The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start today's session, I want to welcome back to the House former Pages Shelby Marshall and Ryan Steeves. They are going to be joined this session by Devin Drover and Michael Cook as our two new Pages.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Those of you who have no doubt noticed as we came into the House today, we are very delighted to have back with us, for this week, our former Sergeant-at-Arms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much for helping us out this week.

Today we have members' statements from the member – the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Premier have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the legacy of a former member of this House of Assembly and the father of the current Member for Cape St. Francis, Kevin Parsons Sr., who passed away yesterday after a lifetime of exemplary public service.

A proud son of Flatrock, Kevin Parsons made the town his lifelong home and dedicated himself to serving the people of the municipality, the region, and eventually the entire Province in a variety of roles and professions: as a fisherman and a seal hunter, beginning those careers when he was just a teen; as a police officer with what was then known as the Newfoundland Constabulary; as a federal firefighter based at Pleasantville and on the St. John's Harbour fire tug; as an entrepreneur, Mr. Speaker, who established Flatrock Trucking which enabled local fishermen to get their product to market; as a school board member for two decades; as the town's very first mayor; as a Member of the House of Assembly for the former District of St. John's East Extern, and as a member of the Provincial Cabinet.

One of his proudest moments as mayor was to host the blessing of the fleet by Pope John Paul I during his visit to Newfoundland and Labrador. Once, as a young man, Kevin and his fellow fishermen saved the life of a drowning American airman who crashed off Flatrock while returning to his aircraft carrier. It was a moment of selflessness and heroism, Mr. Speaker, that defined his life. He was an example to all of us and he will be greatly missed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, as the Official Opposition, we are saddened to hear the loss and the passing of Mr. Parsons. It was just last week actually, when I saw Kevin in the hallway and asked him how his dad was doing. I know there was tremendous strain on the family for quite some time now. Kevin, himself, has told me that he went to feed his father on many occasions. We are all saddened to hear the news today.

As a former MHA and Mayor of Flatrock, we all recognize the important contribution that past members have done. They have laid a tremendous foundation for all of us as MHAs. That foundation has created many benefits that we all are proud of, we all take advantage of and use each and every day.

We are saddened to hear of the loss and our thoughts and prayers go out to the Parsons family today. We will be talking I am sure in the next few days with Mr. Parsons. As I said, we are saddened to hear of this loss and our thoughts and prayers are with the family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am honoured to stand with my colleagues, the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition, on behalf of my party in bringing recognition to the late Kevin Parsons. I did not know Mr. Parsons personally but I do know of his reputation in the House of Assembly, a fine MHA.

On behalf of my party and myself, I do want to pass my condolences on to the current Member of the House, Kevin Parsons, his son, to his wife Mabel, and to his family. I know that he will definitely be missed by them.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Independent member, by leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to pass on condolences. I knew Mr. Parsons – and the current Member for Cape St. Francis has followed his father's footsteps, not only as the member for that area but as a gentleman and a fine individual. Mr. Parsons was indeed a gentleman, a fine individual. Anybody who knew him knew his ethics, knew of his personality and the gentleman he was.

Condolences to Kevin and his family.

MR. SPEAKER: Today I want to acknowledge members' statements for the Member for the District of Kilbride; the Member for the District of Torngat Mountains; the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the Member for the District of Humber West; the Member for the District of Baie Verte – Springdale; and the Member for the District of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

The Member for the District of Kilbride.

MR. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to recognize a Grade 12 student from my district as one of the best young golfers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Raylene Mackey is the reigning provincial juvenile division champion for this Province. At age fourteen, she won the Provincial Bantam Division golf championship, and this past year she captured the junior division overall championship on the Tely Tour, after playing tournaments in Corner Brook, Grand Falls, and PEI, as well as participating in the Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games. She has been asked to represent this Province on our Canada Games Team for 2013 in Quebec.

Mackey is an avid golfer who usually shoots in the high eighties and the low nineties, and her personal best is an eighty-one; she golf's most days during golf season.

Mr. Speaker, however, Raylene's life is not all golf. She is a top student at St. Kevin's High, where she serves as the Vice-President of Allied Youth. She sits on the student council and participates in the school choir and band. She is a volunteer with her parish youth group, participating in annual Christmas galas. She has represented Goulds three times in Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador competitions.

I ask all hon. members to join me in commending Raylene Mackey for all her achievements.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the athletes from the District of Torngat Mountains who participated in the 2013 Labrador Winter Games.

Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the organizers of the Games, who did a marvelous job in preparation and execution of the Games. The North Coast communities really demonstrated their supremacy in volleyball, badminton, table tennis, darts, and the Labrathon, by placing first, second, or third in all these events.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to congratulate the achievements of some individual athletes who reigned supreme following the closing ceremonies: Mr. Trent Pottle, Top Male Athlete; and Ms Holly Anderson, Top Female Athlete for Torngat Mountains. The community of Nain, Mr. Speaker, was recognized as the most improved team and the community of Rigolet for the best traditional dress.

Mr. Speaker, the athletes of the North Coast has once again shown that isolation is not an obstacle to athletic achievement, and to be in attendance to witness the community spirit and determination was truly a pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the organizers and athletes of the 2013 thirtieth anniversary Labrador Winter Games.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today in this hon. House to congratulate the Town of Bay Roberts on their fifteenth Annual Festival of Lights celebrations.

This nationally recognized festival features the only illumination park in the Province playing to songs of the season with over 50,000 lights. The town is a two-time winner Winter Lights Champion in the category of towns with a population of 5,000 to 10,000.

The town this year was recognized by readersdigest.ca as one of the ten most festive communities in Canada. The Downhome Magazine featured the town and the festival in its December 2012 edition.

The festival is making the Town of Bay Roberts a holiday destination for many to see. The festival features two theme parks, one of the largest nativity collections east of Ontario, the boat lighting in Port de Grave, a live nativity performance, light tours, and much more.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Town of Bay Roberts, the organizations, and the volunteers who continue to make this festival a must-see in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRANTER: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the Senior Boys Basketball Team from Corner Brook Regional High on their most recent impressive victory at the Hall of Fame Cup held in St. John's.

The Hall of Fame Cup is a Newfoundland and Labrador Basketball Association tournament comprising the top eight teams in the Province.

The Corner Brook Regional High Titans went undefeated throughout the tournament and held an impressive win against Gonzaga High Viking, 72-63, for the gold medal. This is only the second time in history that a team from outside the Avalon has won this prestigious event.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating: Daniel Foo, Ryan Harnett, Nathan Burt, Jay Warford, Graham Kenney, Adam Payne, Daniel Humber, Jordan Penney, Adam Bursey, Jake McIntyre, Josh Hughes, Ryan Park, and coaches, Frank Foo and Mark Thackray, on winning this tournament and representing Corner Brook Regional High in a very positive light.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Baie Verte – Springdale.

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a difficult task to win this prestigious award two years in a row, but not for this person. On November 17, at Springdale's Volunteer Firefighters' forty-ninth annual celebrations, Ms Kem Bouzanne was presented with the Roy Manuel Volunteer Firefighter of the Year Award.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise in this hon. house today to congratulate Kem for her unselfish commitment. She is an effective firefighter, ready to meet an unwelcome emergency. In the words of Fire Chief Rennie Normore, "Kem has given countless hours to the Department, going over and above regular calls and practice training expected from every firefighter."

My wife and I had the pleasure to attend the well-organized event and chat with the unsung heroes of our communities. They faithfully and unselfishly fulfill their volunteer duties without much fanfare, but with much pride.

I invite all colleagues to join me in applauding Kem for her outstanding service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to recognize the teams and coordinators from the District of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair and certainly all towns and teams in Labrador who participated in the 2013 Labrador Winter Games.

For the past thirty years these Games have fostered friendships, unforgettable memories, and many triumphant moments; 2013 was no different. The spirit of these Games is unique, as it focuses on culture, family, and determination. I was proud to attend and to witness the athletes push hard for the gold and to share in the excitement of all those involved.

Today I want to recognize two participants from my district who were chosen as top athletes for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair: Sarah Sooley from Port Hope Simpson for her gold medal in the Northern Games and Preston Morris from Cartwright for his silver medals in ball hockey and the snowshoe biathlon.

I would also like to congratulate the community of Pinsent's Arm for receiving the Most Spirited Team award of the Games, and also, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the top three teams for their strong performance. It was a nail-biter to the end, with Labrador City taking the cup and Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Cartwright following close behind in second and third place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations to all involved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight a tremendous cultural and sporting event that concluded in Happy Valley-Goose Bay on Saturday evening: the Labrador Winter Games.

This year marks thirty years since the first Labrador Winter Games, and I had the honour on behalf of the Premier of officially opening the Games on March 3.

Featuring competitors from twenty-two communities across Labrador, these are no ordinary Games, as they combine both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal culture and tradition in a showcase of skill, love of sport, and fellowship.

With a mixture of culturally themed events like dog sled races and the Labrathon – which tests competitors on traditional trapping skills – to more conventional sports such as table tennis, volleyball, and cross-country skiing, athletes compete for community points that are tallied to determine which community will get to take home the coveted Labrador Cup.

A highlight of each Labrador Winter Games is the Northern Games, which consists of two nights of Inuit Games that showcase strength, agility, and sheer will, including challenging events like the one-foot high jump, where athletes must stand on one foot, jump to kick a target, and then land on the same foot.

The provincial government is proud to be the primary sponsor of the Labrador Winter Games. As part of the Northern Strategic Plan, $500,000 was provided through the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. A great deal of on-the-ground organizational support was also provided through our Labrador Affairs Office.

Often called the Labrador Olympics, these Games showcase our Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage, our outdoor lifestyle, and our love of energetic and friendly competition.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating Labrador City for taking home the Labrador Cup as the top point gatherers for the 2013 Labrador Winter Games, along with Alf Parsons of Labrador City and Rhonda Lawrence of Wabush for being named top male and female athletes of the Games.

I also ask members to join me in congratulating the organizing committee, the many volunteers, and, of course, all the spirited athletes who continue to make these Games one of the premier sporting events in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the minister for a copy of his statement and I thank him for his involvement in the Labrador Winter Games, and also his colleague, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the Member for Lake Melville, along with our leader, the Member for Humber Valley, the Member for Torngat Mountains, the Leader of the Third Party, and some of the caucus in the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, it was good to have such a turnout of teams and communities from all over Labrador, tremendous sponsors, and support from the business community, as well, that certainly has to be acknowledged. A lot of work goes into getting these Games ready. In thirty years I have attended all the Games. I have been an athlete, I have been a reporter, I have been a guest, and I have been a cheerleader, Mr. Speaker, for these Games. I can honestly tell you that over thirty years I have not seen anything in Labrador that certainly signifies the fellowship, the friendship, the support of communities and the spirit of what Labrador is really about from both a cultural perspective and in any other sense of the word. It is always a pleasure to be there and to be involved in it.

This year, Mr. Speaker, the Games, true to its nature, brought together many family teams. There were communities like Mud Lake, Pinsent's Arm, and Lodge Bay with less than 100 people in their communities who had full teams. There were people on the teams in age range from eleven to seventy-five who were athletes competing. I think that, in itself, tells you what these Games are all about.

We were lucky this year to have Rick Mercer join us. I would ask everyone in the Province to tune in, not tomorrow night but next Tuesday, to the Rick Mercer Show as you see the Labrador Winter Games being showcased right across the country. I think all of those who watch it are going to want to put it on their bucket list for 2016. We would invite them to come and share in these Games with all of us in Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In watching the coverage of the Labrador Games this week I think I was kind of thankful that I was not a participant knowing that I probably would have hurt myself in some of the competitions that were there. It looks like they had a lot of fun, Mr. Speaker, and I want to congratulate all participants in showing the people of the Island portion of the Province, particularly, part of the spirit that evokes Labrador.

I know there was an awful lot of cultural significance in the blending of cultures that was there. I just want to say how good it was to see some of the coverage on CBC and in one way share a little bit of Labrador with the people of the Island portion of the Province.

Well done on the part of government for their investment in these particular Games, and well done again to all the participants. Bravo to all participants in the Games this time around.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to acknowledge the continued success of the RCMP's annual Klondike Night. This year's impressive event on March 1 marked the thirtieth year of the fundraiser which has contributed significantly to so many worthwhile causes in Newfoundland and Labrador. Over that time, Mr. Speaker, Klondike Night has raised approximately $900,000 for various non-profit organizations throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Each year, different charities are chosen to receive the monies raised from the event, with past groups such as Newfoundland and Labrador Down Syndrome Society, the Seniors Resource Centre, the Children's Wish Foundation, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Brain Injury Association all being recipients. This year's beneficiaries are the Citizens' Crime Prevention Association and Mothers Against Drunk Diving.

Mr. Speaker, Klondike Night has come a long way since the $3,700 that was raised at the initial event in 1983. That figure has increased on an almost annual basis and last year the total had risen to almost $70,000. To make this event a particular success, donations are collected for silent auctions, spin wheels, and door prizes and throughout the night patrons have the opportunity to listen to live music and play games of chance. Besides an evening of entertainment, all those who attend know that their donations will go directly to those in our community who are in need of assistance.

I would like to extend congratulations to the RCMP Klondike Night Committee on putting off another great event this year and a special thank you should also be extended to the 508 Caribou Air Cadets, whose assistance was very much appreciated in managing the coat check and other things throughout the event.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government continues to support the RCMP as a vital part of our law enforcement services as evidenced last year by our new twenty-year policing agreement. I am extremely proud of their endeavours as they continue making such worthwhile contributions to the people of our Province.

At this time, I ask all hon. members to join me in commending the RCMP for their outstanding commitment to raising funds for so many charitable organizations over the past thirty years in Newfoundland and Labrador and we look forward to future continued success.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

We, too, would like to thank and congratulate the RCMP on their successful Klondike Night. In my part of the Province we certainly have a very close and long relationship with the RCMP and their members. I know individual RCMP members are never off the clock. They do what they can to serve their community both on and off the clock every time.

Klondike Night has supported many worthy charities in this Province. I expect they will be supporting many more in the future and their dedication to community is exemplary. This is just one example of the kind of good work that they are doing in communities all across this Province.

To the RCMP, I say, Mr. Speaker, well done.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I commend the RCMP for the many ways they serve the people of this Province. Well done for the money they raised and well done to the many generous people who supported this event. The people of the Province have always known the great work not-for-profits do and have always given generously to that work which is so crucial to the people of the Province.

Now this government on the other hand has shown its opinion of NGOs with funding cuts to groups like the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities and to groups delivering EAS programs.

To sum up: shame on this government. Bravo, RCMP.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday, the Premier was in the news saying that the predicted $44 million surplus for 2014 was news to her; well, it was right there on page 12 in the Budget Speech.

I ask the Premier: How did you miss this in your own Budget document?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that I misspoke on Thursday. It is interesting that such a question gets posed to me given the fact that we have demands coming from the Opposition last Thursday as to when we knew that there were was going to be a deficit in the upcoming year, 2013-2014. That was also on page 12 of that same Budget document, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Yes, on the same page, the deficit is actually, I think, probably going to be about four times larger what you are anticipating now, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday, the Premier was in the media saying that there would be no more cuts until the Budget was released. Meanwhile, an hour later there were seventeen more people laid off.

I ask the Premier: Why are you saying no more cuts publicly, yet behind closed doors we are seeing people laid off again?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, here in the House of Assembly on Thursday we were chastised by members of the Opposition for doing these cuts in dribs and drabs, leading up until the Budget announcement when we knew that these cuts would culminate in that document. On their advice we decided to hold the cuts until we got to a Budget announcement – Budget Day, Mr. Speaker. There were a number of layoffs that had already been actioned in the system that were unable to be pulled back, Mr. Speaker, but there has not been any other announcement since that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The problem is that when you were making the announcement, people were expecting that there would be no more cuts, at least until the Budget. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Premier said that there would be no more cuts to front-line workers in health care and education; meanwhile, the Minister of Finance is quoted as saying that he hopes that they would be able to leave as many people as possible in the front-line health care and education services.

I ask the Premier: Why did you flip-flop and put front-line health care workers on the chopping block?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with here in the Province is a forecast of a serious deficit if we do not take appropriate measures. The priority of this government has always been to protect front-line services, and that is no different in this exercise we are engaged in at the moment.

We have come a long way from 2003 when we have rebuilt the economy of this Province. We have reduced our debt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: We have had an explosion in the growth of jobs. The highest wages in our history, Mr. Speaker, are being paid in this Province today. We are going to continue to be responsible and not get us back to where you had us in 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, with the type of mismanagement we have seen, it will not take long before we will be in a worse situation, and you have missed the best opportunity that we have had in our history. As I said on Thursday: since the last three years, over $7 billion worth in oil royalties – and now, what do we have to show for it? We are looking at $4 billion deficit in three years.

So, Mr. Speaker, as recently as 2010, there have been landslides in the area of Muskrat Falls. Any landslide activity in the vicinity of the dam at Muskrat Falls threatens the structural integrity. So we understand that Nalcor will be conducting additional testing on the North Spur this spring to better understand what potential effects this would have.

So I ask the Premier: With such a risk, why was this work not completed before sanctioning?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The North Spur at Muskrat Falls has been the subject of multiple studies from a geotechnical perspective. The geotech conditions are certainly very well understood and they were the topic of much discussion during the generation environmental assessment; the plan is deemed to be reliable and to be cost effective. The engineering work will now proceed. The conceptual plan was done; they will now proceed to do the engineering work that is going to be planned this year. Then, they will be executed next year, and the work will be completed prior to impoundment, which will be done later on during the project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the uncertainty around those landslides and the potential effects that would have in that area, it would seem to me that would be a risk you would want to see covered off before sanctioning. We also know that there has been a lot of activity in that area since 1978, and the questions around the Joint Panel Review have not been answered yet.

So, Mr. Speaker, at the same time as the Premier is predicting a $4 billion deficit over the next three years, she is pouring billions into Muskrat Falls. Just last week, Nalcor announced it would take $4 billion in long-term debt to finance 60 per cent to 70 per cent of Muskrat Falls.

So I ask the Premier: Before sanctioning, over $300 million was spent on Muskrat Falls; how much has been spent since December?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear the members of both Opposition parties attribute the spending of Muskrat Falls to our current operational budget, in which we are forecasting a deficit. We had a deficit this year; we are forecasting a deficit in 2013-2014.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP to stop pretending that they do not understand the fiscal structure of this Province. Muskrat Falls and the investment, the $245 million equity we made last year, equity investment in Muskrat Falls, has nothing to do with the deficit for this year or the forecasted deficit for next year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I asked a very simple question: How much have we spent on Muskrat Falls since December 2012, since sanctioning? I will say I look forward to the debate and the argument on the impact Muskrat Falls has on the deficit. The $664 million that came out of last year's Budget does affect the deficit. It might have an issue, a different argument on the debt, but how much have you spent since December?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will certainly get that number for the Leader of the Opposition, but let us begin with a few facts. What we have here is spin, spin, and spin, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there was $600 million set aside in the budgets of the Department of Natural Resources last year for Nalcor, investments in Muskrat Falls and our equity investment. Only $245 million of that money was transferred – a piece of information we would gladly have shared with you, if you had asked. So no $600 million last year put into Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker. It did not come from the current Budget. It did not contribute in any way to the deficit. It was an equity investment in Nalcor.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition parties are going to have to stop the spin and get to the facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, it is very clear we have known how much has been put into the Budget, but why can't we just answer the simple question? How much have you spent since sanctioning in December on Muskrat Falls? It is the biggest expenditure in the history of our Province, and you are telling me you do not know how much we have transferred since December.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as Premier of this Province, I do not do a daily accounting of expenditures. We transferred $245 million, not the $600 million that both parties opposite keep referring to.

If you want a monthly run on how much money is being spent, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we can arrange that. This government has been absolutely open and transparent about our involvement in Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker. I encourage both Opposition parties to do the same, stop the spin, and get to the facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: On a monthly basis in the fall of last year we asked, on a regular basis, what the monthly expenditures would be on Muskrat Falls, and we got the answers. Three months have passed now and we expect our government to be looking at the cash flow for the people of this Province, especially in the sight of where we are with the financial position of the Province.

Are you telling me that this government does not know how much they transferred on a monthly basis?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Natural Resources has transferred to the Muskrat Falls Project $245 million this year, 2012-2013. The budgeted amount was $664 million; the amount transferred this year has been $245 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just last week in this hon. House members were discussing the merits and gaps of new Animal Health and Protection Act.

Meanwhile, as of today, in Natuashish, dogs caught off leash are being destroyed. The government, Mr. Speaker, has seven regional veterinarians on staff.

I ask the minister: Will this government commit to sending a veterinarian into the communities to spay and neuter dogs to avoid this unfortunate situation from recurring?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What is happening in Natuashish is obviously a concern to all. They have a roaming dog problem. I understand that a young girl, a nine-year-old girl, was attacked by one of the dogs. The Band Council is taking the action they consider appropriate. We have been in touch with the RCMP; the RCMP are monitoring the situation.

The Chief Veterinary Officer has been in touch with the Band Council, and there have been many times in which we have offered aid in euthanasia, which they have rejected. We also have offered aid with litter control. It is my understanding the SPCAs from Happy Valley-Goose Bay and also from PEI have offered assistance in helping remove some of the animals outside of the community for adoption elsewhere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, just one year after announcing the new and improved dental plan, government is backsliding saying the program is too expensive. Dentists were given virtually no notice to notify these new patients that their dental work would have to be approved first.

I ask the minister: How can you justify cutting a successful program desperately needed by so many people?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that at least the member on the other side has acknowledged that we have a good dental health program in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: We have, in fact, one of the best programs in the country. That is a have, not a had, I would point out to the members opposite who are screaming something else across the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we had a program of $6.7 million, and that was our allocation for adult dental. Mr. Speaker, because nothing was done for all of the years that they were in government, there was a much larger uptake than anyone could have anticipated at $21 million. Our commitment, Mr. Speaker, is to see that program through to ensure that adults in this Province continue to have good adult dental care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: I would say for the record, you had a good plan, but it is not right now after that announcement last week. This government budgeted $6.7 million to provide dental services to 98,000 adults. That is $66 per person per year. You cannot even get one filling for that.

I ask the minister: Given your complete misunderstanding of the needs of the population targeted, why did you not consult with the Newfoundland and Labrador Dental Association on the program expansion in the first place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will stand on our record in terms of dental health provision in this Province any day, any time. We have the most comprehensive children's program, it is a universal children's program. One of the most comprehensive you are going to find anywhere in this country, Mr. Speaker.

We have one of a few adult dental programs. One of the few that you will find anywhere in the country, Mr. Speaker, and we are committed to it. We have a Budget allocation of $6.7 million, Mr. Speaker. Work is happening in terms of adult dental, work that did not happen when members on the other side had opportunity to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would say that government had ten years to do something. They brought it out one year, and one year later they cannot even manage that program. It goes to tell you about the management of this program in the first place. Anyone, Mr. Speaker, could have predicted that expanding the adult dental plan would have significant uptake at the beginning as years of neglect had to be taken care of.

I ask the minister: Do you not think the costs would have levelled off and in fact would have saved money down the road, and health complications could have been reduced?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for the record, I would just like to point out that he did acknowledge there were years of neglect prior to our introducing a program here. I would like that to be noted in the record, Mr. Speaker, because he is right. We did notice that neglect. We did bring in a program.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to believe that those numbers are going to level off, but it is not a matter of what we think. It is about doing the work to ensure we have a program that is sustainable. Mr. Speaker, we did not pull the program. Unlike the members opposite, we have a program. We are going to continue with that program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would say the cutting of this program after just one year shows the poor planning going on.

Mr. Speaker, in response to cutting EAS agencies, the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills said last week there are 139 employees in her department doing employment counselling and providing labour market information.

I ask the minister: How are 139 employees expected to maintain their own workload and take on the work of 226 others?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, as I said last week, in this Province we had two parallel systems doing employment services in Newfoundland and Labrador. All the people who would go through the EAS office who were the EI eligible clients would also have to come back into the AES office, Advanced Education and Skills, in order to have their files finalized and to have approval for their funding, Mr. Speaker. All of the clients were clients of AES anyway.

What this new practice will ensure is that the clients who require labour market assistance and who are looking for funding to go back to school or employment counselling will still deal with the AES office. The only thing at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, they will only deal with one office as opposed to two offices. They were already clients of AES.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, EAS agencies are baffled by this government's lack of understanding about what they do and the clients they serve. For example, clients in Ramea now have to travel an hour-and-a-half by boat and two hours by car to get the same service.

I ask the minister: How do you justify forcing people all over this Province to travel for hours for help to get a job?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One thing that is extremely important to remember is that if there was an EAS office in Ramea, that office was established to serve people who are EI eligible. All other individuals who require employment services up to this point would have had to go through our AES offices anyway, Mr. Speaker. We will ensure that we have services either through telephone contact or outreach from our AES offices, but we will ensure that we meet the needs of the individuals who need employment services throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

Last week, and again today, the Premier has been busily accusing everyone of putting a spin on her inability to get a hold of the Province's fiscal situation, but all we can get from the Premier is a revolving door of core-mandate plans, ten-year restraint plans, and lately, sustainability plans. It actually seems that the Premier is the one in a spin.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier again if she will release the information from all her so-called plans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my commitment to the Leader of the Third Party is that our plan will become very clear on Budget Day, the same as our plans have been readily transparent for the last nine years, when we took a virtually bankrupt province and we rebuilt the economy to where it is today. We are going to have a plan that is going to show how we are going to sustain that prosperity into the future.

I would like the leader of the NDP to make a commitment to me that she will stop pretending that she does not understand the fiscal structure of this Province, and talk facts instead of some of the misrepresentations she is putting out about important things such as Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, the Minister of Finance said the upcoming Budget would contain a sustainability plan, but, Mr. Speaker, during the Budget 2012 debate, the Minister of Finance said that the government was launching a ten-year plan with the ultimate goal to restrain program spending, and we have not seen that one to this date. So I am not talking about the future Budget, something they said they were doing.

I ask the Premier: Will she release the details of last year's ten-year plan, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the components of that plan last year and through the year. We talked about a 3 per cent reduction exercise. We talked about a core mandate review: phase one, phase two. Phase one is completed; phase two is nearly completed. You will see the impact, the effect of all of that, in this year's Budget, Mr. Speaker.

On top of that, we released a plan to reduce our debt, our per-capita debt, to the Canadian average, Mr. Speaker, and we committed to do that over ten years. I am sorry that the Leader of the NDP missed it, because our bond rating agencies did not, our financial institutions did not, and economic think tanks through the country did not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I say to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that she missed a lot, too, when it came to knowing what our fiscal situation is.

Mr. Speaker, needed government services will certainly be affected with the up to 500 jobs that the government is going to cut. The people of the Province deserve to know what services the Premier is planning to cut in her ten-year plan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will she please tell us what services they are going to cut?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister in his Budget consultations said that if we continue our spending in the way that we have, in the face of fiscal restraint that has become apparent in this last year, we would be forecasting a $1.6 billion deficit.

Mr. Speaker, we are not prepared to go there. We are not going to have that happen. We have worked too hard on this side of the House to build the prosperity that is being enjoyed in this Province. Not under our watch, Mr. Speaker; we are not going to let it go. We are not going back to 2003. All will become clear in the Budget, as the Leader of the NDP knows, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, they are against Muskrat Falls. They ask on a daily basis for millions and millions of dollars in new investment. Mr. Speaker, what is their plan?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

The Public Accounts Committee focuses its attention on the findings of the Auditor General and its reviews of government spending. Finally after eight years of inactivity, this committee has begun meeting. Now the government has laid off the one employee that the committee had to help with its work, just when I had hoped for more accountability for government spending.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why is the government deliberately continuing to limit accountability and transparency at every level?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, here we go with spin again. This is one of the most transparent governments in this country. People can rail and talk and spin, but the truth is there. Mr. Speaker, we are the second most open government in Canada, far ahead of at least ten other provinces, far ahead of the federal government, far ahead of the United States government and most western democracies.

Mr. Speaker, we have an Auditor General who audits our books and publishes his reports. We brought the Auditor General back into the House of Assembly. Our accountability is something we are very proud of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, slickwater fracking has been proposed to recover petrochemicals along the Province's West Coast. Concerns over ruined water supplies have been raised in other Canadian provinces and the US.

Knowing that government does water testing for various municipalities to ensure water safety, can the minister please tell this House if the department has the capability of testing water supplies that may contain slickwater fracking chemicals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the government and the Department of Environment and Conservation, we are very proud of the fact that we do have in place a good environmental assessment process, water quality testing. We have gone very, very far in making sure that the water – whether groundwater or other water in our Province – is well protected, and not only well protected but well monitored.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Slickwater fracking allows for the use of some very dangerous chemicals. If the minister says that we can test for them, then they will have to know what they will be looking for.

If we cannot test them, then will the minister commit his government to make all drilling companies using slickwater drilling methods disclose what those same chemicals being used are so that they can be detected; or will government allow these companies to hide behind proprietary information such as Bill 29 allows?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. I say to the hon. member on the other side: When we are looking at doing an environmental assessment –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: – as it currently stands for anyone doing any fracking in the Province, they will have to make sure that upfront they make clear what they are doing, what they are using, where they are going, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

I say, Mr. Speaker, I stand here and say that we will monitor and we will protect the interests of not only the people of this Province but our environment as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the new adult dental plan introduced January 2012 had unprecedented uptake because people with low incomes could not afford their dental care. Did this government not cost out what the 2012 program would cost?

I ask the minister: Now that the rug has been pulled out from under this program, how much will people have to suffer? What is the current budget for this program and will there be a cap on it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that the members of the Third Party over there will pass over the crystal ball, since they seem to have known how many people precisely were going to be involved in the uptake of this particular program.

Mr. Speaker, we did our best predictions around this, but, as I laid out earlier, absolutely nothing was done for all of those years prior. The Liberal government when they were here did nothing, Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing. We allocated $6.7 million, Mr. Speaker, and guess what? We have not removed a penny. We are still allocating $6.7 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, since the announcement of changes in the adult dental care program, people have been calling our offices in a panic about their own dental care. They know the new $150-per-year limit will not cover their needs. People need help.

I ask the minister: What are we to tell people who are calling our offices who are in pain?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, since I have come to this department, everything that I have heard from the other side is about sustainability. We need a sustainable health care department in this Province, Mr. Speaker. I have heard it time and time again from them. Now they are over there saying we need to spend more – we need to spend more. Well, which is it, Mr. Speaker?

We have a $6.7 million program. We still have a $6.7 million program, Mr. Speaker. Adult Dental is still a program that we are offering to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if prosperity looks like a doorknob with a string on it attached to someone's infected tooth.

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not consult the Newfoundland and Labrador Dental Association before making these abrupt changes to the Adult Dental Program. They are the experts and provider of this service.

I ask the minister: Why did she not consult the Dental Association?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the members over there on that side in the NDP, but I am going to tell you we take this a whole lot more seriously than suggesting there is a string tied onto a doorknob anywhere. The Dental Association of this Province takes this more seriously than that. That is absolutely outrageous. I have just said we have $6.7 million in a program. We will continue to offer service through that $6.7 million, Mr. Speaker.

I speak to our counterparts across this country who say to me they wish they had a program anywhere close to what we have in this Province. I am proud of the dental health program we have in this Province. We have universal child care in this Province for dental health. We have an Adult Dental Program, the likes of which are not seen anywhere else, and, Mr. Speaker, we are proud of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party, on a point of order.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, earlier in Question Period the Premier accused me of misrepresentation in one of her responses. For me, misrepresentation means not telling the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking for a ruling on the use of misrepresentation in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker will undertake to review Hansard, just to recall the comments that would have been made during Question Period and report back to the House tomorrow.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

Tabling of Documents

Notices of Motion.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I move the following private member's resolution, seconded by the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North.

Be it resolved that this hon. House affirms that by investing billions of dollars since 2004 in vital infrastructure including highways, roads, bridges, ferries, municipal and regional infrastructure, health care facilities and schools, the government has taken a responsible approach and promoted long-term fiscal strength and sustainability.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize for the delay.

I would like to give notice that the motion just read into the books will be the private member's motion that government will call from the Order Paper this coming Wednesday, Private Members' Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I have a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS hundreds of residents of the Southwest Coast of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, including residents of the Communities of Margaree, Fox Roost, Isle aux Morts, Burnt Islands, Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, Diamond Cove and La Poile, use Route 470 on a regular basis for work, medical, educational and social reasons; and

WHEREAS there is no cellphone coverage on Route 470; and

WHEREAS residents and users of Route 470 require cellphone coverage to ensure their safety and communication abilities; and

WHEREAS the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development recently announced significant funding to improve broadband services in rural Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the residents and users of Route 470 feel that the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development should also invest in cellphone coverage for rural Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREUPON the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support the users of Route 470 in their request to obtain cellphone coverage along Route 470.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition I have entered numerous times, including on Thursday, our first day back. The reason I thought I should enter it this time is that over the weekend I had the opportunity to attend the Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, Diamond Cove Volunteer Firefighters Ball. Again, a great event, but one of the telling things is that we all get an opportunity to speak.

I had my opportunity, and our MP Judy Foote spoke. We also had a speech by a gentleman named Mr. Jerry Musseau, who is one of the district chiefs when it comes to the volunteer firefighters. One of the things he specifically mentioned is that a presentation has been made under Fire and Emergency Services to government to work on communication abilities in our Province.

In our area, we are talking about something called regionalization when it comes to fire services. The most important cog to that is communication, but we cannot have that because these people cannot communicate with one another. All of these different fire departments cannot communicate and that is why – I have asked for this on a number of occasions for a number of reasons, but this is another one, another voice. The volunteer firefighters of our Province want this service. They need this service. If we want to regionalize, and regionalization brings with it efficiencies especially when it comes to cost. If we want to do that, we have to make the investment to have the communication abilities lifted up.

I thought I would have an opportunity to bring this up. I mentioned to the fire chief that I would talk about it. I am sure this is not the only area where we are talking about regionalization and where we are talking about cellphone coverage not being there.

I know this is something that the minister is probably sick of me saying, but when we talk about the investment last week in broadband, that was a partnership between government and private business working together to provide a service to the people. I think the same thing can be done here when it comes to cellphone coverage.

I am hoping there is a strategy in place. I hope there is a plan in place to make this a reality; hopefully, some time we can start that in 2013.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the process of slickwater hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, injects hazardous chemicals into rock formations to extract oil and is polluting groundwater and air across North America; and

WHEREAS the Government of Canada has commissioned an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of shale oil and gas extraction in Canada, including fracking; and

WHEREAS Quebec, Nova Scotia and a number of US states have halted fracking, and others are introducing regulations specific to fracking; and

WHEREAS it is incumbent upon the provincial government to ensure that our natural environment is protected from harmful industrial processes;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to impose a moratorium on slickwater fracking until it develops comprehensive regulations and ensures that each proposed project undergoes a conclusive environmental assessment to determine whether it is safe for the environment, the integrity of water supplies, as well as to human health.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I anticipate there is going to be a lot more of these coming in. This one comes from Kippens, Stephenville, Corner Brook, a lot of concerned residents on the Port au Port Peninsula, Kippens again, Boswarlos, Stephenville, St. George's – I need not go on with some of the communities on this particular petition, Mr. Speaker.

The concerns are there and they are very real on the part of the districts that are covered under what is proposed to be happening over on the West Coast of the Province. That includes, Mr. Speaker, any area that would go from pretty much Parson's Pond on the Great Northern Peninsula on down south to St. George's south, the general area south of the Port au Port Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, I get calls and I get e-mails every day on this issue. I am pretty sure that the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources as well are probably starting to get inundated with messages as regards to the safety and the concerns that the people in this Province have when it comes to these very issues.

We have all seen the documentaries that are out there. I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has to be deeply concerned considering that his department is responsible probably for a lot of the water testing for municipalities, and probably because there is a huge potential for the damage to water supplies over on the West Coast of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

I bring forth this petition to the government to address these concerns on the part of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are looking for a moratorium. A lot of the concerns do not deal with an exact shutdown of this industry. What they are dealing with is finding out about the concerns as regard to the chemicals, Mr. Speaker, that are used here.

They want comprehensive drilling regulations done. They want to see what chemicals are going to be injected into the ground to see what is potentially going to come up into their water supplies, and what sort of environmental damage is going to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I do not really bring pleasure as regards to this petition, as regards to having to bring this forward to the government. Hopefully government will listen and develop the comprehensive regulations to deal with it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Eastern School District has voted a proposal to close Whitbourne Elementary in June 2013; and

WHEREAS the educators at Whitbourne Elementary are qualified and provide a strong academic program with a full curriculum; and

WHEREAS Whitbourne Elementary has developed grounds, including a playground and baseball field; and

WHEREAS Whitbourne Elementary, being a newer school, is structurally sound, with a music room, gymnasium, cafeteria, and an increasing student enrolment; and

WHEREAS Whitbourne Elementary is situated in an incorporated municipality that is experiencing significant economic and demographic growth; and

WHEREAS the parents, business operators, social groups, and concerned citizens of the municipality of Whitbourne in the Eastern School District request to rescind this proposal.

Since Whitbourne Elementary has met and exceeded all aspects set forth for a viable school, we the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Eastern School District is provided with sufficient funding to keep Whitbourne Elementary School open.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have had quite a lot of contact with parents and community leaders in the area, the communities surrounding Whitbourne Elementary School since the Eastern School District proposal was made public last fall. While the Eastern School District Board has moved to close the school, we do know that there is precedent for the PC government to intervene and ensure that a viable school remains open. Of course, that happened during a by-election under the previous Premier's watch, so we know that can happen.

They were doing really innovative things at Whitbourne Elementary; they are working on having a decent child care program that integrated with the work of the school. They had a pilot project for all-day kindergarten, and that was going reasonably well, but instead the Eastern School District has opted to close the school; in fact, in some instances we are going to have children bussed to a school that has no playground, unlike Whitbourne Elementary School.

So this something that is not going away. The people in the area are very concerned about what has been decided and they hope that government will do what it did once before and keep this school open.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 2, Third Reading of Bill 45.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Animal Health And Protection Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 45 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Animal Health And Protection Act. (Bill 45)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Animal Health And Protection Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 45)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 2 under Motions, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to inform the House that I have received a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

The letter states:

As the Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit a request to appropriate sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2014, by way of Interim Supply, and in accordance with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend this request to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.: _____________________

John C. Crosbie, PC, OC, ONL, QC

Lieutenant Governor

Thank you.

Please be seated. The House will take a moment to distribute the bill.

[Pages distribute the bill.]

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, that the message, together with a bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the message, together with a bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply, and that I do now leave the Chair.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

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

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Order, please!

We are considering the related resolution and Bill 62, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2014 And For Other Purposes Related To The Public Service.

Shall the resolution carry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I look forward to the opportunity over the coming days to talk about Interim Supply, to explain to the people of this Province what Interim Supply is about. I also want to use the opportunity – myself and my colleagues over the next number of weeks – to debunk the myths that abound out there in relation to such things as Muskrat Falls being responsible for the deficit.

We will address issues, Mr. Chair, of a booming economy and what appears to be an inherent contradiction of our revenues being down. We will address the issue of such things as a have province and what exactly that means, Mr. Chair. We will outline – or I will outline, and the Premier if she speaks at some point – without giving too much away, how we plan to get to a balanced Budget, over what time frame, and how we will incorporate that into our sustainability plan.

Mr. Chair, what we will do – and this debate will go on for some time; all members will have an opportunity to speak – is address financial issues in this Province. We, and I, certainly welcome that opportunity, because there is no better place, Mr. Chair, for us to outline what it is we are doing in this House of Assembly.

Mr. Chair, even before I get to talking about the Interim Supply – we need money to get to a certain point – I am going to talk a little bit about the allegations of the other side that we hear on a daily basis of reckless spending and financial mismanagement. Mr. Chair, I just want to outline for a few minutes why that is such foolishness, for lack of a better term.

Mr. Chair, in 2003 – and I am going to go through this, I can assure you, in great detail over the next few weeks and upcoming months – we inherited a province that was almost bankrupt. There was a significant infrastructure deficit and there was a $12 billion debt. The schools were crumbling. The hospitals were crumbling. There were no roads, Mr. Chair.

So, what did we do with the money that we have received, particularly through oil, over the last number of years? Well, let me just give you a brief outline, Mr. Chair, of what we have done with the money.

In 2001, health spending in this Province was $1.2 billion; in 2012-2013, we spent $2.9 billion. It is 36.4 per cent of our Budget and a 142 per cent increase on health, Mr. Chair, which I think we will all agree is one of the primary concerns of all our citizens.

Now, let us get to what is another very significant concern of all our citizens. Mr. Chair, it is education. In 2000-2001, the Liberals opposite spent $700 million in education; in 2012-2013, we spent $1.2 billion or 10.5 per cent of our Budget, a 71 per cent increase. We have spent 46.9 per cent of the Budget in 2012-2013 on health and education. Those figures may actually be down a little bit, Mr. Chair, compared to the rest of the country, because our revenues have gone up. That 36 per cent in our Province is probably equivalent to the 48 per cent or 49 per cent that people are spending in the rest of the country.

Let us just look at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Mr. Chair. Not only is it now the largest university in Atlantic Canada and not only do we maintain the tuition freeze, which I understand is the lowest tuition in the country –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: – but in 2000-2001, Memorial's budget was $133 million. Recently, Dr. Kachanoski outlined in a speech to the public, I think it was at Rotary, that MUN's budget in 2012 was $381 million. It has tripled, Mr. Chair. What have we spent money on? Health and education are two of the primary areas in which we spent our funds.

Let us look again. I talked about that crumbling infrastructure. I talked about the infrastructure deficit we inherited in 2003, Mr. Chair. In 2004-2005, we spent, as a government, $208 million in infrastructure. That infrastructure can include, Mr. Chair, the building of hospitals, schools, and long-term care facilities, which we will get into as we move along. It also includes the building of roads. It includes water and sewer. It includes recreational facilities. In 2012-2013, we spent $773 million, a 270 per cent increase in the amount of infrastructure spending in this Province.

Do you know what else we did, Mr. Chair, in the middle of all this? We reduced debt by 25 per cent. Does that sound like financial mismanagement to anyone on this side of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Or does this sound like a government who is addressing the concerns of the people of this Province in terms of their primary concerns, being health and education, rebuilding the Province, building roads, putting in water and sewer, and building long-term care facilities?

Now, that is what we have been doing with the money. Yet, despite the fact of the situation we find ourselves in today, Mr. Chair, with a looming deficit, the Member for Bay of Islands – and I am not, rightfully so. The Member for Humber Valley gets up and says: Well, what about the hospital in Corner Brook? Mr. Chair, (inaudible) it up but it costs money.

We have made a commitment. We will keep that commitment, but these things cost significant sums of money, Mr. Chair. What we have to do is, on the one hand you are accusing us of financial mismanagement and on the other hand you are saying spend money.

There has to be a recognition in this Province, in a province the size of Newfoundland of Labrador with a vast geography, a sparse population spread out over small towns and bays throughout the Province, that it is difficult to meet people's needs. Mr. Chair, wherever they are, people demand – and rightfully so – to have their needs met as close to home as possible.

My colleagues opposite will get up, the ministers responsible, and they will talk about the hospitals we have built. They will talk about the long-term care, about the schools, Mr. Chair. So, I think it is unfair for the members opposite to accuse us of financial mismanagement and reckless spending when we spent the money to improve health and education in our Province.

How can you say it is reckless to spend on our people? How can you say it is reckless to spend on our children? How can you say it is reckless to spend money to meet those most basic needs? That is the first point, Mr. Chair.

Then they said, well, you have spent all the money. What did you do with it all? We have received, Mr. Chair, and we have been the beneficiaries of oil royalties, but let's never forget what we have done here in terms of negotiating, our government has done in negotiating equity investments, has done in negotiating royalties and super royalties.

Our Premier had the opportunity today to stand at an official ceremony in relation to Hebron. We have been criticized for the $120 million equity investment in Nalcor and Hebron, which will return $2.7 billion over twenty years, Mr. Chair. We will receive our 1 per cent royalty for the first number of years, and in 2022, super royalties kick in and we get $1.6 billion. What we have to do as a government, we have to get from today where our revenues are down – and I will talk about that later – to the point where we know Muskrat Falls and Hebron will come on and lead to more revenues coming in.

Now, let's look at what has happened with our revenues. There has been reckless spending – now, building hospitals is reckless. What I say to the members of the Opposition, every time you stand up, you tell us what hospital we should not have built. You tell us what school we should not have built. You tell us what road we should not have paved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Then when you come forward, I say to the members of the NDP, looking for universal child care and universal pharmacare, you tell us where we are going to get the money, if we are going to spend it on schools and hospitals and that is reckless spending.

Now, let's look at our revenues. We have decreased oil production, Mr. Chair, which is up and down. I mean the volatility of the world markets, the volatility of production.

We lost 20 million barrels, Mr. Chair, in 2012-2013. We lost 20 million barrels in production. Hibernia is decreasing, although it is still a major field. We went from 97 million barrels in 2011-2012 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: – to 2012-2013 down to 77 million barrels of oil. To put that in perspective, Mr. Chair, there are 90 million barrels of oil burnt in the world per day. Yet, we have the member, the expert in gasoline, the expert in energy over there against fracking, which has the ability to transform the West Coast of our Province into a major economic hotbed, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: That is the kind of attitude we get, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, we have reduced taxes by $500 million since 2007. How do we make up those taxes? Where do those tax reductions come from?

There have been $402.8 million reductions in personal income tax, a Low Income Seniors' Benefit of $20.7 million, Mr. Chair. We took off the Retail Sales Tax on insurance, $75 million; the Residential Energy Rebate of $38 million. Shouldn't we have done these things? Is that what you are saying to us? We should not be doing these, that we should take this back, that we should take the Home Heating Rebate and say no more, another $70 million, Mr. Chair?

An interesting fact is that personal income tax is only 5 per cent of our revenues. I will get to that shortly. It will probably be the next time I speak. We have reduced payroll tax by $8.8 million. We have reduced fees by $13.4 million.

Mr. Chair, what this has done is helped really the people in the lower income brackets. I do not know exactly what bracket it is you pay tax in this Province, but people who make in the range of $40,000 or less are doing very well as a result of these tax reductions. We have reduced taxes by $500 million.

The last payment of $536 million to the Atlantic Accord was in 2012, Mr. Chair, $536 million gone like that; $500 million reductions in taxes. We are no longer receiving equalization, and that is what being a have Province means. It means we pay our own way. In fact, one can argue that being a have Province means you have less money. As we go through this over the next period of time –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: – over the next week or two, I will outline what the other provinces get in equalization and transfer payments. It is staggering what Quebec receives. In fact, Alberta receives – and I just read their Budget yesterday – as much federal transfers as we do as a Province, Mr. Chair.

So, what we have is a situation where we are not receiving equalization or Atlantic Accord money. Then, what did we do with our reckless spending? We gave the people who work in the public service, the people who work in this Province in our health care system, our teachers - everyone got a 21.5 per cent raise. That is reckless spending, isn't it? Because that added $500 million annually to the cost of running this government.

Shouldn't we have done that? Is that what you are saying to us? Do not build hospitals, do not build schools, do not reduce seniors' taxes and benefits, do not fix up roads, and do not give raises? Because that is where we find ourselves today, Mr. Chair. We find ourselves in a situation, because we have a small resource-based economy that is very volatile - as I have indicated, that 20 million barrels in production is very significant. Then we have the short-term volatility in terms of oil pricing, which again is very significant.

Mr. Chair, as we move through this – and, again, later on today I will probably review some of the bond rating agencies' reports where they talk about our sound fiscal management, they talk about what we have done with debt, and they talk about how we have invested our money.

Mr. Chair, now we are in a situation today where our revenues do not equal our expenditures. Whether you are running your home or running your business, if that is the situation you have to deal with it. You cannot simply ignore it because it could be politically popular to keep spending. What we have to do, Mr. Chair, is make the right decisions that ensure a bright, prosperous, and sustainable future for the children of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: That is what our Premier is doing, Mr. Chair. That is what Muskrat Falls is about. That is what we are trying to do as we head into the day when the non-renewable resources will be gone.

Mr. Chair, we are rebuilding this Province. We have rebuilt this Province, but it would scare you – and I think some of the members opposite know – the requests we have for new infrastructure builds, the requests we have for paving – where is the Minister of Transportation and Works? – at $250,000 or $300,000 a kilometre for paving.

Here we have a situation, Mr. Chair, where it does not matter to people about debt. Is that what I am hearing, that it does not matter about deficits? Because we cannot live our lives like that, as individuals or as business owners; you have to look at your revenues.

Now we are in a situation where we have to right the ship. The ship is tilted somewhat and we have to right it. What we are doing, Mr. Chair, this exercise that we are engaging in, has forced all of us as ministers of the Crown to dig down and look at our departments even more closely than we have to do on a regular basis.

The Budget process is a trying process, Mr. Chair; it is a tough process. If anyone over there thinks we are simply sitting there with a checklist, get rid of this job and get rid of that job, you are not taking into account how cognizant we are of the human impact and the impact it has on all of us. It is not that easy to say to people, go find a job elsewhere. What we have to look at is if you have a situation in a department where there is a duplication of services, where the program is not as efficient and effective as it should be, then you have to do something.

I will talk a little bit further as we move along through the day and the next few days of this process and how we are going to get to the stage where we will ensure that bright, prosperous, and sustainable future, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is certainly an opportunity to speak to what has been happening in the Province in the last little while in terms of the financial mismanagement of the government opposite. I can guarantee you that as we debate Interim Supply, there is going to be lots of opportunity to debate back and forth and discuss where money could have been spent or could not have been spent.

In tabling Interim Supply today, there is one thing that is very clear in what has been presented here and that is that a number of critical services that have been provided to people in this Province are essentially being cut and done away with. Some of these services have existed for many, many years. They were not necessarily created by the government opposite. They were there long before they came into power. Mr. Chair, their decision not to sustain these services is having a very negative impact on a lot of people in this Province.

Mr. Chair, the government likes to talk about where they have spent money and continues to ask us for our advice on where they should cut. Well, I do not remember ever getting asked where they should have spent it in the first place. When we watched the Budgets in this Province grow under their Administration from 2003 until today, rising from a little around $4 billion a year to double that in the Province is what they have had to spend as a government. They have had more money than anyone else in the Province and not because of anything that they have done. They inherited huge royalties. They inherited returns on investments that were made by taxpayers of this Province long before they ever took office. When they came into power, Mr. Chair, it was they who had the decision on how that money was going to be spent.

I did not have that decision. None of our caucus had that decision; it was the people opposite. Your decisions have gotten us into a position in this Province today where we are having to put public servants out on the street, where we are having to cut services to people, people who have had that service for over twenty years in this Province.

That is the kind of mismanagement that I am referring to, Mr. Chair. There are a lot of examples of where government could have done things differently. Over the next few days we will have an opportunity to point that out.

What I am going to point out today, Mr. Chair, is how their decisions are really impacting the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This government, Mr. Chair, when they took office, not only gained the rewards of the investments of people in this Province that were made before them; they got that revenue, Mr. Chair, revenues that were created by Liberal governments and Liberal Administrations. They were the people in charge of deciding how that money was going to be spent.

In making that decision, they increased the public service. They increased the public service in this Province by almost 3,000 people. Those people, Mr. Chair, went out and got mortgages on their houses. They bought vehicles and they put their children in university. They went out, Mr. Chair, and they borrowed and they planned based on the fact that they –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: – had employment. The government failed the plan. The government failed to budget for those people. Now, today, they are being thrown out in the street with no job and they still have those financial commitments that they have signed on to. That is very poor and very sad. That is the face of what is happening in the public service today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: That is the face of what is happening in the public –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: No, but you lied, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: I remind –

MS JONES: I apologize, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MS JONES: I know it was out of line. I know the difference.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MS JONES: I could not resist. I do apologize and I withdraw that remark. Mr. Chair, it is hard when you are provoked.

Mr. Chair, that is the face of what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador today. For government to walk into this House of Assembly and throw their arms in the air and say, well, what do you want us to do? We cannot sustain the kind of spending that we have.

You created that kind of spending. You created it, and you did it without giving any consideration to how you were going to plan for it in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, that is exactly what happened. The former Minister of Finance, he brought Budget after Budget in here that increased the size of the public service, gave people in this Province jobs, gave them hopes, gave them dreams, gave them opportunities to buy their first home, to put their children in university, but you never told them you were only going to give them the job for twenty-four months, or thirty-six months, because we could not afford to have you. That, Mr. Chair, is very poor governance and complete mismanagement of the public service, and mismanagement of the revenues of this Province.

Mr. Chair, let us talk about some other things, because there are the Employment Assistance workers. Who are they? Who are Employment Assistance workers? You know who they are? They are ordinary people in communities all over this Province who are doing yeoman's service to the public and they are doing it for peanuts. That is what it is. They are people who are out there in regions, in districts just like yours.

In every one of your districts there is one of those Employment Assistance workers. If you have not used them, or as an MHA sent your constituents to them, you are operating a different kind of job than I am, because I have sent my constituents to these offices time and time again. They are not just unemployed people; they are employment-disadvantaged people, in many cases. They are people who need help. They need help with all kinds of things. They need help in how to file for school. They need help in choosing a proper career. They need help in finding funding to go to school. They need help filling out forms.

It is not just unemployed and the employment-disadvantaged, but it is seniors. Do you know how many seniors in this Province go into those offices just to get help with Old Age Security applications, CPP applications, drug cards, all those things? Maybe that is not what the program was intended for, and maybe that is not what the mandate of it was, but you cannot ignore the fact that is what it did. That is what it did.

What you are saying today is that we are not going to provide that anymore because we never intended to provide it in the first place. We inherited it from the federal government; we took a transfer payment from the federal government, Mr. Chair, we took a transfer payment from the federal government and we operated these offices knowing we could only operate them for the next five years and then we would have to shut them down.

Now, Mr. Chair why did this government not look at the service that these offices were providing over that five-year period? You had since 2009 to learn that these offices did not just provide services to people on Unemployment Insurance. You had five years to figure that out. You had five years to go out in communities around this Province and realize that the scope of work for employment assistance workers range from the very bottom to the very top in terms of what communities required and needed. They were good at their jobs, very good.

When the Muskrat Falls Project was announced, the employment assistance workers in my district held public meetings in every single community. They helped over 200 people log on to the Muskrat Falls.com site, showed them how to fill out their applications online. They helped them develop resumes. They put them in touch with companies. Who is going to do that job? Who is going to do it?

MR. LANE: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: The Member for Mount Pearl South who pads the polls – we know what he does as an MHA. That is what he does, pads polls. Pins people, says vote for the government. We know what he does as an MHA, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: We have his job description down pat. Then, Mr. Chair, you go on the air and try and deny it until you are caught red-handed. He was caught red-handed, Mr. Chair, and denied it. Then he had to come out and admit it, Mr. Chair, what he was doing as an MHA.

Mr. Chair, this is what the government opposite is doing. They are denying the very basic services to the people who need it the most. Is there duplication? Of course there is, and I would be the first to agree with that. I know there are areas of the Province where that duplication is more evident than others. There are also areas of the Province where none of these services exist, and as of June will not exist, leaving whole areas of the Province without any frontline management services, Mr. Chair, absolutely none. That is unfair, absolutely unfair.

Maybe if the Member for Mount Pearl spent more time learning about these programs within the government and responding to them effectively instead of polling people and asking them to vote for the government online, we might get different decisions in this House of Assembly. Because what this shows, Mr. Chair, is a complete misunderstanding or lack of understanding of what employment assistance workers in this Province do.

I would like to ask the member, Mr. Chair, for Harbour Breton area, Bay d'Espoir: How is this going to affect her district? How is it going to affect her district, because I know of offices that are closing there? I know there is an office closing in Lab West. I know there are offices closing on the Bonavista Peninsula. How is this going to affect those members' constituents? I would like to know.

I would like for the Member for Bonavista South to get up and tell me that. I would like to know that. Is it okay to close down employment assistance offices in your district? Because it is not okay to close them in my district, I can tell you right now.

When you have to drive 600 kilometres or more to get to the nearest government office to give you that service, there is something wrong. There is something terribly wrong in this Province about how service – do you know something? It was being delivered, Mr. Chair, for peanuts. That is what these people get paid. They are not getting $60,000 or $70,000 a year salary, nowhere near it. Most of them were making $35,000 to $40,000. That is what they are making a year. They are not making $60,000 or $70,000.

They are not on a contract like John Noseworthy, getting $150,000 in ten months. That is not what these people are getting paid, nowhere near it. They are not like Ross Reid who worked on a Tory campaign and gets a job for $150,000 a year, no. These are ordinary people in communities who are helping people in this Province, providing a service, doing it very well and doing it with a very small amount of money. They are the one group that this government decides has to go. This is the one group they decide have to go.

Well maybe they should have looked at, a long time ago, saving more money on the office they had in Ottawa instead of leaving it closed for year, paying the rent, and keeping subscriptions to newspapers. I had a friend who worked in the same building in Ottawa who told me that the newspapers at the door of the office in Ottawa was right up to the doorknob because there was no one there to collect them. Here were the people of the Province paying the rent, paying for the subscriptions and you cannot figure out where you went wrong, where you could have saved a few dollars along the way. Unbelievable!

There are thousands of examples, Mr. Chair, thousands of examples. What is sad is that we are going to debate Interim Supply and a budget today that is targeting the most vulnerable people in our communities, people who depend upon a service who are not going to have it, people with disabilities, people who are employment disadvantaged, people who are hundreds of kilometres away from the nearest office that they could go to, to get any help whatsoever.

I know the government does not want to hear this. I am sure you do not. You do not want to hear any kind of criticism, but you had better get used to it because there is going to be an awful lot of it to come, an awful lot of it to come, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, you combine that with what is happening with the economic development boards today in the Province. Right now, these boards are all packing up their offices and moving out. I think we saw the one in Marystown on the news there a few weeks ago. I have been witnessing it all over the Province, everywhere I have gone. Nothing only boxes being packed and those offices closing down.

I know the minister said in his comments it is a challenge to deliver services in a Province that is spread out so geographically. That challenge is just not your government's, that challenge has been the challenge of every government in this Province, Mr. Chair.

Other governments have not chosen to just gut rural areas in this Province, rural communities, and rural services; they have chosen to create a balance where they could. That is the one thing that I am not seeing here: a balance and how government services will be delivered and how people can access them in the future.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My colleagues, as they stand up, will address all of these individual issues. I will continue over the next day or so to outline the overall picture in terms of the financial situation of the Province, Mr. Chair.

It is easy to pick and choose. It is easy to say this is one program or focus on the individual program. What we have to do, Mr. Chair, is focus on the people of this Province and delivering programs and services in a fair and equitable way. It is a challenge, but it is something that we have been doing and doing quite well.

I am sure that someone will stand up and outline – the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, everything has gone into her district over the last period of time. Something that would not have happened while they were in government to an Opposition member, I can assure you that.

Someone will stand up, Mr. Chair, and outline the amount of money that has gone into the Trans-Labrador Highway. The Minister of Labrador Affairs will talk about the money spent in Labrador, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: She seems to have conveniently forgotten that.

Mr. Chair, I want to talk now about the economy and the apparent dichotomy, or it is almost counterintuitive that we have a hot economy, a lot happening in the economy, yet our revenues are down.

In the last few minutes, I spoke about why our revenues are down. Mr. Chair, I also want to talk a little bit about how good the economy is doing. That is a reality in our Province that our economy is doing very well. What we are is in a couple of year transition period, Mr. Chair, where we have to ensure that our revenues meet our expenditures.

Let us look, Mr. Chair, at some of the economic indicators that were provided in the fall update, in the 2012 update. Capital investment in Newfoundland and Labrador was $9.7 billion in 2012, up 31 per cent from 2011. We have seen major projects like Hebron, which I understand could have 3,500 to 5,000 people out there. We have seen the Vale Inco development take place, Mr. Chair. We have everything that is going on in Lab West. Then we have Muskrat Falls. These are just some of the bigger projects that are happening, Mr. Chair, that demands significant capital investment.

Let us look at our housing starts, Mr. Chair. In 2012 – I think it was – we had 3,880 housing starts, the highest level in thirty-five years. Mr. Chair, housing starts or why they are an economic indicator, because it is such a big decision, it means that people are attaching themselves to the jurisdiction. They are not only building or buying a house, there is a mortgage, there is everything that comes with it, and it shows, Mr. Chair, that there is a reason for people to live in the place, town or province.

Mr. Chair, we have the second highest – and I have to say that this one did surprise me. We have the second highest weekly earnings in the country at $924, second to Alberta, and 3.5 per cent above the Canadian average. I find that an interesting statistic. Twenty-seven thousand new cars were purchased from January to September 2012, Mr. Chair. Again, a sign of a vibrant economy, a sign of people who are working, a sign of people who are spending money.

Mr. Chair, there was a 5.3 per cent increase in the value of retail sales for the first nine months of 2012. Employment in 2013 is expected to grow by 3.1 per cent. Retail sales are expected to grow by 3.7 per cent.

Mr. Chair, we hear or we will at times hear talk of GDP as a measurement here in this Province. Basically what that is, it is a measure of economic activity. In a small resource-based economy where there is such volatility and such dependence on oil especially that GDP does not have the same impact or effect that it might have in a larger economy.

When we look to the rest of the world, we look at growth in China, for example, if China stays at 5 per cent GDP that signifies that the demand for oil will continue in the world. It is not as relevant to us, Mr. Chair, because it can go up and down so much.

We have a good economy. We still have a high unemployment rate, which is again a little bit difficult to understand; but again, it is seasonal work and things like that. Let us look at what is happening in our Province. Let us look at the rest of this country, Mr. Chair. In 2012 all provinces, except Saskatchewan, records a deficit. Even provinces like Alberta – and we just saw the Alberta Budget come down recently; I will refer to that over the next period of time. Again, dependent on energy and when the price of oil went down – and they were affected in Alberta far more by the price of their oil, for what they were getting, than what we were getting for our Brent equivalent in this Province.

We have, in Canada, a situation – and Canada is doing well. Our federal government and our banks, Mr. Chair, have allowed for a regulatory regime that has prevented, I think, some of the situations that occurred in the United States and parts of Europe. Our Canadian economy is doing well, yet we have provinces in deficit. We have Ontario in a significant deficit of $12 billion. We have the Canadian government or Canada as a whole at $26 billion. They vary.

One of the problems, when you hear some provinces now talk about balanced budgets, is there are different ways they use to balance their budgets. What we are doing is we are looking at what we are spending, what our revenues are, and we are coming up with a true figure, Mr. Chair. The other provinces have financial difficulties.

Let us look at the global situation. Let us look at what is happening when you watch The National on CBC every night. Let us look at what is happening in places like Greece and Spain. Look at what is happening in Europe as a whole. It is easy sometimes when you are on an Island that you do not get that bigger picture and that you do not look to the rest of the world.

What we are now, especially with oil and iron ore as major commodities, and nickel for us, is we are tied to that global economy. Fish has always tied us to the global economy, but commodities tie us even more. What happens in China can determine to a great extent the price of oil and the price of iron ore. What we have is a situation where we have to look to the rest of the world. When you compare what is happening in our Province even to the rest of our country and to the rest of the world, it is not that bad. Again, it is the glass half full versus the glass half empty.

As I spoke about in my first fifteen minutes: show us the hospital and show us the school. Tell us where we should not have paved that road. No one in their own district is going to say that. We are not going to hear the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair say: do not build the Trans-Labrador Highway. In fact, every day she is up saying: build the Trans-Labrador Highway. We are not going to hear the members opposite say: do not pave the roads in our districts. So what we are doing is we are trying to use that money and trying to use it as wisely as we can for the people of this Province throughout the Province, Mr. Chair.

In the next year, the situation is expected to improve in Canada, the United States, and Europe. Let me just give you an example to put this in perspective. Greece, in 2012, had an unemployment rate of 23.8 per cent. Almost one quarter of the population was unemployed. Spain had an unemployment rate of 25 per cent. Those are countries, Mr. Chair, that have large economies and huge numbers of people.

Let us look at a situation. What are we faced with here? It is a deficit for two, three, or four years. We will know a little later on how long it will be. What we are faced with, Mr. Chair, is a situation where we are tied to the price of oil and to production. Is that not a good thing? Because if I were the Minister of Finance in some of the other provinces, I would be very, very concerned: where we will ever get the money to bring us back to a balanced budget?

Well, we know we will get there, but it takes some pain at this point, Mr. Chair. Again, we know how difficult it is for people to be laid off, but, Mr. Chair, that does not relieve us of the obligation, as ministers, it does not relieve us of the obligation of looking to the departments and determining whether or not the programs that we deliver are being delivered as effectively and as efficiently as possible for the people of this Province.

So, on a national basis, on a global basis, we are doing well with the economy. What we have: revenues are down. I have explained why revenues are down. We are dependent so much on the volatility of a commodity like oil that – and I will talk about this over the next few days, in terms of different amounts of production, different increases, and what it can do for our economy.

The price of oil goes up a dollar, we make $25 million. The Canadian dollar goes down a cent, we make $25 million. So, this is the kind of thing that can happen on a daily basis. That is why, even though we have a very serious situation, you have to put it into perspective of what is taking place in the rest of the country and the rest of the world. You know something, Mr. Chair? It is not that bad here. We are doing quite, quite well in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: But like anything else, sometimes the easiest thing to do is do nothing. If you just want to get votes, you will do nothing. What we want to do is do the right thing. That is what we are doing, Mr. Chair: the right thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: We are going to make sure that the financial situation is fixed up again to ensure that future for the children of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very lucky to have the opportunity to stand here in my place and refute some of the things that have been said, and set the record straight in a number of ways.

I want to say first, Mr. Chair, it is great to be back here in the House of Assembly with all of my colleagues on both sides of the House. I have seen some of you since we broke for the Christmas holiday, and some of you I have not seen, but it is good to be back here and to have the opportunity to debate important matters affecting the people of the Province right now.

I believe, Mr. Chair, last Thursday when I got up with my son to give him his breakfast, I got the news that Stompin' Tom Connors had died. Stompin' Tom was, of course, a great Canadian. A lot of us do not have much time for the term Newfie, but he did write that song the man in the moon is a Newfie, or he made it popular at least. He had the one about Margo's Cargo. I will not go into details on that one, but those of you who know, it is the one about the cowsy dungsy clock. He also did that one and it was about Newfoundland.

When I got up in the morning, they had the old theme song from Marketplace on, and that is the one that goes something like: We will save a lot of money spending money we don't got. I did not know that the Minister of Finance's last Budget speech had been set to music, but that is what I thought when I heard this save a lot of money spending money we don't got. Because certainly, that is part of what has happened in this Province over the last year with this sort of inflated projections for the price of a barrel of oil that we saw in the last Budget. That is partially the problem that we have – that and a variety of other things.

Because of these issues, the government has been out there in recent weeks, in recent days, wildly laying off public sector workers. We know that there are positions that are no longer in existence. We know that there are a lot of other temporary and contractor workers who also have lost their positions, but they are more or less the unknown people who have lost their positions. There has been quite a lot of that, and I do not know about the members on the government side but I am certain that we over here on the Opposition side have heard quite a bit about that.

Government has been cutting funding to various community agencies. We have been raising the issue since we got back here about the Employment Assistance Services providers losing their funding and the impact that is going to have on communities, unemployed workers, and economies all across Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know, in particular, myself and my colleague, the Member of the House of Assembly for St. John's East, and my colleague in the Official Opposition, the Member for Bay of Islands District, were at the recent special meeting of the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities where that group was struggling with the question of what to do now that their funding is going to be eliminated.

I read with great interest The Telegram this weekend, the story with the headline " Noseworthy's ‘synergies' won't be part of the budget". The government members get up and they ask: Where is the fat to be cut? Just let me refresh your memory, if anybody here cannot remember. The Minister of Advanced Education and Skills told the House of Assembly last year – you can go back and look at Hansard if you like on that, and she certainly told The Telegram newspaper numerous times – that Mr. Noseworthy had a unique set of skills. I was on the On Point afternoon radio program on CBC one afternoon with the Member for Mount Pearl South. I do not know if he did not say that there was not anybody else in the Province who was qualified as Mr. Noseworthy was to do this vitally important work.

We were told here in the House of Assembly that John Noseworthy would help the Department of Advanced Education and Skills deliver services in the most effective and most efficient way possible. He would help to improve the flow of services. This is stuff that of course the minister and her very capable staff could have set about doing themselves. He had such a unique skill set that the government had to pay him, a failed Tory Party candidate from the last election, $150,000 to do these essential things.

He was going to make sure that the department is set up appropriately. Mr. Noseworthy was going to help review the core mandate and make sure that the programs and services were delivered properly. The Premier told the House of Assembly that John Noseworthy would make sure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are able to take advantage of the opportunities. Of course, everybody is going to have a lot of opportunities now to get on the plane to go to Alberta to find work there because of the way things are falling down here.

The Premier continued, she said that Mr. Noseworthy would tell the PC government if their programs are effective. He would tell the government if their programs are efficient. He would tell the government if their programs are responding to the real needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Here we have the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills and this government laying off staff, cutting funding to essential programs in our communities, wrecking havoc for many families across Newfoundland and Labrador, all the while the vital, essential work that was being done by Mr. Noseworthy, well it seems like people could not care less over there to be honest. None of this is in any way having any impact on the coming Budget I understand.

I understand from reading the story that was in The Telegram the weekend that this $150,000 contract – which government has acknowledged bent the rules for contracting. There is another story here that was in The Telegram: Former Auditor General's contract bent the rules. The minister said that her department did not follow the guidelines. It says right here in the story, the minister "‘didn't follow the guidelines' in those sections." That is what it says. Take it up with the reporter if he is wrong.

Went through all of that to try and hire this former candidate for election, and none of what he did is important enough to have a look at before the coming Budget - which is just shocking, really, I have to say.

Now, another thing that caught my eye in recent days was a release from the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador. He said, you know, fraud can be devastating for anyone who has fallen victim to this kind of scam. He said, if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. It probably is.

I will tell you what else is fraudulent. It is fraudulent to run in an election campaign, spending people's money to get elected. It is fraudulent to run in an election campaign and tell seniors in this Province that you are going to have $100 million for a seniors' strategy. It is fraudulent to run in an election campaign and tell students that you are going to convert the loan program into a grant program.

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: A point of order.

MR. KING: I would ask the Chair to consider ruling on the use of the term fraudulent. I believe it would be considered unparliamentary to use that term in referencing another member and their actions in this House.

CHAIR: I will take that under advisement and consider it, and give an answer the next day.

Thank you.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was not signalling out any one individual. I was referring to the press release from the Minister of Service NL. I was giving examples of what fraudulent activity would be. It also would be fraudulent, Mr. Chair, to say that you are going to build a hospital and then not build a hospital.

Mr. Chair, another thing the minister was talking about was all the money that has been spent on roads and all the money that has been spent on infrastructure. I refer the minister back to the Auditor General's report from last year when Mr. Loveys said that, like the secret John Noseworthy report, he could find no evidence of any infrastructure strategy.

There was no document that he could refer to, no government document this government could provide to show where some $5 billion worth of public money has been spent. No government document, no explanation. If that is proper management, if that is proper stewardship, as the Premier is fond of saying, of public funds, then I have to say I completely disagree. That is not good stewardship at all.

I will take my seat with that, but I think it is important to point out, these are the facts. It is not fantasy.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am now going to talk a little bit more about where our revenues come from. I can try to paint a picture, Mr. Chair, of the situation that we find ourselves in. Some of this will be, I think, somewhat surprising to the people of this Province in terms of the revenues. For example, again, it is no surprise to people that our two main sources of revenue are oil and other natural resources and taxation. That would certainly make sense.

In 2012-2013, at the midyear update, we showed that 27.1 per cent of our revenues were coming from offshore royalties. In 2011-2012, Mr. Chair, 35.8 per cent of these revenues had come from offshore royalties. That is a significant amount of money when you are talking about an 8 per cent decrease in terms of the amount of royalties, so 20 million barrels less means a lot of money.

One thing I would say to the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, we often hear about the great contribution of Labrador, and there is no question about the contribution, but mining tax and royalties in the midyear update were 2.8 per cent. Now, mining produces revenues for our coffers in a different way, Mr. Chair. We invest in mining. The royalty schemes are older. They are there for quite some time, but what we have is a situation where there are jobs created. There is a lot of money that goes into the economy, but in terms of what comes to the government coffers in royalties, Mr. Chair, is 2.8 per cent. That was the midyear update.

This is why it is so important, offshore oil. We negotiated, we received equity shares. We negotiated royalty regimes. That is why the monies we get from offshore oil are so much more significant. Corporate income tax, Mr. Chair, is 10.2 per cent and sales tax is 12.4 per cent. Those taxes, the corporate income tax and the consumption tax would be 22.6 per cent.

An interesting figure, Mr. Chair, personal income tax is only 15.5 per cent of our revenues. I said, no, that cannot be right. You have to go back and check that for me. That does not make a lot of sense to me, but what I found out, Mr. Chair, and I do not know if I have the exact number here. I will see if I can find it. I think it is, Mr. Chair, that 18 per cent of our population pays 70 per cent of our taxes. It is something along those lines. I am sure in the next day or so as I am going through my notes I will find it.

What does that mean? It is not as drastic as it first sounds. It means that our $500 million in tax reductions have benefited those with lower incomes. In fact, Mr. Chair, they are paying less taxes. It does not necessarily mean that they are not paying any taxes, but what we have is a situation where we do not have a big tax base in terms of personal income tax, 15 per cent of our revenues.

Other provincial revenues, Mr. Chair – that can be all kinds of fees and things like that – are 17 per cent. Now, let us get to the federal; what do we get from the federal government? In the Canadian federation, there are a number of types of payments that provinces receive, Mr. Chair. The one that most people would be familiar with would be equalization. I will have to leave it to the previous minister to explain the equalization formula because it is quite a complex formula; essentially it means that monies are provided to the Province based on how much you have coming in, population, and things like that.

Then we have the Canada Social Transfer and the Canada Health Transfer. These are, again, sometimes based on per capita, sometimes based on programming; in our Province, we are only receiving, right now, 9.1 per cent of our revenues coming from transfers from the federal government, and 1.7, so 10 per cent.

Now, let us compare that to 2004-2005. In 2004-2005, 34 per cent of the revenues received in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador came from federal transfers. We are down to 10 per cent today, Mr. Speaker. Equalization and the accords, in 2004-2005, accounted for 22.1 per cent of our revenues. Today it is zero. So, our ability to be self-sustaining, our ability to govern ourselves has resulted in us receiving fewer revenues. That is what it means to be a have province; it means you pay your own way. It means that I, now, am not dependent on our parents, Canada, to provide us with the money.

So, provincial revenues increased by 23 per cent since 2004-2005, but that is due to an increase in oil royalties. To put this in perspective: at one point, Quebec received $18 billion a couple of years ago, $18 billion in equalization. I do not even know if that is equalization and transfers, or just equalization.

We last received equalization in 2008-2009. So, being a have province does not mean we are rich, but it means that we can stand up and make our own decisions. It means that we can determine what we are going to do with our own money. That is what it means. In effect, as I said earlier, it could be argued that it means we have less money, but who – we are no longer Canada's poor cousins. There are only – again, I thought I read this last night – three provinces that are considered have provinces. To have means to pay your own way.

So, now, let us look at our Atlantic Accord payments. We had two different accord payments. They last ended in 2011-2012: $536 million. So, federal revenues have decreased by 23 per cent, and we have picked that up. Now, someone please explain to me where the fiscal mismanagement comes from losing more than a billion dollars in revenues and still being able to provide the types of services that we provide in this Province?

What we have had to deal with, Mr. Chair, is a situation whereby less money from our federal government has resulted in us generating more revenues of our own and still providing those services and greater services, Mr. Chair, and that is what we have done.

If you look at our federal gross revenue by source, it is quite interesting how all of the money that was received by the federal government – we were dependent on the federal government, and it does not matter if it is a Liberal or Conservative federal government, we do not want to be dependent on their ability to change things. What we know is the income that we have coming in.

Mr. Chair, then we get to the debt; I will probably come back to that a little bit later. As a government, we have had surpluses six out of the last seven years. The previous Administration had seven deficits out of eight years with a surplus at one point of about $50 million.

Now, what have we done with the surpluses? We have spent them on health, education, schools, and reducing debt. Mr. Chair, we have taken those surpluses – and it is important to reduce debt; debt costs money. Again, we will get to that a little bit later, but right now – and again, I am going somewhat by memory, but I think that debt cost us last year $880 million in interest charges. That is what you have to pay to service the debt, because these are bonds that would have been bought by the Province; even though we have not borrowed in a number of years, these are bonds that would have been in existence and could have been as high as 12 per cent or 13 per cent interest. We are still paying the debt servicing on those.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: I know, I have to talk about the unfunded pension liability a little later on.

Our total program expenses have grown from $3 billion in 2003-2004 to a projected $6.7 billion in 2012-2013, an 80 per cent increase on programming: poverty Reduction, tuition freezes, all of the various types of programs we have brought in.

Yet the Opposition calls for universal homecare, universal child care, all-day kindergarten, universal pharmacare. We are spending recklessly, according to them, but: spend more, because what we are suggesting to you is not reckless. It is not mismanagement. What we are suggesting to you is something that you need.

The Liberals – and again I will use the example of the Corner Brook hospital. I am sure not only would members on this side be very disappointed but members on the other side would be very disappointed if we were to say, well, based on the accusations levelled at us, based on the reckless spending, the Corner Brook hospital will no longer be built. Sorry, we do not have the money any more.

Is there anyone going to say do not build the Corner Brook hospital for that reason? Is there anyone – I challenge the Member for Humber Valley or the Member for Bay of Islands to stand up and say do not build that hospital because you cannot afford it. See if they will do it. Not a chance.

What we have, Mr. Chair, we have to continue spending. We have significant infrastructure deficits like the Corner Brook hospital. What we have, Mr. Chair, is a significant infrastructure deficit that we have to address. That is what we are doing here, and we will continue to do it throughout this Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I stand to have a few words. Mr. Chair, I am just glad that I got the opportunity to have a few words. One of the things that I committed to because of the last couple of filibusters, Mr. Chair, was they are always talking about decorum in the House. I made a commitment that I was not going to say a word, but when you get challenged by the Minister of Finance who cannot just sit there and make a point. He always has to try to embarrass people. It is pretty hard for me to sit down and let that happen.

I have always said, when you are being bullied – and I heard the Minister of Education say it on many occasions, when you are being bullied you have to stand up to the bully. I can assure you, I will be standing up to the bully. I can assure you that right now, Mr. Chair.

Let's talk about the Corner Brook hospital. The minister wants everybody to talk about the Corner Brook hospital, let's talk about it. Let's go back on the history of the Corner Brook hospital. In 2007 the announcement was made on the Corner Brook hospital. The sod was turned. It was going to built and ready for operation in 2016. That was a commitment made by this government, the members opposite, Mr. Chair.

As we sit down and we go back over the timeline, just before the election in 2007 the sod was turned, not a problem. We also then waited, nothing happened, Mr. Chair. Lo and behold, they went to an election in 2007. They came up to the election in 2011.

Of course, the then Minister of Finance and the Member for Humber West in their brochure stood up and in their announcement: the Corner Brook hospital construction will start in 2012. The worst thing that could have happened to the government and to the members out on the West Coast is that I was elected again, because when I was elected I said: well, there is something wrong here. There is no construction here for this hospital.

Mr. Chair, I came in government and I went to Estimates. I asked one minister about Estimates and they said: oh yes, we are in the design stage. I said, well okay, how far in the design stage? I got into the discussion then with the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I got into the discussion then in Estimates with the Minister of Transportation and Works, Mr. Chair, and I have Hansard here – in Transportation and Works, after the people in Corner Brook were told that construction would start in 2012. I got into discussions – it is in Hansard. After being told by another department that it is in the design stage, I got into discussions with Transportation and Works.

I will read Hansard, Mr. Chair, and this what the people out there – Hansard is the official word of what was said in the House of Assembly. This is up on questioning when I asked the minister and deputy minister about the hospital in Corner Brook, to get to the bottom and to the truth of the status of the hospital on the West Coast in Corner Brook, Mr. Chair.

I will read it: Usually you have to look it in stages – and this was the minister at the time of Transportation and Works. "The business case, which presented to government and the decision made to move forward with a project, followed up by pre-design. Obviously, that is the stage we are in right now."

That was in 2012, the pre-design. After the Minister of Finance and after the Member for Humber West telling the people in Corner Brook before the election, construction will start in 2012. Here is the official word from the minister on the design stage. Now, all of a sudden, I am up here fear mongering, and here is the official word.

Now, anybody can stand up and say, well, what would you do? This was the commitment that was made to the people in 2007, in 2011. The information was put out, construction was supposed to start last year, and the minister said it is in pre-design.

I will keep going, Mr. Chair. In Hansard, "Right now, we are just on the verge of moving into the design stage; henceforth, the dollars that are reflected" – one million dollars – "in the budget will reflect the ability for us to carry on into that stage and move forward for the coming months."

The Deputy Minister at the time, Mr. Chippett: "The contract for pre-design services was Hatch Mott MacDonald and they were tasked with developing a program. That is the stage we are at now, is looking for that program to be finalized, as the minister said…".

We will go ahead now, and the Member for Humber West can stand up and say this is not true. The Premier had a meeting with the City Council of Corner Brook. Councillor Leo Bruce, a good friend of the Minister of Natural Resources –

MR. MARSHALL: Former good friend.

MR. JOYCE: Former good friend, he just said. Well, that is fine. I have no problem with that. A former friend – I do not blame you, by the way – in a council meeting, got up publicly – and I am not saying anything out of turn because it is in the media out on the West Coast. They had a private meeting, the city council, and the Member for Humber West was at the meeting I understand. He can stand up and say this is not true. Here is your opportunity to stand up on what I am going to say and say that Councillor Leo Bruce told the media a complete, false fabrication. Here is your opportunity, because I am not being bullied about this hospital by the Minister of Finance. I am not being bullied.

Here is your opportunity I say to the Member for Humber West who sat in that meeting and the Premier told the council – this council member stood up in the media and in the council chamber, the Premier said if the hospital is $500 million or $600 million, the hospital is not on. He said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. JOYCE: The Member for Humber West can stand right after me and say Councillor Leo Bruce is making false, informative, and misleading statements and it never happened. Here is your opportunity because Councillor Bruce said it. There are two other councillors who confirmed it, but here is your opportunity to stand up; either someone is not telling the truth.

We can move on from that. I just want to let the people of the West Coast who are watching this know – after that meeting, guess what? A new company was hired to go over the pre-design work that was already done by Hatch Mott MacDonald – Stantec. A new company, right after that meeting, was put out to look at this work. When questioned, what is the word? We are right-sizing the hospital.

MS SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, I hear the Minister of Health, and I was not going to say where the Minister of Health is over there – the last words were used were right-sizing. There are 270 people kicked out of their jobs here in this government because you are right-sizing the government. That is right-sizing is, downsizing. If you are going to use right-sizing for this government, what you are doing to the employees in this government is the same thing for the hospital in Corner Brook. You are downsizing it to fit the money that you are going to put there to it, I say to the Minister of Health.

That is what happened, Mr. Chair. That is the stage we are at now. The government hired Stantec. The report has been delivered, from my understanding. So, the questions that I have asked on many occasions, Mr. Chair, on the hospital: If you go out and have public meetings on Muskrat Falls, all around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, all around the Province, why can't we go out and have public meetings and consultations so the front-line people who are going to be working in this hospital can have a say in what should be put in the hospital? Why can't we do that?

Why can't we go out, have public consultations, and say to the people on the West Coast and in Corner Brook, here is the stage we are at, here is where we are going to go with the design, here is how long the design is going to take, here is when construction will start, and here is the completion date? Why can't we do that?

Do you know why we cannot do that, Mr. Chair? This has been put on the backburner. Now, after the pre-design stage, after the Premier's comments to the City Council of Corner Brook, which were made public by Councillor Leo Bruce, we find another company coming in. Can anybody opposite explain to me why we cannot have public meetings to give the people of Corner Brook, who are going to be using this facility, and the people of Western Newfoundland, who are going to be coming into the facility, an opportunity to say here is what we need? Have the front-line people stand up and say here is what we need in the hospital so we can ensure – and, Mr. Chair, I will be back because I will talk about the long-term care facility that was opened three years ago. The Minister of Natural Resources chastised me, saying that the floor was open. The Member for Humber West, do you know what his number-one priority was this year? I have it here in The Western Star: to make sure the wing is opened in the long-term care facility. I will show it to you in The Western Star. That is his number-one priority.

Mr. Chair, I see I have twenty seconds left. Again, I ask the Member for Humber West, if what Councillor Bruce said is wrong, here is your opportunity stand up right after me and say he gave out false information, he did not tell the truth, and go back and tell the people of Corner Brook that Councillor Bruce is misleading the council in Corner Brook, and the people.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The people of the Province would oftentimes, I am sure, hear about bond rating agencies and how economies are rated, whether it is –

MR. JOYCE: A point of order.

CHAIR: The Member for Bay of Islands, on a point of order.

MR. JOYCE: Just to put it on the record, the Member for Humber West did not stand up and ensure what the city council said.

Thank you.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The people of the Province have heard about bond rating agencies reports and how the credit ratings influence the ability to borrow money and influence your ability in the markets and also how your economy is doing. There are three companies we have been going to: DBRS rating report, Standard & Poor's, and Moody's, all known nationally and internationally.

These reports, I understand, are all made public. They come out at various times during the summer and fall. DBRS stated that perhaps the most important number in the Province's Budget is the assumption for the average price of oil for the upcoming year.

Mr. Chair, one of the things we have to try to do is to look into that crystal ball and determine the price of oil. That becomes very difficult, Mr. Chair, when you are looking at the short term. Although there is a little bit more comfort in the long term, it is still a difficult situation.

What we have to look at is the advice given to us by experts such as the group we use out of New York called PIRA, and our energy advisors, Wood Mackenzie. We have to look at the advice given to us internally in terms of our own people. We have to look at the kinds of reports that are out there. There are all kinds of people, Mr. Chair, who do this for a living.

The price of oil is going to determine, along with production, how much revenue we are going to get from oil. What the last number of years, Mr. Chair, has shown is that there is volatility, especially in the short term. We are seeing it take place now; the growth in China can influence so much the price of oil. What we are seeing taking place in the Bakken in North Dakota now, Mr. Chair, with shale oil – and as the Americans move toward self-sufficiency – has an influence on the price of oil. We have heard discussions about this as we went through Muskrat Falls, Mr. Chair.

We have to try, and we are taking the steps that are necessary, but I am very interested in what the members opposite think we should use for the price of oil. During this debate, if they want to get up and give us a figure that they think we should use in the Budget, I am more than interested in hearing that, Mr. Chair.

Then we have to look at – and this becomes more difficult, Mr. Chair – the oil production, because we are dependent upon the C-NLOPB for our Budget for their projections in terms of production. Last year, we know we had Terra Nova down; two of our fields were shut down. That results in decreased production. Also, we have decreasing fields, Mr. Chair, until such time as Hebron comes on.

Let us never forget the significant impact and what a major oil field Hibernia is. Hibernia will continue to produce oil until 2040. Those billion-dollar fields, Mr. Chair, are not that common anymore. We know that oil is decreasing in the North Sea; we know that oil production is decreasing in Russia.

Production plus the number that we put on equals a significant – almost one-third, or more than one-third of our revenues. That is the difficulty: trying to determine what is going to happen in the Middle East.

Then if you look at a chart on our production, Mr. Chair, we went as high as 130 million barrels in 2007, down to 77 million in 2012, or lower. The fluctuations, especially as I referred to earlier with the dollar increase meaning $25 million for the Province, a cent decrease in the Canadian dollar meaning $25 million – it is a tough job.

What we are trying to do is the best we can to project what our revenues will be, but the volatility can take place in months, Mr. Chair; we can get an extra 10 million barrels, the Canadian dollar can go down. Last year we were – the price we used in the Budget was criticized, but we are averaging $111 a barrel this year, which is a very significant number. I just want to speak a little bit about the importance of predicting the price of oil.

Then when we get to these – and I mentioned the bond rating agencies; I will come back to debt shortly. We have been skewered for this reckless spending and fiscal mismanagement. Mr. Chair, this is what DBRS says in their 2012 report, August: "Spending restraint will be necessary as program expenditure growth averaging more than 8 per cent over the last five years is incompatible with declining revenue."

Moody's stated in October 18, 2012: "This volatility highlights the importance of maintaining fiscal prudence to ensure the continuation of sound fiscal outcomes." Standard & Poor's, dated November 2012: "Newfoundland's positive financial management" – that is what they said. It is not us; this is not myself or the Minister of Natural Resources. The answer is, "Newfoundland's positive financial management under our criteria also support the ratings. In our view, the Province possesses several attributes that mitigate the potential downside effect of its high fiscal dependence on resource royalties."

Mr. Chair, we had the Chief Economist for the Bank of CIBC in January 2013: "Deficits need to be addressed with spending restraint." The Auditor General talked about the per capita expenses and how our Province's expenses have grown from $4.7 billion since 2003 to $7.8 billion, an increase of $3.1 billion or 66 per cent. Per capita expenses in Newfoundland and Labrador are the highest in Canada. Furthermore, per capita expenses are approximately 50 per cent higher than the average of the other provinces.

We are in a national climate where there are deficits throughout all the provinces. We are in a global climate where we are actually faring fairly well. We have experts telling us, the bond rating agencies telling us to impose fiscal restraint measures and that deficits need to be addressed; that is what we are trying to do.

Isn't that the prudent thing to do? Or would you want us to continue to simply spend, spend, and spend? Because that is what I hear from members opposite: spend, spend, spend; worry about the consequences later or leave it to someone else to worry about.

Well, that is not the way we can do this, Mr. Chair. We have to ensure as best we can that we act on the advice given to us by experts, whether it be in setting the price of oil, whether it be in predicting our resource royalties, or whether in imposing the fiscal measures.

I find it ironic that the members of the Opposition accuse us of fiscal mismanagement when we have the bond rating agency reports, who did what they do, who are saying that there is sound financial management when we are relying upon experts like we have talked about, as we did in Muskrat Falls, to come up with our prices.

If we go too low with the price of oil, they are saying: you are trying to set it up so you get a big surplus. When you go too high, which they say we did last year, now you are trying to reduce your deficit. So, it is a very difficult situation to find yourself in as a government, where so much of the revenues – thankfully, we have the revenues based on resources, but trying to predict – because then we have to determine, in the Budget process, how do you spend.

I can tell you, Mr. Chair, that perhaps the least pleasant job in government is Minister of Finance. The Premier has the toughest job, but because my colleagues come in – and they believe strongly and passionately in the programs that they are putting forward. They are relying on the professionals in their department who believe so strongly in trying to provide the best service they can.

To sit there and listen to the Minister of Health and say: sorry, we cannot do it, or: that program, it is not feasible – it is not because we do not want to do it. It is not because we do not philosophically agree. It is not because we do not have a social conscience. It is because we are dealing with the reality of our fiscal situation. That is what we are trying to do.

Mr. Chair, then I hear the Minister of Transportation and Works come in – I am not going to talk about the ferry problems; he will talk about that in a little while – but the demand for pavement; we have heard the Member for The Straits – White Bay North talk about paving, about broadband. We all want to do these things. We all want to be able to give everything they want, but it just does not work that way, Mr. Chair.

We have the Minister of Justice come in with all kinds of good programs, the Minister of Natural Resources coming in saying: we need to explore, explore, explore; we need more oil – but there is a limited pot. That is what we are saying to the people of this Province: it is not that the bottom is out of her – I was going to use the vernacular, but I think that would be unparliamentary – it is just that we have a situation. We now have to sit back. We have to look at this objectively. We have to reduce our spending for a period of time, and unfortunately there is a personal impact on that as it affects certain people.

Mr. Chair, I will talk about that a little later on. I will give the breakdown to the people of this Province of the impacts in terms who has been laid off.

That is what we are trying to do with the budgeting process, the predictions of oil, and oil projections.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to speak again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the Interim Supply bill.

I would like to say, Mr. Chair, that the Minister of Finance needs to accept responsibility for certainly not planning, and not doing multi-year planning when it comes to the Budget and knowing how we need to spend money responsibly.

When we roll the dice onto pegging oil at $124 a barrel, no other industry expert, no other jurisdiction, would have placed it that high. We need to eliminate planning for volatility in our Budgets and we need to look at that.

I listened to the Minister of Finance talk about where the revenue comes from quite attentively. You know, it was focused primarily on the natural resources, the oil, the mining. There are other natural resources of where the money needs to come from.

One key area that is being missed is the fishery. It is a department that is being completely mismanaged. The people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador deserve to have the attention of the minister to institute better policies and better financial decision making so that industry can see an increase in revenue and employment so that overall revenues can come back to the people, to the Treasury here, in forms of taxation, in forms of corporate tax. That is significant. There have to be other revenue sources and we have to modify to deal with that.

I am just appalled, Mr. Chair, that the Minister of Fisheries would issue a news release on Friday, these good news releases that come out touting the performance of the seafood industry in 2012 as being strong, remain steady at $1 billion. Yet, the export market sales only represent $740 million.

If we look at that and we dig through and we actually read the report, we see that there was an overall decline in the volume and value of ground fish and pelagics, in shellfish. With all those sectors, there was a decline.

There are fewer people employed in the industry than there were previously. There are more and more fish plants closed. We hear again that there is another one going to be closed, that they are in receivership. This Province really has found no solution, just corporate giveaways, when it comes to the fishery. Absolute mismanagement – mismanagement of the fishery.

If we look at where we were when this government came into power – when they came into power in 2003, I ask: what was the value of export in the fishery? Well, it was over $1 billion – over $1 billion – in 2003. Where was it in 2004? It was at over $1 billion, the value of seafood export. Where is it today? It is at its lowest point in a decade at $740 million. This all happened under the management of the current government and it is irresponsible. It is irresponsible to be managing the fishery in this way.

We have ranked upwards of the top and now we are not even in the first place, we are not even in second place, and we are not even in third place, Mr. Chair. New Brunswick was Canada's largest supporter of seafood last year at $967 million, Nova Scotia at $915 million, and British Columbia at $871.5 million. With 80,000 people employed in the fishery across the country, we have 20,000. That is 25 per cent of the overall industry, the Canadian industry, employed in this Province, and we are not even in the top three.

We were at $1 billion in export value ten years ago when this government came into power, but they have been so fixated and focused on oil and gas, such a volatile industry, that they have not been focused in on our rural communities, our outports, not allowing a community-supported fishery, and not looking at other endeavours in which innovation can provide revenues that are needed into our economies. Many members in this House represent very rural communities that are very, very dependent on the fishery. We need to move forward. We really do. We need to see the ability to purchase local fish.

Lobster was listed as the most valuable export. The season is coming up. Will we see another bitter dispute where the processors are going to be willing to pay so little, $3 or less a pound? Is that where it is going to be when lobster is the most valuable export in the country? We have to look at how much of that we can supply locally, cutting out any intermediaries. Then, because we look at the export, we look at scarcity. There is less of it available so the price has to go up.

These are the types of things we need to look at, Mr. Chair, but it is something that is not being looked at by the current government. They are completely ignoring the fishery and what it means to our rural communities. Irresponsible, fiscal mismanagement; it is words they own because they deserve it.

This government has looked at the forest industry, our other natural resources. Let us look at that. Let us look at the tenders that were being called out for Central Newfoundland and Labrador: great opportunity, great resource, and no action. This government has moved in and we have seen them take over ownership of a plant that is going to cost the taxpayers upwards of $200 million in environmental cleanup.

Look at the Northern Peninsula and where we are when it comes to our forest industry: hundreds of jobs on the line and tax base on the line when it comes to royalties, when it comes to the logs paid to the Department of Natural Resources, when it comes to local incomes, when it comes to municipal taxes. It all has a domino and trickle down effect, but this government has been so fixated on Muskrat Falls that they have forgotten about the outports and the rural communities and what can be actually made when it comes to the forestry and our industry.

If you look at places like British Columbia and how successful they have been, northern and rural communities, like Lillooet, and what they are doing with recreation and public buildings. They are converting them using biomass and pellets. This government has provided an investment to set up pellets here in the Province, but they are stagnant; there is no employment being created. It needs an investment in wharfing infrastructure to sustain 150-plus jobs, millions and millions of dollars for the provincial Treasury, and there is being no action. There is no movement on this. Government is being irresponsible.

What they did in Lillooet, they anticipate a cost recovery of converting their stadium, their rec centre. It is going to be returned in two-and-a-half to three-and-a-half years. We are not doing that here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We could be doing it for hospitals; we could be doing it for schools.

If you look at biomass in North America and where it has been, there is communities and there is towns – Revelstoke provides heat to all their public buildings and some residential complexes. Prince George, they are providing it for their rehab facilities and educational buildings. Nakusp and Nazko heat their local elementary and secondary schools. Maybe we would not have to close so many schools if we were able to heat them more efficiently. Maybe we would not have to lay off as many people if we could cut down on the operating costs. Maybe municipalities would not be so stressed.

If we look at this, the savings of just this one initiative, $30,000 to $50,000. This government is not looking at long-term planning and cost savings for the short and medium term. No, they are looking at fifty years down the road to be able to provide us with some revenue. There has been absolute and grotesque mismanagement. We just need to look at how rural broadband is being done and administered with 200 communities in Newfoundland and Labrador still without broadband access when there are abilities for communities, rural and remote communities, to set up their own systems.

There is municipalities across the US, in many places, that are providing their own wireless networks. That is revenue going back into pockets. We have to build communities from the ground up. That is how it has to be. This government is centralizing services, taking the decisions out of local communities, and really being destructive to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. These policies are absurd; they are ridiculous.

When it comes to where we were in 2003 when this government took power and where we were in terms of our fishery – we have seen a successful company like FPI have their assets sold off. We have seen the lucrative marketing arm be broken up bit by bit.

Where has government gone into marketing our seafood product? We do not see a provincial marketing campaign, a generic campaign in the fishery. No, there has been no action. They have accepted everything in the MOU. Almost a couple of years ago in July, I believe it was three Fisheries Ministers' ago, just a couple of years.

There is no consistency in this government. They are turning over ministers in that Cabinet, in that portfolio. That is creating a real problem when you look at doing long-term planning. We need to see some direction. We really need to see some action from this government and I would like to see questions and issues that I have raised answered, Mr. Chair.

I will take my seat since my time has expired but I will have the opportunity to speak again about the gross fiscal mismanagement of these PCs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Skills and Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to take a few minutes in this debate today to talk about some of the issues throughout Advanced Education and Skills. I also hope as this debate continues I will have some more opportunity because there are so many messages I would like to deliver regarding the department that I probably will not get it all done in ten minutes. I am sure I will have an opportunity to continue.

I feel compelled today, Mr. Chair, to get up and speak and talk about the EAS offices and how they relate to the AES offices. For people out there who are hearing us throw around the acronyms EAS and AES, I want to explain what we are actually doing and why we are taking the action that we are in government.

Mr. Chair, years ago we used to have what was known in this Province, through the federal government, Canada Manpower Centres or Canadian Employment and Immigration Centres, CEC, CEIC, Canada Manpower. They were called different names. They were the employment agencies, the employment centres that we had throughout Canada and throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Through downsizing and contracting out, the federal government contracted with outside agencies and community groups to provide employment counselling; therefore, they only did then some of the financial work as opposed to the services, whether it is labour market information, how to find a job, job search skills, do assessments for skills training. That was contracted out, therefore these contracts were established. That was long before the provincial government ever became involved with this process.

Mr. Chair, in 2003, when this government commenced, there was a department then known as Human Resources and Employment. That department had come from the former Department of Social Services. In Social Services years ago, we had the Income Support program, known as the social assistance or the welfare program. Also, into that were programs like community supports, which would be home care, child protection, young offenders, but there was a split.

The split happened in, I think, April of 1997. At that time, the former Department of Social Services, the social part of it, the social programs came under the Health and Community Services community board at that time. The Income Support program or the welfare program remained under the department then of Human Resources and Employment.

At that time, the former Administration developed a computerized program to deliver Income Support, but to deliver it in a more modernized way. As opposed to somebody who would phone and apply for Income Support and a worker would have to go out to their home and look into their cupboards and figure out if they were eligible or not, it became more of a financial assessment. Somebody would apply for Income Support just like they would apply for their CPP, or their OAS, or their EI. If they were financially eligible to receive this money, they would receive Income Support. We modernized the system.

In doing that, the former Administration purchased a computerized system to make this happen, but they did not take it far enough. They brought in the system but they refused to make the necessary changes. At that point, there were some difficult decisions to bring in that particular change.

What that meant was the Income Support program would not have to be delivered throughout all the offices in the Province because it was more computerized, more centralized and more efficient. That meant back in the Budget of 2004, this government decided to locate the Income Support program in twenty-six offices across the Province as opposed to the forty-six offices. So twenty Income Support, or at that time HRLE, offices closed. We delivered the program through our twenty-six offices.

At the same time we made that decision, we also decided that we would put emphasis on career and employment services in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now this was separate from the federal government, separate from the EAS offices. We decided we would open a series of career work centres.

In these work centres we would provide career counselling. We would help people with assessments to determine their strengths and where they would like to work. We would provide labour market information. We would help people write their resumes. We would also assist in job interviews, being able to do job searches. We instituted JOBSinNL, the Web site where employers can post jobs. We also brought in the career hotline. We did what we could do to make sure we had centres across Newfoundland and Labrador to help us help people attach to the labour market.

Our doors are open. They have been open. I think we opened the first centre – it was definitely before November of 2005 because at that point I moved out of the former Department of HRLE into the Department of Education. I know I was on hand when we opened our first centre. So we opened our career centres at that time. They are for everyone, Mr. Chair.

In 2009, the Labour Market Development Agreement, valued at about $119 million, that is administered through the EI program by the federal government, devolved to the provincial government. We now take money from the federal government to offer their labour market programs. When we did that, Mr. Chair, what happened was we also inherited the EAS contracts. Out of the money that comes to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador under the Labour Market Development Agreement, $14 million was earmarked to keep open the EAS offices. That is what those contracts were valued at and that is what we inherited.

These EAS offices are open through the EI fund to provide services to people who are EI eligible, as opposed to our career centres where we will serve people who are EI eligible or not. Some people may have been out of the labour market for years, may be just a new entrant into the labour market and want information. We deal with all individuals, Mr. Chair.

When we looked at our EAS offices and the $14 million, we felt we should re-profile the money so that more people who are looking for employment, who may qualify to go back to school, or to make sure programs are available, that money needs to go directly back into the people. So we need to make sure the programs are there, the access is there, and the funding is there for people to go to school. Our mandate is to attach people to the labour market as opposed to keeping EAS offices open throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Although they did good work, we feel we can do the work through our Career Work Centres.

Also, Mr. Chair, when we looked at it, in some places we had our Career Work Centres plus the EAS offices. It is not just the offices everywhere off-site in remote rural areas. For example, in Corner Brook there are at least eight centres that we finance, either through the Department of AES or through an EAS contract. In St. John's, we have our career centres plus at least twelve EAS offices in the city alone. In Stephenville, within less than one kilometre there are three centres for employment services. We had to look at that, Mr. Chair.

We also had to acknowledge the fact that people who go through the EAS office, who qualify for funding, who sign a contract, who get money to go to school, also had to have a worker at the AES office, Advanced Education and Skills. Some clients had to go to one office and then another office. We heard the complaints that they used to say to us, clients would say: why can I not just go to the one place? You are doing the resume writing, you are doing the employment readiness, you have the labour market information; why can I not just go into that one centre, get my services, sign my contract, and go on to school? That is exactly what we are doing, Mr. Chair, when we look at the changes that we are instituting.

These offices certainly did valuable work, and that is why the federal government contracted with them. We inherited them back in 2009. I have heard the opposition say: why did we duplicate the services? Well, let me say for the record, we did not provide the duplication. Our career centres were part of the changes that this government instituted in 2004; before 2005, or during 2005, we started opening our Career Work Centres. We feel we have centres across Newfoundland and Labrador that can serve the people of this Province; also, if there are people outside who do not want to travel, there are services that can be done through the Internet, through the phone, or through the fact that we have workers who will do outreach. We will work with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair.

In addition to that, right now, people who live in the remote and rural areas who want career counselling or services do use our career centres. We have a way that we have developed that we work with people, because the EAS offices are set up and funded primarily through the EI fund. So, we want to make sure we have a comprehensive service that is available to the people of this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure to stand here this afternoon and speak to this Interim Supply Bill. Again, there is no shortage of issues that are going to be talked about over the coming days and weeks as we discuss Interim Supply and we discuss the Budget and we discuss the situation that the Province has found itself in. There are many things that I wanted to talk about. A lot has come up in the last little while.

So, I am going to take my opportunity to speak on different ones at different points, and I may go back and forth. One of the things that obviously I have to mention is the Employment Assistance Services, the EAS offices, because this has been a big topic since the Friday afternoon that the press release went out. It has caused a lot of uproar in this Province, and a lot of confusion and a lot of sadness.

It is not isolated to just one area; the fact is this is Province-wide. This is spread throughout the entire Province. Certainly there are offices in, I would say, the districts of most members of this House that are getting closed, resulting in a number of jobs being lost. There is no trouble to look around here on this side or look on that side and see people who have lost their jobs.

I want to go through some of the issues that come with the closure of this office. I guess one of the first things that I want to point out that obviously EAS falls under the Department of AES. Sometimes it can get confusing talking about these different acronyms. The fact is that the Department of Advanced Education and Skills, if you want to go through a timeline, that was created just after the last election, created just after October 2011. At that point, I am probably quoted somewhere on the radio saying it sounds like a good idea in theory. I like the idea of putting this together, but let's just see how it pans out. The problem that we have is that right now, at this point, I cannot say that it is a rousing success.

We had this department created. Now, what we have after that department being created is we have the hiring of Mr. Noseworthy, at basically the same salary as a Cabinet minister, to come in and do the business transformation project. After we have already cobbled together this department, now, four months later, we hire someone to come in and basically say how should we run this department or how should we structure it, should there be changes made.

Obviously, it is no secret; I have made my opinion known on my issues with that and how that whole thing went down. It was a bit sketchy to say the least. When you bring someone in after the situation is created to fix the situation, you have to question why didn't we wait. Why didn't we wait and have a report done and then put a department together and make sure that it runs properly? That is the first question I would ask.

Now, the second part is that Mr. Noseworthy managed to get the twelve months of work done in nine months – the same cost – and submitted the report. The fact is that the report, as far as I know, was not reviewed until February. What I am hearing after this is that this decision regarding EAS offices has nothing to do with the Budget. We are not making these cuts, these 226 job cuts, because of the huge deficit. That is just something we are doing anyway.

What I am wondering is; If the report has not been finalized, received and implemented, was this decision a part of Mr. Noseworthy's report? If not, we have to question why did we get a report and go ahead and make very, very large changes to this department without going by this report that we paid so handsomely for.

Obviously, I have some concerns about that. I understand that the report is now in transit. It has been sent back for more revisions. Again, we have this huge decision made and we do not know if it has anything to do with that at all. I have to question that.

Now, we go back to the topic at hand, though, which is the EAS cuts. I have a number in my district. I just look in Port aux Basques and there was a number. I look down in Ramea and down in Burgeo. I know for the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair there was a number. There was a number in Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune. There was a number here. I think there were some down in St. John's. They are all over. Unfortunately, it is widespread, these cuts and the effects they are going to have.

I do not think there is any need to criticize something just because it happens. I think you have to look at why a decision was made. I have no issue with saying we are going to look for efficiencies. The fact is I think that is part of good governance, to look at what you do and see if you can do it better. Can we do it better, can we provide the same level of service, and is there a way we can do it for a bit cheaper?

This was the same reason that EAS offices were created in the first place because Service Canada was doing them and said it was cheaper for us to farm this out to specific third party groups that do it for cheaper and we did not have to worry about pensions. Not only that, they are going to develop a specific set of subset skills. Take the John Howard Society dealing with their population. Take out my way, the Gateway Women's Centre. You develop these skills from dealing with a certain sector of the population.

That is why it was done. There was a great logic to that. I do disagree that we talk about this duplication. To say there was duplication across the board is not correct, in my opinion. It is not correct. To make a wholesale change and cut every single person without consultation was not right. I do not think there is a need to just cut the whole thing out without looking at: Are there specific areas where we could have made changes? We are not going to disagree with that.

I bet if you talked to the individuals who work in EAS offices, they would have said, we are willing to work with you to see if we can fix this situation and if we can fix this problem. They were not consulted. They were cut and they were cut on a Friday afternoon. They were cut in a press release that said this is a good move; we are doing a great thing here.

One of the things they have an issue with is the fact that we talk about there is duplication all across. Well, the fact is there is not duplication all across. There are a lot of services that these centres provide that is not being done at AES offices. Let me preface that by saying I am not saying anything about the people working at AES. I know many of them and they do great work, but they have been cut too. They have been cut very severely.

In fact, we talk about – what is the term here? Our job is to attach people to the labour market. In order to attach more people to the labour market we are first going to cut 226 people. Then you are going to cut in the labour market sector under Advanced Education. I do not know the proper name, maybe somebody can tell me what it is. I believe there is a large sector of these people cut within the department whose job was to help with the labour market shortage that we have, the shortage of jobs. I know the Parliamentary Secretary knows what I am talking about.

You have people being cut whose job it is to help people get jobs. We are not attaching people to the labour market right here; we are severing them from the labour market right here. The other thing is, as good as those workers in Advanced Education and Skills are there are not enough of them to take the work of an extra 226 people to do that work. I do not think that is realistic.

The next part we want to talk about is we have to look at the population that we have, and the demographics and the geography that we have. The fact is we are saying: well, no, you can get the same service by phone, or you can get the same service by Internet. Do you know what? Not everybody in this Province has that easy access.

Number two, many people are not able to use the Internet properly to get the service. Many people cannot because a lot of them – they are unemployed, and a lot of their unemployment in some cases may have to do with literacy issues. They have an issue using the Internet to find a job. To be able to go and get these services from people firsthand in an office was pivotal on attaching them to the labour market. I have an issue with that.

When you shut an office down in Ramea and you say: well, okay, you can make the phone call. Number one, you have to get through, but then in a lot of cases you are saying: well, you are still going to go on to that office. I know this is an issue everywhere. There are a lot of people wondering, are we still going to get the same level of service? I say, Mr. Chair, the same level of service will not be provided. It is not going to happen. We need more money in broadband. We could some money in cellphone service too, so people can make those calls.

I see my time is running out, but this is not my last opportunity to speak to this. I have a lot of e-mails from people. I bet those e-mails have gone to you guys as well. What I am going to do is I am going to offer – I think everyone of us should walk into these offices where people are being cut and say the reason we are cutting you is because what you did is easily done elsewhere. It is being duplicated.

I challenge everybody to do that. I have done it in my – who is the duplication? Go in and tell them that their services are redundant and they are not needed. You need to go in and have these conversations with the people and learn what it is they have been – not just what they are doing, what they have been doing for the people of this Province. There is a first layer of service; there is a second layer of service.

This is just my first time, Mr. Chair, but thank you very much.

CHAIR (Cross): The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Chair, I am really pleased to get on my feet in the House here today and to speak to this important bill in regard to our Supply bill that is being debated in the House now in committee stage.

I listened to the hon. members over across the House, and particularly what I hear all the time is that we need more money. Do you know something? From my position as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I probably have the biggest line up of Opposition members coming to my office or e-mailing me, or – they do not Twitter me because I do not Twitter, but they certainly e-mail me. They also call me in regard to their wants and their needs for all of their communities in their districts and whatnot.

Then you listen to them in the House of Assembly and you believe when you listen to them that we have fiscally mismanaged the Province. We have overspent, and then they are going to turn around – I heard the hon. Member for St. John's East who said: yes, you did.

I will ask the hon. member, being a member from the City of St. John's, to go down to City Hall tonight and tell them that the $10 million this government gave the City of St. John's to deal with some of the infrastructure issues they have within their city is unwarranted, is a bad spend for money, and we did exactly the wrong thing. I challenge the hon. member to do that tonight. I challenge him to go down to City Hall tonight and tell the members down there that we did the wrong thing. That is what I challenge him. Absolutely!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I tell you, over the last three months, over the last four months I guess, I would not be able to count the number of e-mails coming in from The Straits district as well. Guess what every one of them is about? I want money. I need money. I need CEB. I need Municipal Capital Works. I need; I need; I need.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fire trucks.

MR. O'BRIEN: Fire trucks, yes, Sir. If I were able to supply the fire trucks that I am asked for on the Northern Peninsula and all of these particular communities I would have a fleet of fire trucks going up there.

Here they are talking out of two sides of their mouth. That is exactly what they are doing. Listen, it is easy enough in regard to being in Opposition to say to people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. This government is built on principle, the absolute principle of doing the right thing for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I listened to our Premier today in Question Period, and she said it right. We built an economy. As a matter of fact, we absolutely enhanced the Province over the last number of years since we took government in 2003. That is exactly what we have done.

In regard to municipal infrastructure, we have invested over $630 million in municipal infrastructure over the last four or five years.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. O'BRIEN: Over $630 million in municipal infrastructure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wow.

MR. O'BRIEN: Much-needed infrastructure, because everything was a complete mess when we took government in 2003. We had aging infrastructure, we had crumbling infrastructure, and we had lack of investment.

That is why we invested; when we had the revenues to invest, we did invest, but now, when we projected a deficit – about two or three years ago, I believe, that we were actually projecting deficits in the future – we are adjusting ourselves to that. We will not be able to spend as much, but we will be spending money on infrastructure this year, and every year for that matter, because we address the need and we see it and believe in it, because it builds the Province, it builds an economy, and it builds the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, so that this will be the best Province to live in, I say to the hon. members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Guess what, too? I looked in my files only the other night, and you know something? Under our present Premier, over $260 million of that has been under her leadership. You know the reason why – because she is in tune with rural Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as our urban Newfoundland and Labrador, in regard to the infrastructure requirements.

Under her leadership we invested in recreational facilities, something that we have not really invested in, in a lot of years. Where do we invest it? We invested both in urban and in rural.

Is the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains going to get up in his place here today and tell the people of Makkovik that they did not need an arena? Is he going to tell the people of Hopedale that they did not need a multipurpose building? Is he going to do that? I am waiting to see that, because what you guys are saying across the House is that we spent that money unwisely; we spent that frivolously. You did not need it. That is exactly what you are saying. That is absolutely what you are saying.

You cannot get away with talking out of two sides of your mouth when you are in the House, because what happens in this House is recorded and the people of Newfoundland, I hope and pray that most of them will check Hansard and see exactly what you are saying and how foolish it was.

Just before Christmas we had a hon. member, the Member for The Straits, talking about running Holyrood with pellets, with wood pellets, and shrimp shells, and all of that kind of stuff. He thought he was going to get away with it in the middle of the night because it was in the middle of the night, because we were in the middle of a filibuster, but listen, I had many people mention that to me. Many people mentioned that to me. That is crazy. That is irresponsible, actually, to be honest with you, as a Member of the House of Assembly, to be saying those kinds of things.

Then you have the member there for St. John's East saying that all this infrastructure spending is not warranted, is not needed. So, you guys go there with Mark Carney and go back to your little offices there and try to figure out exactly what economists are saying in regards to –

AN HON. MEMBER: Makes no sense.

MR. O'BRIEN: It does not make sense. I agree; it does not make sense.

Wise spending – economists, any economists will tell you that. When you are investing in infrastructure, when you have the money to invest, then is the time to invest, and they are investments in your future. All the economists will tell you that. As a matter of fact, you spend so much time on googling, googling out in BC and whatever they are doing is better than what we are doing, and going all over the place because you built your whole party on Google, I believe. Google the economists, google what the economists are saying and how this Province is the envy of all provinces in Canada. Here we are; as the Premier said, we built our Province. We built an economy. You know, key in; that is what you have to do is key in. You cannot go doing those kinds of things.

Other things that we have done in regards to employment opportunities: the community enhancement program in Municipal Affairs. I am looking across the House, and other than the St. John's members, each and every one of them – each and every one of them – just about every week they are looking for more money. They are looking for more money for their districts and to sponsor committees and what-not. Then they are going to turn around and next say – probably the person after me now getting up in the House, just watch; he will say that was not warranted, it was not needed, you did not want it.

Well, I have one question, and I challenge you: get up and tell me why you are calling my office. Tell me why you are e-mailing me. Tell me why. Tell the people. Go up and tell the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: I say to the Member for St. John's East: it is 4:41 here now in this House, so we have about another 45 minutes or so in the House – give you probably a half hour to get down to City Hall, and I will follow you down there and see if you will tell them that the monies that we invested in the City of St. John's are unwarranted. I will be there. I will be there to watch that, absolutely.

We have invested right across this Province, and it is seen; it is absolutely seen. We have invested in Labrador – heavily in Labrador in the last while. As the Premier has said many, many times in public and here in the House: we are here for the right reasons. We are here to support Newfoundland and Labrador, but we are not here to bankrupt Newfoundland and Labrador. That is exactly what we are not here to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: She and I, she and this government, want a place where our children and our children's children can live. I am lucky enough to have three daughters, two in university and one out. At the end of the day, three of my daughters are going to live in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are going to work here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: They are going to have families here in Newfoundland and Labrador. You are looking at a guy here that I am the only one living in Newfoundland and Labrador out of my family. The rest are gone because they moved somewhere else for employment or for whatever reason they moved. That is the difference between Newfoundland and Labrador then and today, because there is a future.

As a matter of fact, I was talking to someone just today. Do you know how many people are working out in Long Harbour? I will ask the Member for St. John's East to tell me. Tell me how many people are working in Long Harbour today. Just under 4,000 people are working in Long Harbour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: That is called growth in the economy. That is called support in the economy. That is called creating jobs. That is exactly what that is. So google that, I ask the hon. Member for The Straits – White Bay North. Google that and find out, and stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to speak on the Interim Supply today. I will start off by saying I have served on both sides of the House and I do not envy the job of the Minister of Finance because I know it is tough looking for efficiencies. When times are good, it is easy to be Minister of Finance. When times are not so good, it is not such an easy job. I do not envy the Minister of Finance.

We all know the Budget as it currently stands is unsustainable. We have heard that from different think tanks and financial groups across the country. That is not a surprise; it is not a secret. We know we need to find efficiencies. How do we find those efficiencies with the least impact on the public service, the least impact on communities, and the least impact on people? That is the tough thing. How do we find those efficiencies and yet have the least impact on the people who are affected?

I know that over the past ten years that government has been power the Budget has grown and the public service has grown. Some people would argue: Well, government allowed it to grow. Government allowed the public service to grow at an unsustainable rate or government allowed the Budget spending to grow at an unsustainable rate. Now we need to find cutbacks. Now we need to find efficiencies. It is not a secret that the Atlantic Accord money was going to run out in 2011-2012 Budget year. That was not a secret. Anybody who reads the Budget books, anybody who follows the financial workings of the Province, knew that.

It was not a secret that transfer payments were being reduced and reduced and eliminated as the Province started to collect more revenue from the oil industry, from mining sectors. That was not a secret. We all knew that. As members of the House, we all knew that; some members of the public knew it. It is not a secret. It is not a secret that those things were going to happen.

It was not a secret that oil revenues would take a dip in 2011. It was not a secret that they would take a dip again in 2012, and so on, up to 2017, I think, is when we are expecting the next bump in oil revenues, due to higher production. That was not a secret.

Some would argue the same as if the Canadian government predicted that the Canadian dollar was going to be worth $1.20 on average every day this year for the entire year. Some people would say: Well, that is crazy; that is not going to happen. It might reach $1.20 for a day or two; it might reach $1.05 or $1.10, but will it reach $1.20 for the entire year?

Well, that is kind of what government did in last year's Budget by saying that oil would reach $124. They never said $124 for a day or for a week; it was going to be an average of $124 for the entire year.

Most people in the Province, most people probably in this Legislature, realize that seems to be a little bit unrealistic. We can say that it is based on the price of oil in New York or whatever the case may be. Really, when government projected $124 for a barrel of oil, most people realized well, hang on now, that is a little high.

That is where the argument comes in. Some people will argue government kind of padded it up a little bit so that the deficit did not look so bad at the beginning of the year and come out with an adjustment later on in the year. That is where it gets a little bit more difficult to determine whether or not, realistically, oil would have been $124 a barrel on average for every day of this fiscal year.

Mr. Chair, what we are looking at here with these tough decisions – and I will admit they are tough decisions that have to be made, but when you look things like the employment assistance officers throughout the Province, most areas of the Province were affected by that.

Now we are being told there is going to be a deficit this year and there is going to be a deficit next year. It is a short-term thing, a couple of years. In 2015, we are going to be back in surpluses again. Some will argue: well, do we need to take all of the tough measures that government is taking now if we are going to be back in surplus? The Budget is probably still unsustainable, so we do need to find efficiencies. I am not going to argue with that.

Again, when we look at the impact on the public service and the impact on people, is there an easier way? I do not know. I am simply asking questions. Is there an easier way to do this without affecting those 226 people who were let go, the employment assistance officers? I will say my district was affected by that as well. Many of the districts in the Province were.

We have had the John Howard Society lose individuals. I will say that I cannot argue on that point. The clients of the John Howard Society, for example, have a particular need. It is not just walking in, speaking to a bureaucrat, or going on-line. These individuals, many of them, most of them, or I think probably all of them, in fact, are ex-convicts. Therefore they may be a little bit uncomfortable going in to see a bureaucrat. Yet the John Howard Society has been doing this for twenty or twenty-five years, offering these programs for twenty years or so, and has developed a speciality in helping these individuals. There is a sense of comfort. Individuals know, if they want to help themselves, if they want to get out of that cycle and out of that rut, they want to get a job, they want to improve their lives and become a more productive member of society, that the John Howard Society is there to help them.

Now, there are others that my district was affected, the Y Enterprise, and I am going to talk about them as well. I only have a couple of minutes left, so I will talk about them when I get up again – the T.I. Murphy Centre – because I want to talk about them as well.

With the John Howard Society, for example, can we really say that for their clients it is a duplication of service? I would argue with that. I would argue with the fact of saying that the John Howard Society is a duplication of service. They fill a niche, a particular need, and help a certain set of clients. I think that we are doing a disservice to those clients, to the John Howard Society, by anybody who they have helped or their prospective clients; we are doing a disservice to them.

Now, again, how do we make the cuts? How do we make the Budget more sustainable? Well, I know in 2004 when we had tough measures to make we did announce some layoffs, but at the end of the day I think government, at that time, accomplished it through attrition.

I know that government has announced an early retirement program, and I commend them for that. I think it was a good program, because it inflicts less pain on people who are eligible and able to retire early; they can take advantage of that program.

We have looked at a hiring freeze, which does not affect existing employees, does not affect the current public service, but if we are going to be back into a surplus in a couple of years, are we able to accomplish what we want to accomplish without inflicting pain on the public service, through attrition? Again, I am asking the question. I do not have the answer to that; I am asking the question. I am asking the question: are we able to do as government did in 2004 and accomplish what we need to accomplish through attrition? There have already been a number of layoffs. The morale in the public service is probably at an all-time low. Are we able to accomplish what we need to accomplish through attrition, without demoralizing the public service, which in turn –

CHAIR: I remind the member his time is –

MR. OSBORNE: I have plenty more to say. I appreciate the time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to address the House this afternoon and the Members of the House of Assembly this afternoon in this debate. It is good to be back in the House of Assembly once again. I have to say, when I came in here on Thursday afternoon and I sat in my chair and I looked around the House, I thought for a second: it felt like we had never left.

The time was very short from December, when we were here last, to when we returned now. It has been short in many ways, for many reasons. One reason of it being short is that we have been continuing on here doing our work. I know myself and my Cabinet colleagues, the members on this side of the House, we have been here doing our work and working very hard for the people of the Province and for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have to say, Mr. Chair, one of the observations I have made in this debate so far this afternoon is that it is becoming apparent to me – the discussion today on Interim Supply quite often should lead to discussions about this year's expenditures, this year's funding and this year's budget, and how we have operated and functioned this year, but I have not heard too much talk about that.

Under Interim Supply, for those people watching at home, considered to be a money bill, it gives very broad parameters of what can be discussed or debated in the House. It is essentially unlimited to what you can discuss and what matters you can debate.

If you listen to the debate across the House – and I listened to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board in his remarks the few times he was up this afternoon, because he talked about spending in this fiscal year. He talked about how we, as a government, utilize the expenditures and the investments we have been made in this fiscal year. As I listened to the members opposite, there was very little of that. There was very little that was actually relative to the expenditures of the day.

It is kind of interesting to point it out, and maybe it is because they do not have criticisms of this year's budget or how we have expended our funds, how we have made investments. I have asked hon. members opposite, and as they get up I would invite them to tell us where we should not have spent money. Where would they have spent money?

When it comes to investments, when it comes to the investments we have made for the people of the Province, investments we have made in infrastructure, where is it that we have spent money on investments? What road is it? For my department, for example, what roads are they referring to when they tell me they should not have made those expenditures or those investments?

I know the Member for The Straits – White Bay North was talking about it. Regularly, he gets up in the House. He is a frequent participant in Question Period and a frequent participant in debate but every single time he gets up he talks about how we should spend more. It is never enough. For the hon. member opposite, it is never enough.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. DAVIS: I hear the Member for Cartwright; I will get to you, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, before too long. If I do not get a chance during this time, I will be sure to get up in this debate because I have lots to talk about with your district and your goings on up there in Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair as well, so stay tuned.

I would say to the Member for The Straits – White Bay North, if you look at the District of St. Barbe and the District of The Straits – White Bay North together, this year $23 million was invested in roads.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Twenty-three million dollars this year invested in roads on the Northern Peninsula. That does not include Humber Valley, which takes in a very big part of the Northern Peninsula.

I am telling you, Mr. Chair, the hon. member still comes in and says never mind that, never mind the investments we have made, never mind those investments, the money that we have invested up on the Northern Peninsula. That is not enough. I need more; I need more; I want more.

He never gets up and talks about: look, I get it. He never gets up and says yes, we have a crunch coming. We have a reduction in our revenues; we have to make adjustments to our budget. He never says that. All he says is he wants more.

To talk about how much, $23 million in the Northern Peninsula, that is just in 2012. I think that was a pretty significant investment for us, for the people of the Northern Peninsula, Mr. Chair. I think it was significant.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. DAVIS: I hear the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair over there. I do not want –

MS JONES: (Inaudible) I wish I had some of that.

MR. DAVIS: She is asking me, and I hear her commenting: I wish I had some of that. Well, let's talk about Labrador for a minute, Mr. Chair.

We have a major project ongoing in Labrador in the Trans-Labrador Highway. Before we came into power here there was actually no Trans-Labrador Highway. That Trans-Labrador Highway was completed, and the commitment was made –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DAVIS: The commitment was made that we would continue to do that work. Phase I, Mr. Chair, of the Trans-Labrador Highway is a stretch of road between Labrador West to Goose Bay. Phase I, widened and hard surfaced. How much, Mr. Chair, do you think that was? Does anyone have an idea? How much was that? How much is that project to do Phase I?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us, tell us.

MR. DAVIS: Three hundred million dollars being spent up there.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. DAVIS: Three hundred million dollars being spent up there to do the Trans-Labrador Highway. This year, $65 million; $65 million this year and there are two contracts currently let to complete the widening and hard surfacing of Phase I from Labrador West to Goose Bay. That work will continue into 2013 and quite likely, depending on the construction season, will be completed in 2014. It could be earlier if we get a good year, but the contracts are let to allow that work to complete. I think that is a significant amount.

MR. MCGRATH: Where is that over $85 million going?

MR. DAVIS: I hear the Member for Labrador West over there asking me about the other $85 million we have talked about recently. It is a good question he asks, because not long ago we travelled down to Goose Bay and we announced Phase II and Phase III. A partnership between the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: A partnership between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and a partnership between the Government of Canada, $42.5 million each to begin each – $85 million to widen and hard surface Phase III and Phase IV. Phase III is going to be on the South Coast of Labrador. The Red Bay area will begin that. Mr. Chair, I can tell you, there will not be enough funds to finish the project, but it is the next phase of it. Which district is it in? It is Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

Now, I would ask the hon. member opposite: Should we not do that investment? Should we not make that investment? She is indicating we should. They are good investments. I would guess, Mr. Chair, I go out on a limb and guess that if I was to list investments made in her district I do not say there would be any there she would say was not a good investment because that is popular to say that.

MS JONES: (Inaudible) great investment.

MR. DAVIS: She says it is a great investment. She is saying it is a great investment.

What we have to do as a government, we have to look at our budget, we have to look at what we have available to us, and we have to make those decisions. We do those on principle.

I am trying to move on to other topics, I say to the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, but when you keep coming back at me it is hard to move on. It is kind of drawing the target there, but I will move on.

MS JONES: (Inaudible) ferries.

MR. DAVIS: Talk about ferries? I will talk about ferries. Would you like me to talk about ferries? I do not mind talking about ferries. I only have two minutes left, but I will start on ferries now. Maybe I will get another chance to get up in a few minutes or a little bit later and I will talk about ferries some more because ferries are big business in Newfoundland and Labrador. Ferries are big, big business and very important to the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and isolated portions of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Not long ago, Mr. Chair, we announced that we are going to move forward with a new RFP for ferries for Labrador, a new RFP for a ferry for the Straits, access across the Straits from the Island of Newfoundland to the Labrador portion.

MS JONES: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: I will give her time to continue with her applause.

Also, the RFP will also include a new vessel for Northern Labrador. Now, Mr. Chair, it is not just any vessel. What we have done, and what we are doing to move forward with this project, is we are going to require brand new boats, brand new vessels, purpose-built vessels, to provide this service to the Straits and also to Northern Labrador.

MS JONES: First time ever.

MR. DAVIS: The first time ever, absolutely. Not only that, we are requiring that they be what we call RORO vessels, which are roll-on/roll-off. I will explain that to you, Mr. Chair. A roll-on/roll-off vessel is a ferry where you can drive your vehicle on one side, and then when you reach the next port - so, if you go into the stern of the boat, when the ramp comes down you drive in, and when you arrive at your next port the bow buoys are open – which is the front part that opens – and you drive off the front. It does not require the backing on and backing off, like some of our old vessels, like the Sound of Islay which is now being used down in St. Brendan's. That vessel requires that you either have to drive on and back off or you back on and drive off.

What we are requiring in this RFP is a roll-on/roll-off, new, purpose-built vessel that will supply services to the Straits of Labrador, Northern Labrador, and the people of Northern Labrador for a fifteen-year period starting in 2016. It is the first time ever, Mr. Chair, and I tell you I look forward to the time that we are able to move this forward and provide that service to the people of Labrador.

I look forward to my next opportunity to get up to continue to talk about ferries and investments that we have been making as a government and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Littlejohn): The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Well, Mr. Chair, it has been interesting listening to the Minister of Finance regale us with tales of the last ten years. Of course, I thought the prominent CBC reporter Mr. Cochrane did a much better job in summarizing for us what the last ten years have been about, particularly when it comes to excesses and government spending.

Mr. Chair, in 2003 there is no doubt the Province had financial difficulties. This Province had 500,000 people, more or less the same that it has today. At that point, it was costing around $8,000 per person for the provincial government to govern 500,000 people. Today it costs approximately $16,000 per person to govern 500,000 people because we do not actually have any more people. The ones we have are a little older and maybe a little less productive, but we do not have any more people.

The first thing the government did when it took office in 2003 was change the accounting system. The accounting in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador had always been cash accounting. Most people, Mr. Chair, understand cash accounting as the ordinary accounting you would have for your home, for your groceries, and maybe for a small business; money in and money out. You do not worry about the contingent liabilities and you do not worry about the unfunded liabilities. The very first thing this government did was change the accounting system.

That is not to say they should not have changed the accounting system, but clearly the government ought to have been on accrual accounting and most jurisdictions by 2003 had already moved over to accrual accounting. The issue is with accrual accounting it is neither better nor worse than cash accounting, although it is maybe a little more accurate, but in the year that you change over you introduce all of your liabilities and all of the contingent assets. Therefore, it looks much worse than it was.

By a neat accounting trick in 2003-2004, this government was able to make things look far worse than it was; or maybe we did not think it was as bad as it was before. If you go back and roll the numbers backward, you will be able to see that the projections of the previous Administration were within about 3 per cent of accurate, if you back out the cash accounting versus the accrual accounting.

The provincial government then – this government – ended up in a relatively conservative manner and was determined to tame the deficit; many of us will remember that in the first two or three years of this government, the government jacked up fees on almost everything that you could imagine. Anything from a marriage license to a rabbit license increased in cost. Ambulance fees increased; all sorts of fees were increased in order to generate revenue.

At the same time, government held very tight to their purse strings and they moved forward, but from 2003, the expenses for the Province went from $4.261 billion, the next year $4.272 billion. It only increased $9 million from 2003 to 2004. Then it went to $4.5 billion, $4.9 billion, $5.5 billion, $6.5 billion, nearly $7 billion in 2009, nearly $7.5 billion in 2010, $7.8 billion in 2011, and, Mr. Chair, more than $8 billion in 2012. In a run of nine years, this government doubled its expenses. It increased its expenses and you can easily see where the increases came and when they came.

You can match them up with the prices of the windfall profits from oil. There is nothing wrong with windfall profits from oil; it is better to have windfall profits from oil or anything else then no windfall profits. The difficulty that this government ran into is that they began to spend like somebody who won a lottery. If you had a family that was struggling, just barely making it, and they had to watch every penny, be careful to only spend what they could spend, save whatever they could save, put off buying things, and manage their finances in a fiscally prudent manner – some would say in a conservative manner, but I would say in a fiscally prudent manner – then all of a sudden, they won a lottery. They won a lottery and they could not believe how much money they had. They had more money than in their wildest imaginations.

The oil revenues started to take off in this Province and they went way past the $2 billion mark – $2 billion, $2 billion in one year of oil revenues. That is 50 per cent of the total Budget in 2003. Found money, clean money, clean cash, and we are still getting equalization; equalization is great, too, as long as you are receiving it and not paying it.

Mr. Chair, the government then became very careless about how they began to budget. They were very prudent initially, and they were careful, and they were good managers. Full credit should be given to the first two or even three years of this Administration; you can see their expenditures only going up by $9 million or approximately 2 per cent from 2003 to 2004. Then the expenses took off.

You can also see the haphazard pattern of budgeting. The haphazard pattern of budgeting falls mostly to the projected price for oil. Last year was not the worst year in projected oil prices; the most aberrant year, the most erroneous year, was 2010. Mr. Chair, what this government ought to have done and should still be doing is instead of going to one favoured company in New York – and yes, that company did project $124 a barrel; I know because I looked it up to see where did this crazy number come from. That was the only company that was projecting that.

Oil was trading at $118, or thereabouts, on Budget Day; $117.74, $118 on Budget Day, and the government was forecasting $124. In fact, the government was projecting more money than they knew would come. If this government had been prudent, they would have selected maybe five agencies, taken the average of five petroleum forecasting agencies and then said: now let us take a factor of 85 per cent or 90 per cent of the average of those numbers. That would be prudent, Mr. Chair.

They did not do that. They took the most aggressive number and then they jacked up their projections from actual by another $7 a barrel. Of course, we know what happened; the bottom fell out.

Mr. Chair, by way of review, in 2007-2008 government assumed oil would trade at $58.60 a barrel; on Budget Day it was $67.94, so they actually forecasted based on 86 per cent of actual. That seems like a reasonable thing to me. It is better to have a little money left over than to come up short.

In 2008-2009, they forecast $86, $87, and on Budget Day it was actually $113.86. In 2008-2009, they forecasted 76 per cent of the actual. They next year they saw the oil prices were falling, and clearly oil prices would fall dramatically; the whole world knew that by the fall of 2008, we were in a major economic downturn, the biggest recession since the Great Depression.

In September 2008 we had companies like Bear Stearns, companies like Lehman Brothers, they all went to the wall; companies like Merrill Lynch that have been around for 100 years went down because of their overcapitalization and their overestimates in the United States.

This government in 2009-2010 forecasted $62.50 and oil was only at $51.32, so they actually over projected by 22 per cent that year, 2008 and 2009. Then 2010 was the year of the first huge surplus. What did government do then? Well, all of a sudden with the purse strings tightened worldwide and the price of oil shot up, this government forecasted $83.48, which was 72 per cent of actual, and actual was $115 – a big, big surplus. In 2011-2012, they forecasted $108.21. It was actually $121. In 2011-2012, they forecast 89 per cent of actual and that seems pretty reasonable. Last year they forecasted more than actual and got in trouble.

Today, Mr. Chair, we have a Minister of Finance who has been saying that we are looking at a $1.6 billion deficit followed by another $1.6 billion deficit. That may well happen. Heaven forbid that it does, because it would be a catastrophe for this Province. How can the Minister of Finance say what the deficit will be next year based on the price of oil and based on how much will be pumped? Also, there are other world variables. He has not possibly any way of knowing what those figures will be. He can only rely on certain assumptions and the people are entitled to know: what are the assumptions, what is real, and what is accurate?

The number which is being thrown around – and the unions are right to assume this is just being done to terrorize us; they cut figures back and they lower expectations, but that is not realistic and that is not reasonable. So I will call on this government to be more factual, be more open, be more circumspect, and give people something realistic in a Budget that we can all debate properly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is very interesting to hear hon. members talking about predicting the price of oil. No one can predict the price of oil. You can try, but not too many are successful. What we can do in trying to budget is we rely on the best experts we can find in the world and we rely on the best experts we can find in our Province. They are the ones who make the predictions and they are the ones who give us the advice. We rely on that advice.

It was interesting that the Finance Minister in Alberta, I think it is Mr. Doug Horner – who I met at the last FTP meeting of finance ministers in Ottawa – indicated that it was reported in The Globe the other day that the way Alberta does it is, he said: we do not predict the price of oil. He said they look at all public and private forecasters, they average them, and then they pick a number below it. They are out more than we are.

I always use the old Biblical saying that man plans and God laughs, because we cannot predict the future. The price of oil, or the revenues we receive from oil, or the revenues we receive from minerals are set in the world market. They are commodities in the world market, which means that we have no control over them.

We cannot control what the price of oil is going to be. We cannot control what the price of nickel or zinc is going to be. We know this as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because historically it was the same with fish; it was the same with lumber. We did not set the prices; the prices were set out in the world market. In some years the prices were good and the Province excelled, but there were a lot of bad years too and the Province and the people of the Province suffered.

Mr. Chair, when oil is high, or when the price of oil or the production is high, and when the dollar is low relative to the US dollar, we do very, very well. As the Minister of Finance indicated, $1 increase in the price of oil, we get somewhere between $22 million and $25 million extra on average; one cent drop in the Canadian dollar, about the same thing. These things are very flexible and they are very volatile.

When you do the Budget, you have to make a prediction. How can you predict? How do you know? You do not know. You cannot know. You rely on the experts. We rely on people in New York, we look at the public forecasters, and we look at the private forecasters.

What is important is not the prediction – and I keep hearing this. I hear it in the media and I hear it here in this House; people are saying: oh, it is what you predict the price of oil to be. It is not what you predict. It is what the results actually are.

What is going to happen is that, for example, in this year – after we had six surpluses in the last eight years – we predicted a deficit of $259 million. Mid-year the oil projections went down. Now the projection changed, and that is what Budgets are; budgets are a projection, they are an estimate, they are a prediction. They are not the actual numbers.

Then halfway through the year, we do the mid-year forecast and we get updated information. Some of the information now is actual, because usually around that time we have about six months of actual results. We are still predicting what the other six months are going to be. We are still making a prediction in the future. We cannot see the future, we cannot do it. Maybe there are people out there who think we can. If they can, let us know. I see the Member for St. John's East smiling at me.

After the Budget came out last year and our prediction was based on $122 a barrel – yes, it was high, but the previous year was high, and the year before that it was high.

I remember as Finance Minister thinking it is never going to hit that number, but it did. The year after, I did not think it was going to hit the number and it did. Last year's number, I think it was only $8 higher than the average from the year before. What is important is what actually happens. What is important is what the actual results are.

The Minister of Finance, when he gives his Budget, will not only get up and give a prediction for next year, he is also going to tell you his final prediction for this year. He is going to now have actual information. It is not the final information, but it is going to be about eleven months of information. It is going to be a lot more accurate, obviously.

Then, in a few months from now, the Comptroller General will do the actual report and come out with a public accounts that will be audited by the Auditor General and contain the Auditor General's certificate. That way we actually know what has happened. That is what is important to the Province, not what we predict is going to happen but what actually is going to happen.

We are in a situation right now in this Province where the economy is booming. I would like to address the advertisements that NAPE, the unions and the teachers are putting out there. Our economy is doing well, except for one part of it, and that is the foreign sector.

The Minister of Finance talked about GDP. GDP is a measure of how the economy is doing. Now, you cannot eat GDP. It is a measurement. You normally think when things are going well, GDP you get economic growth. When times are bad you do not have economic growth. You have economic contraction and GDP falls.

Mr. Chair, in terms of our economy, you have the consumption sector, you have the investment sector, you have the government sector, and you have the expert sector. What is driving our economy right now is capital investment, business investment, Hebron, all of the jobs that are going to happen at Bull Arm. You have Long Harbour; you have the plant being built at Long Harbour.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs was wrong. There are not 4,000 people working there now. There are 5,000 people working at Long Harbour right now. There are two shifts going on. Then you have Muskrat Falls with all the construction that will happen there. These things are driving employment in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The unemployment rate in this Province is the lowest it has been since they have been keeping that number. It is still high because of the seasonality of a lot of people's employment, but it is the lowest it has been in our history. Employment is the highest it has ever been in our history. People are working in these projects. People are working in the construction sector. People are working in the housing sector.

As the Minister of Finance indicated, for the first time in our history the average weekly wages in Newfoundland and Labrador are higher than the average in Canada. They are higher than the national average. We are second to Alberta.

People are working, and people are making good wages. They have money in their pockets, and we are seeing the result of that in the fact that personal income taxes are going to be about $100 million more than we thought they were going to be at the start of the year. Because people are working, they are making money. Therefore, personal income tax coming to the government is going to be higher.

Also, you can see it in the car sales. The Minister of Finance said car sales are going to be very high. I understand it is a new record. You are seeing the housing starts, because people are working. They have money. You are seeing the housing starts. The economy is hot.

There is one section of our economy that is not doing so well, and that is the foreign sector. That is the oil companies, it is the mining companies, and it is people who have to sell their products out in the world economy, and the world economy is doing very, very poorly. You have tepid growth. It is barely growing. You do not have a contraction; you do not have a recession. Although in some parts of the world you do.

Europe is in recession. Japan is in recession. The US is having major fiscal problems, and because of that they are not demanding the commodities. So commodity prices are dropping. If commodity prices are dropping, that means we get less royalties. We get less in royalties from the oil companies. We get less in royalties from the mineral companies. Because the prices are dropping, they are making less income; therefore, they are paying us less corporate income tax. That drop, because of the big – it is one-third of our revenue. It is higher and offsets the $100 million in personal income taxes that are coming from the people who are working here.

Our revenues are down because of what is happening in the world economy. I can guarantee you one thing; the world economy is going to change at some point. When it does, the minerals and the oil revenues are going to gush into this Province, like they did previously, and we are going to have that money to build hospitals, to build more long-term care facilities, which I can tell you we need, and to pave roads, to build more schools, and to give people of this Province the prosperity they are entitled to and they deserve.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will take my seat, and I look forward to speaking later.

CHAIR: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of AES, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

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