,504 they would have had to pay $758 a month for their home care. That would be the maximum that they would have to pay if they were requiring maximum home care, $758 a month. Now with the change in the assessment and the change in the way the subsidy is determined, somebody with that same income now only has to pay - and I am going to say only with quotation marks around it – "only" has to pay $375 a month. Well $375 a month comes out to $3,750, and when you have an income of just about $30,000, $3,750 out of that is a lot of money. It is 10 per cent of the annual income of a person. That is a huge amount of money for somebody who is only earning $30,000 –or only living on $30,000, because that person most likely is elderly or has a chronic condition and has many, many other expenses attached to their health care that may not be covered that they are paying for out of their pockets. Now this is really unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. I have spoken about this in the House before and I will continue to speak about it, that when it comes to health care nobody should be punished. Nobody should be suffering. When you have a cap, when you have a limit to a subsidy somebody is always going to suffer.

The people who are on the other side of the cap will be paying exorbitantly. They will be paying what they have always been paying, which is way beyond what they should pay. That is why a cap does not work, because a cap will always have some people on the edge outside of the cap who are just as badly off financially as people on the inside part of the cap. That is a reality, and that is why caps do not treat people equitably. Caps make some people suffer.

The other thing with our system, or with the level of subsidies that are being offered by the government, is that the cap is too high. So even for the people who are eligible, the cap is too high. If you have to pay 10 per cent of your income on home care, that is still too high, along with all the other costs that one has.

So, it is disturbing when I see government promoting this and acting as if it is so wonderful. The language of the releases that have come out with the Budget talk about the government making significant investments to strengthen long-term care and community supports. Yet, when we look at it, the investment that they are talking about, and even the use of the word investment is bothersome, what they are they are talking about is expenditures - expenditures for health care. Yes, that is investment in people, but I do not understand why they use this business language. It is government doing what it should be doing, taking care of people. If we are taking care of people, we are going to be looking at the program that we are putting together from the perspective of what is really going to help people. Having a cap does not help everybody, and having limits to what somebody has to pay is good, but if the limits are too high, that is not good either. When we look at programs elsewhere in Canada who have full home care programs, they are more generous in the break that they are giving to people with their subsidy. The percentage that is covered by government is more generous than the percentage that is covered here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So when I look at the Budget, yes, I see some new money going into home care. I see more people getting subsidization, which is good. I see some people who had to do co-pay before, not having to do co-pay now, and that is good, but we still have too many people who cannot afford the co-pay. They will do it because they have to do it, but it is causing hardship, and we have too many people who are outside the cap.

So when it comes to home care, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to see this government doing is presenting a plan that would say, for example, within two years we hope to have everybody who requires home care covered. Tell us that is what they are going to do, set down a two-year or a four-year plan and say this is where we are headed and this is what we are going to do because that is the right thing to do. We are going to do it because it is the thing that we should be doing. We are going to do it because we believe home care is part of health care which is a universal program.

I have used this example before, Mr. Speaker, if you and I go into the emergency room at the same time, nobody looks at us and tries to figure out how much money one or the other of us has and what kind of care we are going to get based on that. No, because when we go into an emergency room we are accessing our health care program and both of us are going to be treated the same.

It has to be that way with home care as well, Mr. Speaker, and the same way when we look at long-term care. We have to be treating people equitably. Not everybody has the same abilities; therefore, we have to make sure that everybody is taken care of fully. When it comes to health care, we believe that we do that through universal access to health care and universal coverage. We have been eroding that in lots of ways in our country, I am well aware, but there are many, many of us who are fighting further erosion of that principle in our health care system. One way to fight it is to make sure that in something like home care we recognize that home care, in actual fact, is part of our health care system and we bring it in.

A good home care program – government keeps using the word investment and it is looking at its expenditures in social programs, its expenditures in educational programs as investments. If they want to use that language, good, so I will give them something to think about. A good home care program will actually save taxpayers money by keeping people out of hospital and nursing homes. It really is an investment from that perspective if more money is put into home care because you are going to save the money in another area, Mr. Speaker.

It is the same way with long-term care; we do not have sufficient beds in long-term care facilities. One of the phenomena that we deal with in this Province - we are not the only ones but right here it has become a real problem and that has been identified - you get somebody who needs long-term care going from their home to hospital because of an acute condition. When the hospital gets ready to discharge them, they cannot discharge them because the person cannot go back home; the person needs long-term care. We have many beds that are being held up in tertiary care hospitals because we have people requiring long-term care and there are insufficient numbers of beds for people requiring the long-term care.

In case my colleagues in the House think I am making this up, I was actually quite pleased recently to see a report that just came out from Eastern Health. The report that just came out from Eastern Health was called the Patient Flow Study, and it was released on March 18. That study determined that there was a lack of community-based resources to provide home care services and that lack of community-based resources to provide home care services was affecting Eastern Health's ability to discharge patients to their communities. The people who did this report for Eastern Health are convinced that without a fully funded community-based model of home care support Eastern Health will not be successful in achieving length of stay targets and its commitments to the community and the Province. In other words, if you do not have enough beds out in the community and enough supports in the community for somebody to move from a tertiary care hospital out into the community, the hospital then is not able to serve people as it should be able to serve them.

This continuum that we have from tertiary care, to home care, to long-term care, and I am not sure if continuum is the word, but all of these different facets of care is something that needs to recognized, but it needs to be recognized not just in words - the Budget document will say that all of that is essential but what the Budget does not do is put adequate resources into the system so that, in actual fact, we are taking care of people, putting adequate resources into the system so that everybody benefits, not just some people. This is one of the real concerns.

Another issue, of course, which would be a real investment by government, is the need for better wages and supported training for home care workers. The larger group of people who are paying taxes, the better it is for our economy. Right now, I can assure you there are many people who are home care workers who probably do not have incomes large enough to be eligible to pay taxes. So, if you really want to invest, if government really wants to invest, Mr. Speaker, and they keep using the word investment, then see putting money into a home care program not as an expense but as an investment; an investment because the more people who are working for a higher wage, the more tax income is going to come in and that does benefit the economy. We also will have healthier people. We will have healthier workers and we will have healthier people because more people will be able to access home care workers. Right now, that is one of the issues in our Province, is people require home care, people are assessed and it is said they should have home care but then they have great, great difficulty in accessing home care. So this is very, very difficult, Mr. Speaker.

Right now, government provides bursaries and wage subsidies to early childhood educators. We heard the minister today talk about that; the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services talk about that today in the House. That is really good. What has happened because of the bursaries and wage subsidies to early childhood educators, more of them have been able to gain skills to work with children and more of them are staying in the sector. With the increase that has happened, I hope that more of them will stay in. Just imagine if government also provided bursaries and wage subsidies to home care workers, because home care workers are in need of training and good home care workers recognize their need for training.

Imagine what would happen in our home care system if we had number one, better wages, and number two, we had bursaries – bursaries that help people get trained. We would have more people wanting to go into the home care system, and that in and of itself would become an investment. So government uses the word investment but then they do not do what is necessary to really make their policies true investments.

There are other things that have to happen with regard to home care that this Budget missed, Mr. Speaker, and it will probably be my last point. One of the things that we should not have is taxation on home care. Right now, we have taxation on unsubsidized home care, and there is both provincial and federal – and we cannot touch the federal, I know, although I am aware of MPs who are fighting it in Ottawa. We need to get rid of the provincial sales tax on unsubsidized home care because basically that means we are taxing health care. It is not acceptable for governments to make money on unsubsidized home care by charging sales tax and yet this is something this government has not done anything about. It does not seem to be on their radar screen at all, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing that I think this government should be doing is that it should legislate home care standards, as they have done with long-term care standards. When it comes to long-term care facilities there are standards that have to be met, whether the facility is a public facility or a private facility, but unfortunately when it comes to home care standards there are no standards. There is nothing that government can use in any meaningful way to monitor what is happening out there with home care agencies.

These are just some of the issues, Mr. Speaker, that I see this government not focusing sufficiently on, both in the past and in their current Budget. I do not see a plan for home care and long-term care. We have been waiting for one. We have been waiting for it now for almost two years from the Department of Health and Community Services. They keep telling us they are working on it and yet they put out another Budget, another Budget without a plan for home care and long-term care. So if this government is really serious about investing in our health care system, and in this aspect of our health care system, present us with a plan that is both a plan that deals with the social issues as well as a plan with the economic issues.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is all that I will say for today, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to have this opportunity this afternoon to speak on Budget 2010. As we know, every year the Minister of Finance brings in a Budget, a document that provides a picture of how we spend our money, really last year and a forecast of how we are going to spend it in the year to come. As usual, being a money bill, Mr. Speaker, there is some latitude given about how and what we might speak about.

This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for about half my time I guess and talk about the Budget and the pre-consultations that took place and that I attended in Grand Falls and in Gander on February 1, but I also wanted some time to zero in on some of the things that have been happening in my district. Before I do, Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a few minutes to recognize the volunteers in our Province.

Last year was volunteer recognition week, and the Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector was engaged last week in many speaking opportunities and many awards presentations and hopping around the Province and thanking volunteers, and I want to join with him to thank the many volunteers throughout our Province who give of their time on a daily and a weekly and a monthly basis. Mr. Speaker, whether we go to a dinner or some town day or whether it is a church organization, our firemen, our firewomen, town councils, people raising money for cancer research through the different relays, Janeway telethons, anti-violence campaigns, all of these things take place because the people in our Province give of their time and effort so that we can all benefit.

I heard the minister say last week 197,000 people volunteer in this Province. That is about 40 per cent of our population giving 35 million hours. I was thinking, Mr. Speaker, with the minimum wage in July going to be $10 an hour, if we paid them the minimum wage we are talking an annual investment of $350 million. I would argue, Mr. Speaker, most of them give of their time and they are not asking to be paid.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the pre-Budget consultations; I visited Gander and Grand Falls and took in the sessions when the Minister of Finance was in our area. I took some notes, minister, on what you said and what the people at the different sessions said. I reviewed them a couple of days ago. One thing I noticed, the minister started off and he sort of gave us the big picture, the kind of challenges that we are facing and a little bit of an overview of the budgetary process. Then he talked about the fact that we are dealing with decreased revenue right now compared to last year, the year before.

Some of the sources of revenue decreased, one of the biggest sources was in the offshore royalties. Of course, we know what has happened to the price of oil and how it has fluctuated and also the Canadian dollar, how that is impacted, but $406 million down in offshore royalties the minister shared. In terms of personal income tax, Mr. Speaker, down $105 million, and the mining tax - because of the lower price for commodities and that - our revenue that we took in, $118 million less.

The minister also shared the fact that as a Province while we have paid down our debt from $12 billion down to approximately $8 billion, we still have the highest net debt in the country. On a per person basis in this Province, we are looking at a debt per person of about $15,000 right now. Now that is down from $23,000 per person, but we still have a fairly high debt. Coupled with that, we have the fact that economists are saying that while the economy is not going to shrink in the near future, growth is going to be soft.

So the Minister of Finance and the Premier and Cabinet have tough decisions to make when you look at there was a shrinking revenue last year, but the number of asks have not diminished, Mr. Speaker. While he shared that government would meet as many asks as possible, meet as many requests as possible, that sometimes some things are not honoured. People cannot get everything.

I listened, Mr. Speaker, to four different groups at that session, and I just want to share with the people in the House today what four of the requests were. The first request that I heard was from the mayors of several municipalities. The mayor of Gander was there, Mayor Elliott, and Mayor Hawkins from Grand Falls-Windsor, and the President of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Hallett. One of the things that they asked for, the request was this: They asked for increased municipal infrastructure spending. I heard these people ask for it; I had also heard mayors in my own district ask for it.

Now, when I look at the Budget, Mr. Speaker, I read the answer. The answer is in the Budget document, and it reads like this: Provincial funding of $135.5 million for municipal infrastructure projects. That is going to leverage funding of $53.4 million, raising the total to $188.9 million – 22 per cent higher than the previous year. So, this is an example of how the consultation sessions work. The Minister of Finance goes around the Province, gets input, and gets ideas that people share with them, and where possible, the answers are reflected in the Budget.

Another individual in Grand Falls-Windsor, in the evening session, Mr. Speaker, by the name of Vince Mackenzie, and I guess some of the members here for Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans and Exploits region and that, they would know Vince Mackenzie. He works with fire and emergency services there. He did a presentation, and he asked the Finance Minister for more money for the acquisition of fire trucks, and for increased funding for fire equipment. Now, as I perused through the Budget, I found the answer. The answer was written like this: Increased funding to municipalities for fire truck acquisition to $2.5 million, and $7.6 million over the next four years; as well, $1 million or $2.5 million over the next four years to upgrade and replace critical firefighting equipment. So we had the ask at the consultation session, the answer was in the Budget. Now I just want to concentrate on another couple of these.

There was a lady – and I believe this was at the Grand Falls-Windsor session again – by the name of Darlene Rideout. She is with the Central Housing and Homelessness Network. Her ask, Mr. Speaker, was for more affordable and accessible housing. The answer again I found in Budget 2010. When I looked through the Budget, I see the Minister of Finance has stated $6.8 million is going to be given for affordable housing programs. That is going to give 230 rental units for seniors and persons with disabilities and persons requiring supportive services. Again, another example of the ask, the request at the consultation; the answer is in the Budget.

There is just one more – and I might also say, with respect to affordable housing, we have been fortunate to have three such housing projects taking place in my own District of Lewisporte with an investment of over $1 million. One more, Mr. Speaker, a lady by the name of Brenda Drover-Vardy, and the Minister of Finance might remember her at the Gander session, and she brought in a young couple with her. Her ask, she went through the whole benefits of breast-feeding, and her ask was for funds to support a breast-feeding program in this Province. When I look at the Budget again, Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Finance has said, $159,000 announced to support a provincial breast-feeding strategic plan. So Mr. Speaker, there are some wonderful examples of how things are asked for in the consultation sessions, and they end up in the Budget, and I am so pleased to be able to report them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to spend some time talking about my district. I want to zero in on some of the things, actually, that the Leader of the Opposition has been saying. She has gotten up in the House of Assembly in the fall session, and right now in the spring session, and she has taken some pretty big swipes at the Member for Lewisporte. She said some things that are not very nice, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I want to tell you some of her information, a lot of her information, is inaccurate. What I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that she left out a significant amount a detail. She left out a lot of information - stuff she did not talk about, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Nowhere when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking – I have been a member here for two-and-a-half years now, working hard with my own government, working and lobbying for issues in my district. With respect to roadwork, Mr. Speaker, I am just going to – she did not talk to the people in Campbellton about the street upgrading, in Horwood and Gander Bay where $1.5 million has been spent. She has not talked to anything about Norris Arm North where we have about $1 million spent, Stoneville - in Brown's Arm we have Clyde's Lane done. The TCH between Glenwood and Lewisporte last year about $4 million spent there, Mr. Speaker. Church Road in Port Albert, Gander Bay from Horwood to Victoria Cove, Horwood, Rodgers Cove, and Norris Arm North again - I would say, Mr. Speaker, I am almost afraid to say it because some other members might be a bit jealous, I would say about $10 million was spent in my district in the last two-and-a-half years in roadwork.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Now Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition was up being so critical, she did not say anything about the fact that in Lewisporte, since I became elected, we spent $5 million on renovation, upgrade, and we now have a very modern, new stadium.

Mr. Speaker, in my district, when I have heard the Leader of the Opposition be so critical, she did not say anything about municipal capital works projects; nothing about the water system in Norris Arm; nothing about Jumper's Brook down in Birchy Bay; nothing about the water and sewer system in Birchy Bay, an investment of about $1.3 million; nothing about $1 million being spent in Comfort Cove on a water and sewer system upgrade, $850,000 being spent in Stoneville; nothing about the street upgrades in Campbellton; nothing of $5 million-plus spent in my district in the last two-and-a-half years in municipal capital works projects. She did not say anything about $750,000 that our government gave to an entrepreneur for a mink farm. Nothing about the affordable housing projects, no.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what she did talk about, she talked about the decision back in late August, September, when our government said that we were going to, because of a realignment of services, we were going to move the lab and X-ray clinic out of Lewisporte and we were going to actually do services in Grand Falls or Gander. Now, she has been highly critical of that decision.

MR. KENNEDY: Who has?

MR. VERGE: The Leader of the Opposition, I say to the Minister of Health. The Leader of the Opposition has been highly critical, and she has had a lot to say but she did not tell the whole story. She did not tell the whole story.

Mr. Speaker, she got up here and one thing she said, I will tell you, that is factually incorrect; one thing she said back in the fall, she said the Member for Lewisporte was frightened to death. Now, Mr. Speaker, obviously I was not frightened to the point of death or I would not be here. No, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, I am going to reflect on the decision and what happened in Lewisporte back in September for a few minutes. I stand here and I say, yes, a decision came down in which we were going to realign services, the people in my district were very upset by it. It was a very tough time, Mr. Speaker, for me as the member in that district. Yes, it was an anxious time. I took a lot of stress over it, in dealing with the people. I was supportive of government, I was supportive of my government and the great things that we have done, but I was also understanding and supportive of the people in that decision.

What I did not do, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that I back-pedalled. Well, Mr. Speaker, there was no back-pedalling because I can tell you right now, that from the time I got elected, when the current Minister of Business was the Minister of Health, he can tell you that I met with him on several occasions, and with people from my district, the town council and the chamber of commerce representatives, and we talked about the health facility that was going in Lewisporte. We talked about what we wanted there, what we wanted to see there, and we moved the file along.

When the previous Minister of Health, Mr. Oram, was in there, he came out and he met with the people, and I talked with him about the file. I continued to talk with him, despite what the Leader of the Opposition might say when she says I back-pedalled. Never once did I backpedal. Never once did I stop lobbying for the rights of the people in my district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: As soon as the current Minister of Health was appointed, Mr. Speaker, guess what? I was on the phone with the current Minister of Health. What did he do? The Leader of the Opposition did not say anything about this, but on October 14 he came out, the present Minister of Health came out. He met with me, he met with the members of the Concerned Citizens' Coalition group led by Reverend Elliott and the town, and we sat around in the town council chambers, and they did their presentation. They talked about what it was that they really wanted to see in a health facility. The Minister of Health listened. He went back to his officials, they did some looking, they did some number crunching, they did some redesigning, they looked at possible ways to save some money, and guess what, Mr. Speaker? On October 23, the Minister of Health came back to my district, and he came back with an announcement that we were going to have a new health facility. A brand new health facility!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: We were going to have a lab and X-ray clinic in that facility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: And we were going to have an emergency after-hours clinic in that facility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, she is over there talking now, she is squawking now, and she has been squawking for a while, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: She has been on her squawk box for far too long, and she has been up on her feet squawking about the Member for Lewisporte. Now, she did not want to be confused with the facts, Mr. Speaker. Who are the winners? The people in Lewisporte District are the winners.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: We ended up with a much better facility than we even started with, Mr. Speaker, and I am very, very glad to say I am very appreciative of the work that the current Minister of Health, the Premier and Cabinet, I am very appreciative of the fact that the decision that was made in the first place, that decision ended up being reversed and the real winners are the people in Lewisporte District.

So, yes, I did work with my own government. I worked with them, I lobbied, and I talked with the ministers. Not once did either of the ministers that I consulted with, not once did either one of them refuse to take my calls. Not once did they refuse to talk to me, but they were very open, very accessible, and at the end of the day, we ended up with a project, number one!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and with that I will take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, earlier today the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is making a point of order.

MS JONES: Earlier today the Minister of Environment questioned comments that I attributed to her around the environmental liabilities at Abitibi when she was questioned in the House of Assembly, she asked me to produce the Hansard. Here is the Hansard, Mr. Speaker, and I table it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I knew there was no point of order when I sat down for her to make the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, before I put forward a motion to adjourn for the day I would just like to remind the hon. members that the Resource Committee will review the Estimates of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation at 6:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, further to that, the Social Services Committee will review the Estimates of the Department of Health and Community Services at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that this House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is properly moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned until 2:00 o'clock tomorrow, being Wednesday.

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