April 1, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 9


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

I would like to rule on a point of order which was raised by the Opposition House Leader on Wednesday, March 31, regarding private member's motions.

The Opposition House Leader raised a point of order seeking clarification on the Standing Orders relevant to private member's motions. These motions are referenced in Standing Orders 63 and 64 and by definition, all private member's motions should be presented to the House by private members. Thus, unless leave is granted at the time that notice is given and leave is further granted on the day in which the debate occurs, all such notices and motions should be presented by private members. Thus, the point of order raised by the Opposition House Leader is valid.

In addition, the Speaker finds it necessary to reference Standing Order 63(3) wherein there is a clear directive that the Government House Leader or the Opposition House Leader, as the case may be, shall announce to the House on the Monday before the Wednesday of the week in which a private member's motion is to be debated, the motion for debate. In the past, this directive in the Standing Orders has been varied rather consistently and albeit with leave and with acceptable explanations, the Speaker finds that in fairness to all hon. members that greater attention be given to this aspect of our Standing Orders.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have Statements by Members in the following order: The Member for Port de Grave; the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde; the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; the Member for Terra Nova; the Member for Grand Bank; and the Member for Gander.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to recognize the contributions made by the people in the Trinity-Conception area in the recent Run For The Janeway 2004, held in Shearstown. This year, 468 ATVs and ski-doos were registered, almost 200 more than last year. To date, the funds raised a grand total of $65,055.89.

Much appreciation must go to the dedicated organizers, the volunteers, the riders and the community who have made this event so successful.

For the third year in a row, Mr. Speaker, seventeen-year-old Bradley Hussey of Clarke's Beach raised the most money, an amazing $10,019.25. A new ventilator will be purchased to transport babies from regional hospitals to the Janeway.

I ask this hon. House to extend congratulations to the many, many people who made this possible for the Janeway Children's Hospital Foundation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise in this House today to congratulate two constituents for their outstanding achievements.

Firstly to Ashley Reid of New Harbour, who received the Provincial Youth of the Year Award on March 18. Ashley is a Grade 11 student at Crescent Collegiate. She was nominated by her guidance counselor who recognized her for her hard work and determination within her school and her community through Allied Youth, Student Council and many other activities.

I also want to congratulate Harry Strong of Old Perlican who received the prestigious Order of Canada. As CEO of the Canadian Coast Guard, Auxiliary, he was instrumental in earning for the Auxiliary the reputation as being one of best lifesaving operations in Canada. Harry is very committed to local, national and international search and rescue communities. For twenty years, Harry has selflessly volunteered to saving lives.

I would like to ask all hon. members of this House to join me in extending our appreciation for the volunteer efforts of Harry Strong and Ashley Reid.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a constituent of mine, Megan Roome of Grand Falls-Windsor, on being named the provincial winner of Vendez Vos Idée. This French version of the "Market Your Thoughts" business essay competition is co-sponsored by Canadian Parents for French and the Y-Enterprise Centre and showcases the ability of French Immersion students to communicate in both official languages of our country. Having this ability will no doubt make them more marketable for future employment in their chosen field.

Megan's concept product, a warming system for car doors, was conceived during a ride to school one day in which her car door was frozen shut. Megan researched winter temperatures in the Province and conducted a survey of potential customers, who all said they would purchase the product if it were available. She included a detailed diagram of her door warmer prototype, which was similar to a block heater with the wires connected around the door.

Mr. Speaker, Megan's entrepreneurial spirt at this young age -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

 

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Megan's entrepreneurial spirit at this young age, and her ability to communicate her ideas in both official languages, shows that with continued hard work and dedication there is no doubt we will again hear of her accomplishments in the years to come.

I ask all hon. members of this House to join with me in congratulating Megan Roome on a job well done, and as well express appreciation to the Canadian Parents for French and the Y-Enterprise Centre for sponsoring this worthwhile event that showcases the talent of French Immersion students of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a wonderful friend from the community of Glovertown, Dawson Perry, who passed away on Sunday, March 28, at the age of fifty-six years.

Daws, as he was known to everyone, was a member of the Alexander Bay Lions Club, a Scout Leader for many years, a member of the Glovertown Volunteer Fire Brigade, and a member of the Salvation Arm Men's Service Group.

Daws loved to spend time helping others. He looked forward to the Santa Claus Parade every year where he was responsible for driving the local school Christmas parade float, which he did drive this past Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, Daws fought a courageous battle with cancer for seven years and showed great strength of character. The 500-plus people who attended his funeral yesterday was a testimony to the way that people admired and loved him. Daws will be missed by everyone who knew him in the area.

I would ask the members of the House to join with me in extending our sympathy to his wife Mona, and sons Bill, Jimmy and Jeff.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Grand Bank Heritage Society on their initiative to establish a Mariner's Memorial, which will be located in Grand Bank.

Sculptor Luben Boykov designed the memorial, and landscape architect Fred Hann was contracted to do the landscape elements. Work on Phase 1 is expected to begin this fall. The memorial will be located on the grounds of the historic George C. Harris House.

Mr. Speaker, given the town's history in the fishing and marine industries, recognizing the fishermen and mariners in this tangible way is most appropriate. The memorial will also highlight the role played by the women who were left for months at a time to care and provide for their families while their partners were at sea. It is well known that many fishermen paid the ultimate sacrifice in providing a livelihood for their families. The memorial will contain the names of more than 300 seamen lost at sea.

I also congratulate and express sincere thanks to the many volunteers in Grand Bank who have given their time and energy to work on this very worthwhile project.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Grand Bank Heritage Society and wish them every success with this most worthwhile initiative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand before the House to bring to your attention the accomplishments of a young athlete from my District of Gander, who has shown us all what commitment to dreams is all about. Sara Brown of Gander recently competed in the Special Olympic Canada Winter Games in Charlottetown, P.E.I. She represented Newfoundland and Labrador as a member of the Gander Wings Special Olympics Club and impressed everyone with her abilities in the snowshoeing events as she walked away with four medals.

As a result of this incredible performance, Sara Brown has been asked to represent not only Gander and Newfoundland and Labrador, but now has been asked to represent Canada in the International Special Olympics to be held in Japan.

Sara said that she simply set out to do her best in this competition and, as it turns out, her best was most certainly among the best in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, Sara's accomplishments showcase for us exactly what can happen when we commit ourselves completely to a goal. In this case, that goal has brought attention to the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. O'BRIEN: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. O'BRIEN: - Gander District and to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would ask the members of the House to join me in extending congratulations and best wishes on her accomplishment of four medals and for being chosen to represent Canada at the upcoming International Special Olympic Competition in Japan.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately today we have the largest strike in the history of the Province, and we have workers on the streets feeling outright betrayal by the government and particularly, by the Premier as the leader of the government. At the NAPE convention the Premier promised to consult with the unions if he had a problem. Actually, he did say if some unexpected, unanticipated circumstance arises, I will come back to you and ask for your help and cooperation in finding a resolution we can all live with. Mr. Speaker, on January 5, with no consultation with anybody, unions, not even his own Cabinet and caucus, he announced a wage freeze which is the start of what led to this strike today.

Can the Premier understand why the union members might feel a little bit betrayed today by him?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition sees fit to inflame a very tense situation. None of us are very -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I do not find it funny. The Member for Port de Grave, I do not find this issue funny at all. The Member for Bellevue, I do not find this issue funny at all. Not at all.

I do not know why you are laughing but this is a very serious issue. It is unfortunate that you see fit to try and inflame the situation. I noticed what you have done, you did absolutely nothing to try and appease this situation, to try and bring it to an agreement because if the truth were known, you did not want to see us achieve a settlement. You wanted the people on the street, that is what you said. Now if you are going to quote me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If you are going to quote me from a speech, do not leave out something in the middle of the sentence. If some unexpected circumstances arise then you skipped the last part and you went to the next sentence, I will come back to you: That make it impossible for the government to honour all the terms of a collective agreement. That makes a big difference because right now we do not have a collective agreement. So, you are fabricating the words that are here. That is what you are doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If you are going to state the facts to this House of Assembly and to the people of this Province, state them all and state them clearly and state the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is convenient, and always is, for the Premier to try to blame all of his failures on someone else.

Mr. Speaker, I heard him mention earlier today, and I am glad he mentioned in the Legislature, that currently we do not have a collective agreement. I would ask that he look at Article 44 of the General Service Agreement that expired yesterday which says that this agreement is in full effect until a new collective agreement is arrived at. Does he know anything about the collective agreements that he is responsible for, as the head of the government, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker, on September 25, last year as well, the Premier led the unions and the people of the Province to generally believe there would be no cuts. The quote, Mr. Speaker - and it is important to say this when I put this question - is: You know we can cut expenditures only so far, and I think a lot of that has already been done. It has been pared down to the bone.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The question, because the Premier finished by saying, if you go too far you basically cut the heart out of the Province: With 700 direct layoffs and 4,000 more jobs slashed, can the Premier understand why the people of the Province feel that he has been misleading them and that they have been betrayed by this Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition doesn't want to hear the attempt that we made, the very genuine attempt that we made yesterday to reach a collective agreement with the members.

The other point which you make is, if we, in fact, have a collective agreement. They have gone on strike, they have actually gone out on strike. So, with respect to the collective agreement they have gone on strike.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is the point he is making to you.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is the point we are making.

Last night we went on salaries. We knew they wanted a term. We asked for a term of two years because that was the term we felt we needed a wage freeze for. They asked for an extended term of four to five years. We went to that term because we wanted to give them the security of knowing that we would provide an increase in years three, four and five.

On the issue of concessions, we gave on severance, we gave on the issue of sick leave and the question of the pensions. Indexing was taken off the table. We looked at the job re-evaluation. We looked at all issues. We made every genuine attempt we could..

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We did not want our people on the street, Mr. Speaker, under any circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it isn't a matter of what they were giving yesterday, it is that they finally decided to stop taking things away, which has caused the problem in the first place. I am glad to see they are making some limited progress, because it has been a mess since January 5 caused by this one person.

The problem again, Mr. Speaker, is this: They don't trust the Premier and they don't believe what he is saying.

Again he didn't answer the last question. I will repeat it. The Premier has said we are already cut to the bone; his words, Mr. Speaker. Everybody in the Province heard his words. The Finance Minister yesterday, however, stated: We have too many people working in the public service and even if we had a surplus we should -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is impossible for the Chair to hear all of the questions, but I do ask the Leader of the Opposition now to complete his question in about five to seven seconds.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question again is: Who should the people of the Province believe, the Premier who said we are cut to the bone or the Finance Minister who said even if we were flush in cash we should reduce the size of the public service because it is the biggest public service in Canada? Which one speaks for the government, Mr. Speaker? Which one of them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, how the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the former Premier, the unelected Premier who caused this mess, can be so hypocritical?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The ‘mandateless' Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In August of 2000, the Leader of the Opposition made a statement. These are the Leader of the Opposition's words, "We are on an extremely dangerous course..."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Would the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo let me just at least have a say here in this House? You don't mind do you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I quote the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker.

"We are on an extremely dangerous course which, if not contained, could lead to financial disaster for Newfoundland and Labrador." That is the legacy the unelected Premier gave to this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I should not need to remind the Premier, the people did not elect him to talk about the past, they elected him to get on with the new approach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Today, he has made a mess of it, Mr. Speaker. He has made an absolute mess of it and he will not answer the questions that are being put to him.

Again, Mr. Speaker, who speaks for the government and which is the answer? The Premier has said: we would love to give the public servants a raise but I just do not have the money. However, in the Maclean's magazine article he told all of Canada that he believes our public service got too much, too fast. They are already overpaid.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Now, which is it? Answer that question instead of talking about the past!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the reality of what we have inherited from this past government -

MR. REID: Go on boy, answer the question.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Would the Member for Twillingate & Fogo allow me to at least get started?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The legacy that has been left by the former minister of Fogo-Twillingate and the former Premier, the Leader of the Opposition. For fiscal performance last year, they predicted a -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If Question Periods are to function effectively we have to have relative opportunities for both sides of the House. One side to ask the questions and the other side to be able to give the answers. This afternoon we are having a great deal of friction. The hon. the Premier has the floor and asks that he be heard in this Chamber when his turn comes to speak.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The legacy that has been left by this former government is that instead of an accrued deficit of $666 million, we are dealing with an accrued deficit of $958.7 million. That is the reality. Three-hundred million dollars in the difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to finish his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The difference in the cash deficit has gone from $286 million to $406 million. Those are the facts. That is reality. Those are the facts.

As well, we have offered a raise, a good raise, to our public servants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We put 7 per cent on the table.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, what the people of the Province want is for their new Premier to get on with the new approach and the solutions that he successfully made people believe that he had.

Now, Mr. Speaker, which is it? See if he will answer this question, because he has not answered a single question yet today. See if the Premier, with the new approach and the answers and the solutions, will answer this question, and I am glad he raised the points he just raised. On Province-wide television on January 5, the Premier stated that the cash deficit for the Budget that finished yesterday, that the Liberals brought in, was $220 million over the estimate; however, in his own minister's documents and the Budget that he read two days ago, it shows that the Budget for the year ending yesterday came in almost $100 million under the target -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear

MR. GRIMES: - and it is on statement two on page three, in case they do not know where to find it in their own documents. So, which one is it? Who is right, the Premier or the Finance Minister? Which one of them, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will let him know who is right. The Auditor General is right, the Toronto-Dominion Bank is right, and this government is right, when it says 25 per cent of every dollar is dedicated to debt servicing cost.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell him in the fiscal year just ended, the reason why the fiscal situation improved from November to now. There are three basic reasons, Mr. Speaker. Number one, approximately -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: They do not want to hear the answer, Mr. Speaker.

Three reasons, I will give them, why. Number one: $26 million identified for capital expenditure on a cash-flow basis budget for this year carried beyond March 31 would be expended in the next year and future years. Another reason why: On November 7 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister has about ten seconds left to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If they will give me the opportunity, I could answer it in less than that.

A second reason why: On November 7, we took direct action to reduce expenditures (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the minister.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see all of the government members laughing hilariously, with 20,000 people on the streets. Twenty thousand on the streets, and they are having a big laugh in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me make it clear, we are not laughing at public servants on the street. What we are laughing at is the Leader of the Opposition with his frivolous statements today in this House, and misleading statements. That is what we are laughing at, not at public servants on the street!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I would remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his questions should have very short preambles, a minimum of one sentence, and then we should be having a more rapid exchange across the floor.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I appreciate the Minister of Finance starting to answer the question I am about to ask now, and maybe we will get the right answer, because there is a credibility, there is a fiscal deficit, Mr. Speaker, and there is a huge credibility deficit with this Premier and this government that is growing every day. Now, which one is right? That is the question, because here is the circumstance: The Premier again, on January 5, said - he did not say what the Finance Minister just said about debt servicing. He said: We spend more than a billion dollars a year to pay the interest on the debt.

Listen to the words. The Finance Minister, in his document, statement six, page seven, shows the amount will be half that, $502 million!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will tell him who is right. I will give him the third reason he asked the question - the one before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The third reason is, over the last nine years there has been an average of $105 million per year, revenue improvements, by the time we get our final entitlements in February. The last five years it averaged $145 million a year. This year it is way lower. That made up the rest of the difference in the projected budget.

I will answer the question, Mr. Speaker. The true deficit of this Province is not measured in three figures, like the former Premier of the Province used to measure.

MR. GRIMES: His words (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The true measurement, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: They do not want to hear the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister has about ten seconds left to finish his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He has to understand that when he brings in a budget and boasts about doing accrual accounting, and he plays with three sets of numbers, number one, the figure that the Leader of the Opposition is using -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I thank the minister.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the other issue that I would like to ask is about mutual respect, trust and integrity. Again the Premier, who will not answer his questions because he has misled the people of the Province, stated to NAPE: Mutual respect, trust and integrity are the foundation of collective bargaining.

What we have today is 20,000 people on the streets - all of them laughing at it - and, when questioned on the integrity of their fiscal numbers, which I am doing today, by the unions, the Premier and the Minister of Finance went down and snapped to the media: I don't have time to deal with this nonsense! I am busy doing a Budget! It is okay for people like Mr. Anstey; they don't have anything better to do.

Now, how is that for mutual respect, integrity and honesty? Why is we think the people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is rare that we raise points of order in Question Period, but we are not going to stand by here and watch the Leader of the Opposition flagrantly break the rules of this House, and the one he just broke when he said, purposely, that the leader of the government, in a purposeful and ‘intentful' way, misled people in this Province.

He knows, or he ought to know, from his fifteen years in this House, that he cannot impute motives on people, he cannot break the rules of this House, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask him to withdraw those statements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to belabour this at this time, because I think the Government House Leader knows full well that he is using the time in Question Period to stop us from having an opportunity to ask questions.

First, I would point out that it is clearly a breach of the rules of this House to be making points of order during Question Period. If he has something to make a point on, he should wait until Question Period is over. That is twice that he has done it today. He is trying to take this place on his back. The Leader of the Opposition here never used the word purposeful or intentional at all.

If he has a point of order, I would remind the Government House Leader, he of all persons should follow the rules of this House and wait until it is over!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will rule on the point of order immediately after Question Period.

I would also caution all members to show mutual respect for each other, because that is the only way in which this House can function effectively.

I do believe the floor goes back to the government side. The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to a sentence that was taken from a statement, an address, that I gave to NAPE a couple of years ago. It said: my government will respect the collective bargaining process. We will negotiate fair collective agreements that the Province can afford and we will stand by those agreements.

We made every attempt last night to negotiate an affordable agreement that the people of the Province could bear and sustain. We made every attempt to have a settlement last night. Unfortunately, it was not to be. The union did not accept the settlement, so unfortunately there is a strike. That is not what we wanted. We do not want these people on the streets. We do not want their families affected; we do not want their lives affected; we do not want their communities affected.

With respect to the gentleman, Mr. Anstey, that the Leader of the Opposition referred to, we called a news conference on the basis that some numbers that were being presented to the public were actually incorrect. We put the correct numbers on the record.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will not allow incorrect numbers to be presented to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the question for the Premier is: When is he going to get the message that these people do not trust him because he has not respected them? He does not think they are worthwhile in what they are doing. Mr. Speaker, when will the Premier stop his intimidation and bullying tactics?

A couple of weeks ago it was a wage freeze or lay off 2,000 people. Today, when he promised not to use the Legislature to send people back, he says: If I use the Legislature to send them back it will be for a lot less than what I offered them last night. That is what he said. When is he going to stop the intimidation and bullying, show some real respect that he talked about in that same speech to the members of NAPE and get back to something sensible in Newfoundland and Labrador instead of the mess that he has created since November 6, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the Leader of the Opposition chooses selective statements for his own benefits. We have a very delicate situation. I repeat, we have over 20,000 public servants on the streets. This is serious business. The nature and the tone of this particular line of questioning is incredible under the circumstances.

With regard to legislating, what I did indicate in every interview that I have done today -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If the Leader of the Opposition would allow me. You had your question. Could I be allowed to do the answer, please?

With regard to legislating back, we indicated in every single interview we did that a last recourse is to legislate back. This government does not want to legislate back.

MR. REID: You said never, you said you were never legislating back (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member for Twillingate & Fogo if he could refrain from his loud commentary and persistent interruption while others are trying to answer a question.

The hon. the Premier. You have about ten seconds left.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, let me just quote the words of the Leader of the Opposition when he was in government. As for using the threat of legislation to win concessions from the unions, Grimes was unrepentant. He said: Voters had given the government a mandate to do whatever is necessary to overcome the difficult financial times. That is the action that this person would take. That is not what we are saying. We will only legislate to protect the health and the safety -

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you to the Premier.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, on a final supplementary with respect to this issue, a very important one, where again today, Mr. Speaker, the bullying and intimidating tactics of the Premier. If he would only show a little bit of respect we might not be in the unfortunate circumstance we are in today. His Government House Leader in Hansard -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Opposition Leader that there is about one minute left in the allocated time for the Opposition before we move to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi, or his associate. So he has a very short time to ask a question and a very short time to give a response.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Opposition House Leader speaking in this Legislature talking about the Premier said: The Premier gave this commitment to NAPE. We would never use the force of the Legislature to legislate people back to work. That is the difference between my leader and you, when he was pointing at me. Right here in this Legislature, your House Leader saying what you said. What is the difference -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition to take his seat.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be brief, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time for other questions. We have said very clearly, we have said it today, that we do not want to use the Legislature to legislate back agreement. That is exactly what we said.

I will repeat though what I was about to say before the hon. gentleman -

MR. GRIMES: Before who?

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You have had your opportunity to say a few words, so if you would not mind -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask hon. members to permit others to either ask questions or to answer questions. We have to show some respect for each other. I know it is a very intense day, however the floor of the House is for the Premier of the Province. He has a short time to give a very quick answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have said that it would be a last recourse to use the Legislature in order to bring an end to this collective agreement. However, let me make it very clear to yourself and to the people of the Province and to the members of the union, if it comes to a matter which affects the health and the safety and the lives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, then I will legislate them back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. We have 20,000 people on the streets today because this government did not make a fair offer yesterday when the unions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: When the leadership of NAPE and CUPE walked into the meeting yesterday they gave the Premier what he wanted, a two-year wage freeze, an opportunity for the Premier to prove and do what he campaigned for last fall, to create some prosperity, to raise the revenues in the Province and to make life better for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, why is the Premier not prepared to share that future prosperity with the workers of this Province whose wages have not kept pace with inflation, not kept pace with the private sector and not kept pace with public sectors in other Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to finish his question.

MR. HARRIS: Why is he not prepared to do that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is saying that we should share future prosperity, which we don't have yet, which is not in the bank yet, which we don't have on the books yet, then I can understand why BC and Ontario nearly went to the ground under NDP governments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, his government is lowballing the future projections for GDP growth. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the banks have more confidence in the future of the Province's economy than does the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: He is lowballing. Why does he have no confidence in his own ability to do what he said he was going to do in the campaign and increase the number of jobs in this Province, increase the revenues for the public sector and make sure that the workers of this Province get to share in those benefits?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what an NDP government, a government in Saskatchewan, did yesterday for the workers in their province. Let me just tell you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member for Torngat Mountains to tone down his commentary, it is impossible for others to hear.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Here is what happened with an NDP government in Saskatchewan yesterday. The NDP government sent layoff notices to 400 full and part-time civil servants on Wednesday, including 100 in the agriculture department. Here is the quote from the Finance Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Do you mind if I answer the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have about thirty seconds left in Oral Question Period.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The quote from the NDP finance minister in Saskatchewan: When faced with the choice of a deficit budget or cutting programs, there are no easy answers. That is what we are faced with here in this Province, Mr. Speaker. There are right answers. There are only difficult decisions. We don't like having to take these decisions. We inherited this mess from the hon. members opposite and we are doing our best.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In order to account for the time taken with a point of order, we will permit one more question by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am more interested, Mr. Speaker, in what is happening in this Province and a quote from the Premier of this Province who said, in an ad signed by him, that under a Progressive Conservative government there would be no layoffs in the public service.

That is the promise that he made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is no wonder we have 20,000 people on the streets, because this Premier has not been trusted and he made the workers feel betrayed by what he has done in his Budget.

Can he tell the people of this Province that he is prepared to regain that trust by making an offer that is fair and reasonable to the public sector workers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can look anyone in this Province in the eye and tell them that we made an affordable offer last night, that was a fair offer, that dealt with the concessions, that dealt with every issue, that dealt with the terms, that put 7 per cent on the table, but we could not afford the $330 million that the union asked us for. We just did not have the money.

Yesterday, in Saskatchewan, the NDP government gave zero increase to their public servants!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the disorder continues in the House, the Chair will have no choice but to recess the House until such time as order can be restored. I do not want to do that, but if we have to do that then the Chair will have no other choice. I ask members again to respect the Chair, to respect each other, so we can continue with the afternoon session.

I want to comment on the point of order raised by the Government House Leader. He referenced a comment made by the Leader of the Opposition, a quote referring to the Premier. He said: He has misled the people of the Province.

In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, the manner and intention of the member speaking. He takes into account the person to whom the words were directed, the degree of provocation and, most importantly, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.

I can tell you, if you go to Beauchesne, you will find a list of words; however, there has been no codification of words that is found to be satisfactory in the parliamentary process, because the Speaker has to take into account the body language, and everything that goes with the comment. I find that in this particular case the comment, "He has misled the people of the Province", to be unparliamentary and I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the comment.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, I cannot withdraw that comment because that is exactly what this Premier has done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Again, I am asking the Member for Exploits, the Leader of the Official Opposition, if he would withdraw the comment that, quote, referring to the Premier, "He has misled the people of the Province".

The Speaker has ruled it to be unparliamentary in the context of Marleau and in the context of parliamentary procedure.

I would appeal once again to the hon. member to withdraw the words which the Chair has ruled to be unparliamentary and which have certainly, in my opinion, caused disorder in the House.

MR. GRIMES: Again, Mr. Speaker, with no intent to disrespect yourself or the Legislature, I would be making an absolute liar out of myself if I withdrew the words that he misled the Province, because he absolutely did and has.

MR. SPEAKER: Colleagues, I must express profound regret. As your Speaker, I have to resort to naming the Member for Exploits.

One more time I will ask the member, and appeal to the hon. member, to respect the authority of the Chair and to withdraw that particular comment.

MR. GRIMES: Again, Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I cannot. There is no disrespect to the Chair, but I cannot withdraw that very truthful comment.

MR. SPEAKER: Roger Grimes, I must name you for disregarding the authority of the Chair. Pursuant to the authority vested in me under Standing Order 22, I order you to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the sitting day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with pleasure that I table the annual activity reports of the following agencies of the Department of Finance for the year 2002-2003. These agencies include: the Newfoundland Government Fund Limited, the Newfoundland and Labrador Government Sinking Fund, the Newfoundland and Labrador Industrial Development Corporation, and Hotel Buildings Limited.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table for the House, for the year ended December 31, 2002, the activity report and the audited financial statements of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador Pooled Pension Fund, as well as the activity report for the Government Money Purchase Pension Plan.

The Pooled Pension Fund finance all benefits from those pension plans covering full-time public servants, teachers, uniformed services personnel and MHAs. Total investments as of December 31, 2002, amount to $2.1 billion.

The Government Purchase Plan, Mr. Speaker, provides pension coverage for part-time employees of government and its agencies and full-time employees of participating employers that are eligible to participate in other government plans. As of December 31, 2002, that plan had assets totalling $129 million.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Notices of Motion

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

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

I give notice and by leave move that the following members comprise the Striking Committee: Myself, as the Member for Kilbride; the Member for Ferryland; the Member for Bonavista South; the Member for Burgeo & La Poile, and the Member for Bellevue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In consultation with the Clerk, I do believe that the Clerk believed that you asked for leave to do that today, other than giving notice of motion. I ask for clarification.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is just under Notices of Motion. I could do it at any time during the day but I chose to do it at this time before we got into government orders. I said: I give notice and by leave move that the following members comprise.... I did ask for leave to move it.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to introduce this motion at this time?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

The hon. the Government House Leader is moving that the following members comprise the Striking Committee under our Standing Orders: the Member for Kilbride; the Member for Ferryland; the Member for Bonavista South; the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile; and the Member for Bellevue.

Are we ready to adopt the motion put forward by the hon. Government House Leader?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

The motion is carried.

Petitions

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Labrador West. I will read the prayer of the petition to begin with:

WHEREAS palliative care patients have no priority for getting home on Air Ambulance; and

WHEREAS stretchers cannot be carried on either of the commercial airlines travelling to Labrador; and

WHEREAS Air Ambulance is the only option of returning home, it is of utmost importance to patients and their families to be able to do so; and

WHEREAS Labradorians do not have the option of driving to a loved one in the hospital and the costs of flying are prohibitive to many;

WHEREFORE we the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to call on government to change the Air Ambulance policy immediately to allow for palliative care patients to return to their homes immediately upon being informed they are ready to go home, so they can spend time surrounded by their families and friends.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue for people in Labrador. It is a serious issue because, as the petition states, there is no other way to get there. It is the only way, via the Air Ambulance. Each and every time that families are faced with this situation in Labrador we get calls to act on their behalf, to intervene with the ministers to get the Air Ambulance put on to bring them back. This is no longer acceptable in today's age.

I have talked to the Minister of Health. I have talked to the Minister of Transportation and I impressed upon them the need to change this policy so that people can be treated with respect and dignity that they deserve. This change, Mr. Speaker, should take place immediately. I know that this is not a budget area type item. This can be done by the minister just as a matter of a phone call or a simple change in policy.

Mr. Speaker, people should not have to suffer more greatly than they are already suffering. People should be allowed to spend their final days with their families. I can tell you, from my past experience in dealing with situations like this, is that many times after two or three days of complaining, of calling that the plane is finally put on, but sadly enough, sometimes and many times, the patient has only barely made it back to their home before they passed away. That puts the family under an enormous amount of stress at a time when they do not need a hassle of trying to get back to their home towns.

So, I would ask the ministers, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Transportation and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, that they act on this immediately. Make the necessary change. Don't put the people, who depend upon that Air Ambulance, under any more pressure than they are under already. So when a doctor says it is okay for a person to return to their home, they are able to do so immediately. Bearing the fact, Mr. Speaker, of course - and we all understand - that the plane is not gone on an emergency run, but that has not been the case in the past, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has leave.

MR. COLLINS: I ask the ministers responsible to take a serious look at this and bring in the necessary change.

I presented petitions on this last week as well, Mr. Speaker. I would like, after presenting petitions in this House for the last five or six years - and any member who presented a petition in this House. I do not know if anyone is getting responses to them, but I would certainly hope in this case, that the ministers would get back to us on this most important issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Motion 1, put forward by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to move that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government. Budget Speech, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

This is an unusual day, Mr. Speaker, because it is unusual that I would be speaking now to the Budget on the day that a strike has started. Nevertheless, this is part of the Orders of the Day and I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker. I am going to be on my feet for a long time, I would appreciate some quietness here in this Chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans is going to be speaking for a lengthy time. In fact, unlimited time. She would appreciate some order, and we ask all hon. members to give her the attention she deserves.

MS THISTLE: That is right.

I am wondering, and I have heard it said in the past - although I did not count it last year. I understand that the former Opposition Finance critic stood on his feet for - how many hours?

AN HON. MEMBER: Twelve.

MS THISTLE: Twelve hours.

I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, with the events of the day that have now started, I think it is very important that this side of the House gives the true picture of the deficit, because I am sure it is on the minds of everybody out there today.

I would like to speak to the matter of trust. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report that was done for the government, and made public on January 5, 2004, has brought into question a matter of trust. It is interesting that when that particular document was released, Mr. Speaker, I do not think any of us had any idea who the author was, or who the spokesperson for that report was. When this speech was made after your news conference, and the Premier's speech that night, I was absolutely floored myself, as the Opposition critic for Finance, to learn that the main author of that speech was Michael Gourley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: People said: Who is Michael Gourley? Michael Gourley had a close connection to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, a very close connection. In fact, he left his job as the Chief Executive Officer of the Ontario Financing Authority November 7, after a little more than fifteen months into the job.

You are talking about salaries and severances today, which is on the hearts and the minds of all union members. This Michael Gourley left his job with $917,699 in salary and buyout after having a connection with the Tory Party of Ontario. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, he was asked to advise the Tory government on taxation and economic policy. He was Deputy Finance Minister until 1998. Most people would think that he comes to this Province with very strong credentials. Yet, in fact, he was hired by the former Premier of Ontario, Ernie Eves. Although he had an interesting career - in fact, one was even including a stint as TV Ontario mascot for Pokaroo. The glaring real reason why I take into question his credibility was the fact that after the Liberals came to power in Ontario and the finances were looked at again, this Mr. Michael Gourley made a huge mistake. He made a mistake of $5 billion. I did not say million, I said $5 billion. What does that say? Can we trust a person who makes a mistake of $5 billion? If we had $5 billion in this Province I doubt if there would be anybody on the streets out there today in a labour dispute.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province paid $115,000 to have that report done; $115,000. That did not count or take into consideration the cost of Mr. Michael Gourley to travel back and forth from Ontario to give us all the recommendations, and you as your government - that did not take into account. I guess by the time it was said and done it was more like $135,000. Anyway, no matter what it was it was too much money for what we got. I think that was the start, fabrication of the facts that have made the people in this Province very uneasy about the new government.

When I was first handed this report - and I never read anything inside, I was just looking at the report. It said: Special Review of the Financial Condition of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now there was nothing wrong with that. That is all that should be there. This group had to go and title this. They titled it: Directions, Choices and Tough Choices. Now, what business was that of a chartered accountant firm to put a title on this? We wanted to find out - the original report on this one was due November 28, but we put in a Freedom of Information request on that. We did not get that report on November 28.

Then you look at political statements made in this report, which has no place for political statements. The next one made by this group was clearly the government. Its employees and everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador will have to focus on dealing with this situation. Now, I have never seen an audited or so-called external, independent audit making political statements.

The next one that comes to mind is this one on page fifty-nine, "Deterioration of the Province's budgetary performance during an election year..." Can you imagine a chartered accountant firm giving that kind of a statement? They are saying, "Deterioration of the Province's budgetary performance during an election year, with a common expectation that 2003-04 will be merely an aberration on the path to fiscal rectitude." Can you imagine a chartered accountant saying that kind of stuff?

Anyway, this is what happened with this report of January 5. The funny part about this report is that the Finance Minister, the President of Treasury Board, in his news conference that morning of January 5 called the whole world together and said: I have news to share with you. The news he had was that the government of the day, that they inherited, they said was in debt further than they thought. Well now, isn't that a funny revelation, when they had in their Cabinet a former Auditor General, would you believe? She had her report - and I just grabbed one off the shelf today, when the former Auditor General wrote the report, March 31, 2001.

I think this new government is leaving the impression that they had no knowledge of the Province's finances when, in fact, they had the Opposition Finance critic for years and years and years, and they also had the Auditor General who had access to every financial document that she needed to have to pass on to the new government, so the fact that the new government was in the dark with regard to finances is totally wrong.

I want to talk a little bit about the deficit. In our own budget report from last year, 2003, we said ourselves, we predicted, that we would probably have a revenue gain last year, after everything was said and done, of about $93 million. We said last year, in Budget 2003, for example, our current account revenues for 2002-2003 were $220 million higher than the previous year and we are forecasting these same revenues to be $96.4 million higher in 2003 than they were in 2002.

Do you want to know something? We were exactly on the mark. We predicted that we would have a cash deficit of two hundred and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Could we have a little more co-operation from the government benches? There is a little too much noise in the Chamber. It is impossible for me to hear the hon. member.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a previous Administration, we predicted that we would have a cash deficit of $286 million. When, in fact, Mr. Speaker, your own figures, or the government's figures I should say - the government itself who brought down their Budget a few days ago - they confirmed to the whole population in Newfoundland and Labrador that actually the former Administration generated $100 million extra last year. Instead of having a deficit of $286 million, the figure at the end of the year was a deficit of $197 million, so the economy of our Province actually performed $100 million better than we anticipated.

When that report was done by PricewaterhouseCoopers, there was a lot of fabrication in that report - a lot of fabrication - and the Premier used that report to give a message on January 5 to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He used that report to say that we had a deficit, at that particular time, of $666 million.

The previous Auditor General, and the current one we have today, had always recommended that we would get around to accrual accounting. I think that is the confusing part out in the Province today. There is lots of information in the airwaves talking about cash deficits and accrual accounting. Up until this past year, we dealt with what we call a cash deficit. I can relate that to our household. If you have $1,500 a month coming in your household and you spend $1,700, you have a cash deficit of $200. Now, this is the only way that we reported our Province's finances in the past, but just about every province in Canada now have moved to what we call accrual accounting and we have as well. What that means is that every entity that government is responsible for must be recorded and, as a result, that means that we move away from cash deficit to accrual deficit.

Now, it is interesting that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has always been harping that the former Administration is trying to confuse the figures. He said, in his third paragraph in the opening of the Budget, the Introduction, "First, to balance the budget on a cash basis...".

Now, I thought he was going to stop talking about cash basis and a cash deficit but no, no, it is convenient. It is very convenient now for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to talk about a cash basis. He wants to balance the Province's cash deficit in the next four years of their mandate and "...restore sound fiscal management;" because he knows full well there is no way that he can pay off the accrual deficit, supposing he is here until the cows come home. He cannot do that. There is no way possible unless we come into a windfall of mammoth proportions. So, it is convenient now for the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to talk about a cash deficit.

That is all anyone could expect to pay off in four years. In fact, in our predictions, the former Administration's Budget of 2003, we talked about - we had a record over the past four years of generating more revenue than we predicted and that is the reason why we could deal with a deficit because the economy was buoyant - it still is - and could handle an overrun. We had a plan that the $75 million deficit reduction amount for any particular year was only a target because we have to retain the flexibility to manage the overall fiscal position for the longer term. Had we been re-elected, we had the same plan to reduce the cash deficit over the four-year mandate, as does this government we now have in place.

This is not a super government that we are dealing with. They are not going to take and eliminate the accrual deficit of this Province. They cannot. There is no way they can, unless they come into a deal with Ottawa that wants to pay them $15 billion up front. That is not going to happen. There is no way. So, for the people out there viewing this afternoon, I want to make it quite clear that the only figure that the new Finance Minister is talking about is the cash deficit. He has put the accrual deficit to bed; he does not want to talk about that one any more because that was only used to his benefit and the benefit of this new government to shock. It was shock therapy that they put on the people of this Province on January 5.

The new Premier has destroyed collective bargaining. I thought, he being a new Premier, on January 5 he had learned his lesson from that infamous speech, but he has persisted and I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what limits will this government go to, to prove that there was a bigger deficit than there actually was?

The first order when we came in this House a few days ago, last week, was Bill 1. That was an act -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Some members are talking across the floor and that is causing the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, I am sure, some discomfort. I would ask for the indulgence of all members to permit the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans to continue her speech.

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

I certainly do not want to lose my voice yet, this early into the speech, because I have many hours to go yet. I certainly do not want to lose my voice yet.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the new government with the new approach confirmed in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report that our predicted deficit was exactly as we forecast, but do you know something? That was not good enough for this new government. They had to paint the ugliest picture imaginable. They had to get the goods to do it. Now, what did it take? The new government said to Michael Gourley: I don't like your first report. Go back. You have to make this deficit look huge. We have important business to do here and you must paint the deficit as grim as you can, because this is not good enough. In fact, that matches the former Administration. He said: Okay, new government, I will go back and see what else I can find. There was only one thing he could find, and that was the fact that, as a Province, we have now become the lender for the student loan program. In previous years it was held by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

We were under no obligation, Mr. Speaker, absolutely no obligation, to take into our books that student loan portfolio for the end of March. It was all a plan, and it was planned for a few months, that the new government wanted hard evidence to paint a grim picture to dose out tough medicine. They said: Go back, Michael Gourley, and see what you can find. He said: Okay, the only thing there that we can possibly deal with is the student loan portfolio. We know that it does not have to come due by the end of March, but if we make it come due we can inflate that deficit and it will make it look like the government has done a rotten job in the past. We will be able to inflate the deficit and we will go out and freeze the wages. We will do what we have to do because we are going to paint the black picture.

Not only that, there was one other thing that did not even need to be addressed in this current year. All provinces in Canada are moving to accrual accounting. With that comes the fact that we must take into account that if there is an employee benefit which has to be paid out when an employee retires, we have to make accommodation on our books and actually accrue the cost of that when it happens. We did not need to do that in this fiscal year. There was no requirement. In fact, it does not even need to happen until 2005. But, do you know something, the former Administration that I was a part of, the government, we had an actuarial group start that process where we could identify how many employees in our system would be retiring, in what years, and what would it take to accrue for that cost when it came due.

Can you imagine? That is an onerous task when you have roughly 30,000 employees. You have to look at their ages; you have to look at their employment years; their prospects for continued employment with government; when they would retire; what benefits would be due to them, and what it will cost government. You cannot snap your fingers and ask for that information in a matter of a month or two. Well, this new government were so desperate for that information to paint the black picture they made the employees work around the clock to get the information so they could add that in, and Michael Gourley could put that in his book and pad the deficit a bit more.

So, it was only an assumption. It was not the actual cost that is going to be accrued to government. It was just a guesstimate really, their best guesstimate, on what it will cost government when those people retire. In other words, if I come to work for government today - and it is expected that the normal time you will work for government would probably be thirty years, just say a round figure like thirty years. So government must look ahead thirty years and what it will cost for government to pay me my severance pay, pay me my vacation, pay me my health benefits when I retire. Okay, government has to accrue that and put it on their books now as a cost to government, even though I am not going to retire for thirty years time. This is what they summoned the officials and actuarial staff to run out and do, to put in their book for January 5. Can you imagine that? They still do not know the exact number. It is only a guesstimate, but they were desperate, Mr. Speaker, to paint an ugly picture of the Province's finances.

This is what they did. Our figures were spot on, absolutely spot on, because the same people who work in Treasury Board and the Department of Finance, they still work there today. Economists all across the country have applauded the staff in the Department of Finance, and also the staff in Treasury Board. They have had the best record over the years of predicting GDP, predicting employment, predicting every facet of our fiscal performance. Our staff have been the best, and they are there today.

What was kind of demeaning was the fact that the new government went out and paid PricewaterhouseCoopers for this so-called external independent audit. Do you know there was nothing external, except that they were from Ontario. There was nothing independent because every figure that they plastered in this book came out of our own government records. They did not go out and do an independent search of anything at random. Whatever they wanted they went to the Department of Finance and they went to Treasury Board and said: Will you get me those figures, please?

Every graph that you see in it, every statement that you see in it, there was no independence in it at all except their political statements. Everything else in it actually came from government's own records. Yet, there was a motive behind initiating this outside report. If the government, the new government of the day, had gone with our own records they would not be able to paint a different picture than what was on our own records. They had to get a firm from Ontario, at a cost to the taxpayers between $150,000 and $130,000, and they had to instruct this firm to put on this report exactly what the new government wanted. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, the only two items that were different from our own records was the student loan portfolio - that we did not need to put on right now in this year - and we did not need to put the accrued employee benefits on until 2005.

Mr. Speaker, that was not good enough. This government - this new approach had to pad the books, inflate the deficit, and fabricate a story so when they went on television on January 5 the new Premier, the new Finance Minister, thought they had the information and the wherewithal to just go ahead and do as they wished because they had a padded report, a fabricated report, that they thought the whole world would believe.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that everybody in this Province - and it is a funny thing about it, name recognition - if you asked, I think, anybody, no matter where they came from within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, they would know today who Michael Gourley is. I would say that everybody in this Province knows who Michael Gourley is. The man who came at the request of this government and fabricated a financial document that is now being used to dole out tough medicine that, in many instances, is not necessary.

Mr. Speaker, a while ago, just over a week ago, we were presented with Bill 1. There was an urgency in the Government House Leader's voice when he brought that bill to the floor of the House, Bill 1. He was on a mission to the new Premier. When the Government House Leader came in and the Minister of Education stood and introduced Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, that was his first task as Government House Leader and also as Minister of Education. He was under considerable pressure by the new Premier, that he must past the first test. The Government House Leader's first test was to make sure he gets Bill 1 done before the end of March, because the stakes were high on Bill 1.

We had an Environment Minister who was going to be taken to task, Mr. Speaker. He had gotten up in the House a couple of days previous and he was saying how he was the cardboard man for the Confederation Building. Mr. Cardboard Man, the Environment Minister. The funny part about this, they are talking about spending money and saving money. This Budget, the new one that they presented the other day, that was printed before they brought Bill 1 to the House. Now, if the Government House Leader was not cleaver enough to get Bill 1 passed, the first job for the Environment and Conservation Minister was that he was going to have to go and shred all these Budget documents that were already printed. That would have been his first task, to shred these documents, so you can understand how the Government House Leader was under considerable pressure to make sure that Bill 1 got passed.

During the course of debate on Bill 1, it was very interesting, Mr. Speaker. No matter what was said to and fro, there was not one member from the government side that ever denied the allegation that many of us had put forward. Everyone pretty well from this side of the House, who stood on their feet, said that we are here today dealing with this legislation unnecessarily. There is an artificial date of March 31, 2004, primarily to get the new government out of a jam; primarily to get the new government out of a jam. I cannot imagine -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Would you please tone it down a little so the Speaker can hear the hon. member.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot imagine how a new government, their first bill to the House, wanting to create just a wonderful impression, you know, a stellar impression that they are squeaky clean, a stellar impression that the new government is squeaky clean and wanting to do good business on their first bill, and they brought to the House Bill 1. The Minister of Education stood in his place and he was so proud. He was talking and espousing about the benefits that this was going to bring on the students of Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, my goodness, any student watching television that day had the distinct impression that the new government were going to write off all their loans that they had on the books, and they were talking about everyone who stood in their place on the government side. I have them here. I have the Hansard of when all the government members jumped to their feet and they all talked about the good bill, the Student Loan Act, and how much it was going to do for the students of this Province. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, this was called the Student Loan Act and they never had the courtesy or the foresight or the commitment to the students of this Province to include the students on the Student Loan Corporation that was designed just for this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

I know you are have a difficult task, Mr. Speaker, to keep your government members in line. I do not know why they are so -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I caution the member that it is the government members, not the Speaker's government members.

MS THISTLE: Well, I certainly must correct that. I withdraw that. I am definitely out of order to say that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair, at all times, has to be impartial.

MS THISTLE: Yes, I agree, and I have great respect for the Speaker who is neutral in every regard, and very objective. He is an excellent Speaker and he has demonstrated that so far in his short time in the Chair. Congratulations, by the way. I do not think I have said this formally. I was delighted to see that you were elected Speaker, and already I can confirm that you are going to do a great job for this House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this Bill 1 was designed for students, and the reason why it was designed for students was that - I do not know why big banks are getting out of the loan business. When you think about it, big banks lose money in lots of ways other than dealing with student loans. They were paid well in fees and service charges by this government, but they did not want the nuisance of student loans. They advised myself, when I was the former Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. We bandied back and forth on what we were going to do about it. We did the Request for Proposals. We did not get the right ones. Finally, I think it was in July or August of 2003, we came across an opportunity to integrate our student loan system with the federal loan system. Mr. Speaker, that was the right way, the only way, to go. We did not have any choice in the matter.

The correspondence that I wrote to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and they wrote back to me was that we had an option. We did not have to take this into our books, because there was quite a bit of administration involved, and they relayed correspondence to me, which I have on file, that we had an option or you have an option, Mr. Speaker, this government has an option - the new government. They could have written the Bank of Commerce. It was plainly stated that they could have decided to assume that portfolio at any date. They did not have to take it by March 31, 2004. It makes zero difference to the students. They have the loans. It is not going anywhere. So, it was government's choice to include it for the fiscal year 2003-2004 with only one motive in mind, and that was to fabricate the deficit by another $220 million.

The only other missing link was, try to pad the deficit again. That was not good enough. They wanted more evidence, so they had the actuarial people working night and day to come up with a figure that would be reasonable, that they could say was going to be the accrued employee benefits when they retired. These people were working around the clock, trying to figure out a figure that would stand up under scrutiny, that it was yet factual. I think they came up with a figure of around $93 million, that they would be able to stand up and say: Yes, this is what it is going to cost the government when these employees retire.

Everything else checked out. Our figures were exactly like what the Finance Department had given us in the previous budget. They came up with two figures that had no relevance to last year's budget, but they wanted to include them so they would be able to get on with what they wanted to do.

I do not know how many in the Province know that. A good many people know that. A good many people, I am sure, are thinking today: Do they have to take the medicine that was dished out two days ago? Is there anything else this government could have done? Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of choices as to what this government could have done.

It is interesting when people talk about unfunded pension liability. I think it is timely and important that I should let this House know about unfunded pension liability. It has been of interest to me. There was no talk of a pension fund for the employees of our government prior to 1967, Mr. Speaker. The Smallwood era did not provide pension contributions for public servants; nor did public servants pay for any benefits. One hundred per cent of the benefits was paid by government. In 1967, employers started to contribute to a pension fund, and it went into general revenue.

Now, there are many governments that have dealt with employees' pensions and there was only one, that I can recall, that made a start to paying back unfunded pension liability.

I think, from the historical review that I have done, in 1967 contributions for public servants were first started. It went into a general revenue at that particular time and it was spent for all of the things that we have grown accustomed to, and that would be roads and hospitals, the obvious, and schools and so on. In fact, in 1972, when the Frank Moores government was elected it was still spent in the very same fashion.

In 1979 Brian Peckford was elected and I think he was the first Premier to acknowledge that something should be done. So at that particular time he decided to stop spending it and put it into a special fund. No, I am wrong. He just decided to stop spending it. He didn't do anything about it.

It was Clyde Wells, who was elected in 1989, to actually get an actuarial study done to see what was owed to the public servants. We didn't even know at that point, in 1989, although contributions had been made from 1967 onwards, what was actually owed to public servants in this Province. The contributions were made and they were spent for general upkeep and capital projects, building schools, hospitals, doing roads, water and sewer and so on. It was Clyde Wells, at that time, who decided: You know, we have to find out how much is owed to the public servants of this Province. That was actually done by Clyde Wells.

Brian Tobin was the first Premier who actually started to pay back into the unfunded pension plan for the public servants. I was a member of Cabinet at that particular time and I remember sitting around the Cabinet Table and Brian Tobin said: We have to do something about the unfunded pension liability. We have to make a start. It is going to take us years to actually pay off the unfunded pension liability. He was the first Premier who actually made a start to do that and that was in 1997 and 1998. Every year since there has been a contribution to the unfunded pension liability. That has been done.

Mr. Speaker, when you are talking about accrual deficits and cash deficits, the unfunded pension liability always comes into the matter. There was, and there is, a plan in place of actually making all pension plans whole. Through the contributions, extra contributions, by government - there have been matching contributions for a great number of years, but since Brian Tobin has made a start and made a commitment to pay back unfunded pension liability there have been extra payments go towards unfunded liability for pensions for public servants in this Province. There is a plan in place that in x number of years, depending on the plan, it will be fully funded for pensioners in this Province.

Everyone knows, who works for government - or even works for private industry or private business - that a pension is a sacred thing, and all of us look forward to a pension to enjoy our senior years when the time comes. When it was said by the new Premier of our Province that he was going to actually claw back the indexing for pensioners that was gained in the last contract, I think that put every senior in the Province on alert. Many people felt threatened when that statement was made by our new Premier. I am glad today that I heard in the media that our new Premier has decided to take that issue off the table. I, for one, would say that is an issue that is entirely untouchable. There is no way that you should even consider, contemplate, or even give it any slightest of a thought to taking back anything from pensioners that they already have and they have already worked for so hard in this Province. I think that would be a great injustice. We will have to find money some other way, but I would never, never, never stand in this House, or outside, and say and agree that we should take money from seniors, from pensioners. A lot of those pensioners have a smaller pension because some of them were working at a time when there was only one side of the contribution, that was made entirely by government. Some of them are on a very small pension, so to even suggest or even consider that we would claw back indexing for seniors, that is just totally off limits.

I was glad to hear today that the Premier has reconsidered that statement that he has made and that matter is off the table, because it never should have been on the table. It never even should have been in the public airwaves. It caused a lot of anguish for the pensioners who are out there. In fact, I had received telephone calls myself to attend meetings, and maybe those meetings will not be necessary now. I am glad that matter is settled, because when you are retired you should be able to enjoy those golden years without having to deal with the stress of having to lose a benefit for which you have worked so hard. Heaven knows, with the new fee structure that was announced in the Budget just a couple of days ago, seniors in particular are going to have a lot to deal with just doing the ordinary things that they have to pay for every day.

I want to talk about some of these fees that will affect seniors. While we were a part of government, or the government, we brought in a heat subsidy for seniors in our Province. It was $100, and over 20,000 seniors were able to avail of that, and it meant a lot. In fact, I know that we have had what some people would call a mild winter this winter, and fuel prices for home heating went down a little bit, but, you know, when we brought in that subsidy of $100, fuel prices at that time were thirty-seven cents a litre. Now, last year fuel prices were fifty-five cents a litre for home heating, and this year, February 15, it was fifty-one cents a litre.

Now, the government can stand on their feet and they can say that the price of home heating oil has gone down not quite four cents a litre, but do you know something? That might justify why that are not going to provide a fuel subsidy this year, in their minds, but you have to look around and see what has gone up since last year. We were paying the fuel subsidy when home heating fuel was thirty cents a litre. This year it is fifty-one cents a litre and, because last year it was fifty-five cents a litre, this new government are not going to pay a fuel subsidy because they can justify that it went down four cents a litre since last year; but, let me tell you, it went up fourteen cents a litre from the first time we started to pay it, and we paid it every year.

Okay, they can make their justification that they do not have to pay a fuel subsidy, and that cost the Province $2 million a year, and it helped over 20,000 low income earners. People have been calling me from around the Province and saying: What is the government going to do about the fuel subsidy?

Well, I asked the government twice and their answer was that they are not going to do anything because the prices on home heating fuel from February 15, 2003, to that particular date, February 15, 2004, had dropped by almost four cents a litre.

I will state again that the previous government, of which I was a part, gave a fuel subsidy when the home heating fuel was thirty-seven cents a litre. Now, you can justify that four cents any way you want, but the seniors of this Province, and low income earners, their heat might have gone down by four cents but if they are going to drive a car in this Province then they have to go and pay a difference of $40. Can you imagine? If they are going to get their car licenced, it is going up from $140 to $180, and they are not going to have their $100 fuel subsidy rebate that they would have gotten from the previous government.

If they want to spend the day in the park, unserviced camping has gone up from $9 to $10. Now, everybody is trying to promote participaction, making sure that we are in better health, so that we do not become a burden on the health care system of this Province. Can you imagine that the new government, the new-approach government, said, now, if you want to go cross-country skiing per season, we are going to increase that from $16 to $20.

Many people in our Province do a lot of hunting and fishing. Now, you might think that I am blowing my own horn, but when I was a backbencher in the previous government I championed the cause that came to the Legislature to allow disabled hunting in this Province. A person who came to me - one of the people who came to me - is now deceased. A man by the name of Garland Stuckless from Grand Falls-Windsor helped me out on that a great deal, and it came at the insistence of a Mr. Rogers, Russell Rogers, from Grand Falls-Windsor, who first came to me when I was campaigning in 1996, and said he had been everywhere in the previous ten to fifteen years. He was legally blind and he wanted to go moose hunting. I remember saying to him: Russell, you know, you are asking for a hard thing to be done, but if there is any way to do it, I will try to get it done.

I took on that project when I was in the back benches. I went to see a lot of people and convinced my Cabinet colleagues and convinced this House of Assembly that yes, government should do that. We should allow disabled persons to hunt in this Province. There is no reason why they should not have the same benefit as anyone else being able to hunt. I can tell you, that was a happy day for me in 1997. I was a backbencher at that time. When we stood in the House and legislation was introduced, it was an historical day that I will always recall. Mr. Russell Rogers was here and the tears started to roll down over his eyes. Garland Stuckless, who was working with the disabled community in Grand Falls-Windsor, the Exploits Disability Association, had put in so much work with me on that matter and, of course, the Department of Forestry and Agrifoods where that would come under their jurisdiction. The officials in that department had worked so hard, and the Department of Justice. It took a lot of departments working together to make that happen, but it was one of the highlights, I guess, in my young political career that meant a lot to the disabled community.

Now, in your Budget of two days ago, anyone that wants to apply for a big game moose or caribou licence, that is going from $40 to $52. Now, for a disabled person, you are already on a pension of some kind of subsistence. You are not able to go out and work, in most cases. Most disabled people, a lot of them are employed today and a lot are not, but still you would probably have more expenses than the ordinary person who is physically able to go and shoot a moose or a caribou on their own. This new government has now increased that moose and caribou licence by $12. Now, $12 you say, $12 is not much, but $12 is a lot. Number one, they are not going to get their heat subsidy, their fuel subsidy, of $100 that they were expecting to get. They have to go and pay an extra $12 to get their moose licence, and they have to pay an extra $40 to get their car or their truck licenced to put on the highway. All of these things add up. That is not to mention how insurance has gone through the roof, insurance on their vehicle.

This government said that they had a commitment that they would deal with insurance within the first 100 days of being elected. Now, I have not seen anything come forward in their insurance plan that would give any reduction to the consumers in this Province, Mr. Speaker. When I think about it, all of these things are adding up that the people of this Province have to pay, particularly seniors who are on a fixed income and a very low income.

People may think that these small fee increases will not be our hurting people, but they will. No matter what you want to do that requires government involvement, you are going to have to pay extra this year. All of those extra things add up to be just about $26 million.

When you are living in rural Newfoundland health care is so very important. If I am living in Buchans Junction and I have to get an ambulance - last year if I wanted to get that ambulance it was $75. This year if I get sick and I want to be moved from Millertown or Buchans Junction, Buchans or Badger, that trip is $115. Now if I need to take a medical escort, which will be determined by the doctor, that goes from $25 to $50. That is double. That is going from $25 to $50. My goodness, that is double. To bring in a charge like that is frightening. Are you trying to, as a new government, absolutely drive the people out of rural Newfoundland? They are going to be so afraid that they are going to need an ambulance and it is going to be so costly - number one, people who are out in rural Newfoundland, it is a matter of fact that they always take things for granted. They can always go and get a moose licence and get their moose for the winter. Now you are increasing that by $12.

You talk about this now, if you want to get a salmon license - living in Grand Falls-Windsor we have one of the best salmon rivers in all of North America, the Exploits River. If you going to get a salmon licence, my goodness, you are increasing it from $17 to $22. If you want to take your family, it is going from $27 to $35. These are big increases and I do not know if the people of this Province have access to this list of fees but there are over 150 - actual fifty increases here. Very, very expensive.

I am going to say that there is a lot of concern out there today on what this new government is trying to push forward. The first thing they did was try to push through the Student Loan Act. We, as a former administration, made the biggest overall, I guess, in the history of the Province in student loans. That was in August, 2002.

Mr. Speaker, the very first thing that this government did when they were elected, they demolished Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. They drove a second nail in the coffin this week for young people in our Province. They said we are having 4,000 - they are calling it attrition. They are going to lay off 4,000 people. Workforce adjustment, I think, is the new name for laying off 4,000 people. They abolished the Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education department, and this week they decided they would lay off 4,000 public servants.

They put out in their budget - I could not believe it when I saw it for the first time, and I have to find it. Everything is blue. I am almost dazzled by the color blue because I am not used to looking at that color. I know I will get used to looking at it for the next two or three months. Anyway, they put out this booklet called Economy 2004. I would say to our viewing audience out there today, pick up this book because the first page is the Liberal book and the second page is the Tory book. If I were the new government I would not even publish this because the only good news you brought forward in your Budget was the base that you had to work on, all the good work that the Liberals did. My goodness! You have to see the comparison. I say to the viewing audience, pick up this book: Economy 2004.

Under the Liberal reign employment increased by 1.8 per cent to 217,000. Do you know what was said about that employment? Since 1996 all employment growth has consisted of full year employment which has grown by 26 per cent. Full year employment now represents 76 per cent of total employment in the Province. Full year employment now represents 76 per cent of total employment in the Province compared to 70 per cent in 1996 when we took over the government under Brian Tobin. Now, what did the Tories say is going to happen this year in employment?

It is almost as if you guys got the funeral parlour mentality. It is almost like you are pulling down a blind at a funeral.

This is what the Tories said: Employment is expected to grow by 0.9 per cent. Sure, that is not even 1 per cent. Now, this is what else you said. We said. We said. We did. We did not say it, we did it. Housing starts reached their highest level since 1991; 2,692 units, for an increase of over 11 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Hold on now, I have to look at the Tory page. Housing starts are expected to decline to about 2,600 units this year with demand for new homes down somewhat from the previous year. My glory, what -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Okay. Then it says: Population grew for the first time in more than a decade, reflecting both positive net migration and natural population growth. In fact, under our reign we eliminated out-migration. Nobody remembers 1992 any better than myself, or anybody. I suppose anybody who came from a coastal community would remember 1992, and I remember it well. This is what the Tories are saying for population. This is what they are saying. My God, I do not know who wrote your book. I tell you, whoever wrote your book must be the same person who wrote the Premier's speech for January 5, and I thought that person was fired like three months ago.

Anyway, this is what that person said - this is what the Tories are saying: Modest population declines are expected. So, you knew when you wrote this book that you were going to lay off 4,000 people. My glory, I mean you are predicting it in your own economic forecasting manual for the Province. Modest population declines are expected. I do not know, if you are trying to sell yourself to the people of this Province as a new alternative to economic prosperity, I can tell you what, get with the program. Get with the program and put something in it that is exciting and is really going to happen to get the people enthusiastic because what you are doing is telling everybody to bar up their houses and leave. That is what you are telling people to do: Bar up your house and leave.

This week, I phoned a department. I wanted to go to a department - I will not mention that department - to see one of the officials on a matter, and I was informed that no, you cannot have a meeting this afternoon because we are having a retirement party for three people who are unexpectedly leaving. An unexpected retirement, it is awful. This week and last week and the week before, I have seen people put all of their work possessions in a cardboard box and exit the Confederation Building. I tell you, that was a sad sight, when we as a Liberal government had eliminated out-migration, had built a buoyant economy in this Province, that the rest of Canada were applauding us for, and the first thing this new government did when they got into power was shut the curtain on our young people, pull down the shades. They said they had no time for them, in a department by themselves, they had no business being apart of the new student loan act, and they said we are not interested in your future. As those government jobs are eliminated through retirement, do not apply for them. Do not apply for them because we are not going to fill them. You get your education and you get out of here as quick as you can get because we already said, as a new government, in our economy book, the population is going to decline and we do not want our figures to be wrong. That is what we said.

This is the new government with the new approach, where the Premier is totally responsible for the new Department of Business. The new Department of Business could not be handled by anybody else in this Province or anybody else in the government, only the Premier. Only the Premier can handle the new Department of Business.

Now, it is not good enough for the Premier to have an office upstairs on the eighth floor; he wants one in Ottawa. He might want to check in and have a cup of coffee or something when he is in Ottawa, so he said, I have to do that, and he said to his Finance Minister: Now, Mr. Finance Minister, you make sure that you put $350,000 aside for me to operate my Ottawa office.

The Premier has to have his Ottawa office. I did not see anything - there was nothing in that Budget on economic development, not a thing. A kindergarten child could have written what was in that book on economic development, but he had to have his Ottawa office, at $350,000, to stick one of their political patronages in the desk up there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: That is not all. It is only 3:39 yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes, I know where you can get a bit of office furniture. I know well where you can get a bit of office furniture.

Anyway, he has to have a business office here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and do you know what? Guess how much the business office for the Premier of the Province is going to be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: No, it is not going to be $50,000. It is not even going to be $200,000. It is not even going to be $500,000. Guess what it is going to be? Can you imagine, the Premier of this Province, with all the support that he has from every department of government, he needs $1 million for his new business office. One million dollars. He is going to pay his executive and support services, whoever they are, $275,000. Two hundred and seventy-five thousand. Now, this is the important thing that people should remember. Anyone who is watching out there should remember what I am going to say next. This is the important part. Listen keenly. It is for the members of the government. They should listen too.

There is a heading under the business office of the Premier and it is called Business Attraction, mind you. What does business attraction mean to the men and women who are out on the picket line today? What does business attraction mean to the people who are making $6 a hour? What does business attraction mean to seasonal people in this Province? Who does business attraction mean to everybody who is out there today trying to struggle for a living? Do you know what business attraction means, and its $725,000? Business attraction is a travel budget for the Premier, and that is not his only travel budget.

Let's go over it here now. You see, the Premier is not only going to be the business manager for the Province. He is also going to be the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. He is going to wear several hats, this new Premier.

Under Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Speaker, there is a heading called Transportation and Communications. For anyone who has never seen this book in their life before, called the Estimates, you have to get used to it. They say the devil is in the details.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Certainly I enjoy listening to the member's response in her unlimited time, and look forward to her taking her unlimited time, whatever that may mean, but I do have to ask her this question, and I want to raise this point: While she is talking about travel budgets, or the Premier's travel budget, could she tell us about when they were in government, and their travel budgets? Could she talk about the $40,000 trips around the world, with spouses?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Could she talk about her own travel budget, and may she also point out that the travel budgets of ministers have now gone from nineteen to thirteen, have bowed down; but, even more than that, two departments, for example, what used to be the two departments, had $190,000 worth of travel. Now there are two departments into one and there is $114. So, when you are elaborating on travel, tell us about all the trips you had yourself when you were in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Well, do you know something? I was not going to respond to the Government House Leader, but this is an ideal opportunity for me to respond to the House Leader. Under the former Administration, it was always the rule that you were able to take your spouse on two trips outside the Province every year.

AN HON. MEMBER: That did not mean Australia.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, there was a delegation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, can I have some peace and quiet?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the former Administration, of which I was a part, had decided to inprove our relationship with business, government and labour, and I think you could learn a lesson - the new government today - from that. We had a good relationship with business, government and labour, and it was decided by the Chamber of Commerce and union leaders and business leaders and government that we would look at a model that is working successfully in Ireland.

Mr. Speaker, I was in Cabinet for five years and the only two trips I took with my spouse were $4,000 each, in five years. It was at the insistence of business, government and labour. I can stand on my feet and say to the world today that I did not abuse my time in the Cabinet. That is the truth of the matter as I stand here. But what I am saying today is that there is some camouflaging being done here.

We have the Premier of our Province who is now the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, who has a travel budget of $50,000, and he is the minster of business. Being the minister of business he has a travel budget of $725,000. Seven-hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars plus the one for Intergovernmental Affairs, another $50,000. That is $775,000. Can you imagine? The Premier of our Province. Now, I am not the type of individual who makes personal attacks but I wanted - and that is not a personal attack because that is here in black and white.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: That is here in black and white. Black and white.

Now, the only thing that I saw -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask that the member be heard.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting, the only thing that was shown in this Budget, the brand new Budget for the brand new government, the only thing that was there in economic development was the appointment or setting up of what they call a Rural Secretariat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: All this is, is a big layer of administration and it is going to cost the taxpayers of this Province $1,700,000. I wonder, what were the efforts of this new government in finding funding from the federal government to keep the economic zone boards open? I wonder what were their efforts, and did they have any success? Because when I was out to my district two weeks ago five people got their layoff slips. Five people got their layoff slips. I heard about the new relationship that our Premier has with Ottawa but I wonder was it - I guess it has not come into play yet because five people in my district alone ended up with their lay off slips.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MS THISTLE: Economic Zone Board 12.

One of those people - or several of them, they are all specialists. One was a geologist, IT specialist, an agriculture specialist. We have been working hard in my district in developing the blueberry farming.

MR. MANNING: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: That is what the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's knows about it. It is co-shared between the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada. I would suggest you wait until you get in Cabinet so you can answer intelligently.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you about rural Newfoundland and economic development. I am afraid what this government has done in the past two days is going to cut the guts out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I say that quite sincerely.

I sat back and listened to Open Line the other night. Mr. Speaker, a member of the former Progressive Conservative government in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask that the member be heard.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened to a former Progressive Conservative Cabinet minister, the Minister of Fisheries, phoning into Open Line and he, himself, had no good words to say about this recent Budget by the new government. He believes, and he stated -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Mr. Jim Morgan.

He believes and he stated: out-migration will start again with this Budget. He said that this new government gives no hope to our young people. He said there was no investment for new economic development. He was critical, very critical, of the new Rural Secretariat. He said on the public airways, that is just a place for the Deputy Minister, Mr. Doug House. He said those words, they are not mine. He said the very important thing that was missing from this Budget - you know it is not very often, party politics aside, when somebody makes a point and is genuine, I will agree to it. It does not make any difference what party or what stripe they are. He said the very important thing that is lacking from this Budget, there is nothing in the Budget that talks about increasing revenue. Not one iota! He said that this Budget is going to hurt rural Newfoundland and Labrador. He said this Budget is going to hurt our economy. He also said - now I thought there was some kind of an alliance between former members of a particular party, but he said: the new Premier has to realize that it is time for him to get out and do his job, and his job is to promote Newfoundland and Labrador and develop the relationship that he says he has with Ottawa.

Not only that, Nova Scotia had a token $30 million given to them in the latest federal budget. There was also a call that same night on Open Line - I am sorry if I have to look and see who is sitting across the House but I am not familiar with all the new members. There was a call that came in a couple of nights ago for the member - I do not think I can say it because he is not here. I will not say it. Can I say it? I do not think I can say it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: Okay, I will not say who he is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I will not say who he is, but there was a call for a certain member of the House to cross the floor because he had betrayed his people. Anyway, I will not say who that person was.

There was also a person on the Open Line that particular night, a public servant, who said she had voted Tory in the past election. She actually cried on the telephone because she was about to lose her job. She said she had a commitment from the new Premier that there would be no layoffs in the public service. She felt betrayed, that she had been led down the garden path. She was trying to make a life for her and her children and now she was about to lose her job. I do not know how many people in the Province feel this way, but from the 20,000 who are out on the streets this morning I would say there are a good many people who feel that way.

The new government talks about 4,000 people not being replaced through attrition. Now, it is all right if you can get up and talk about 4,000 people and not feel for 4,000 people. If you are cold and cold-hearted and have no compassion for people and you can stand on your feet in the House of Assembly and say, well, 4,000 people are going to be part of the new government's downsizing through attrition, which means that when they retire there will be no one step into their shoes, they won't be replaced - 4,000 people. Certainly goodness, this new government is not so cold that they cannot put a face on 4,000 people. Everyone who is being displaced has a family, and for everyone that is displaced that is probably a mother and a father who have two children. For every job that is here in the public service in Newfoundland and Labrador, if you take 4,000 jobs our of our system you can multiple that by almost three other jobs. The math is simple. You have at least 10,000 people who are going to be taken out of the economy of this Province.

Every little mom-and-pop store that is out there in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, they are depending on a job, a permanent job, to come and do business with that establishment.

We saw an economy over the past five years whereby you could hardly find materials to build a new house in Grand Falls-Windsor. Now, I have to say that the bigger part of my district, Grand Falls-Windsor, has a pretty buoyant economy and things are going quite well, but I have a rural part to my district, I have Badger, I have Buchans Junction, I have Millertown and I have Buchans, so I know what two sides of the equation are like.

We have had a record number of housing starts in Grand Falls-Windsor over the past five years. It has been so busy that people were hung up waiting on lumber and materials to build a house. While it might be frustrating while you are building a house, I thought to myself: What a wonderful complaint!

Here in St. John's the same thing is happening, and Paradise, and anywhere on the East Coast. There has been a mushroom effect. There has been a lot of construction. A lot of it is due to offshore oil business. There has been a natural gravitation to the Avalon Peninsula by people from rural Newfoundland who are moving in for medical services, for education and so on. I think what you have done in this Budget, you are going to increase that gravitation to the Avalon Peninsula. You are going to do that. Whether it was intentional or coincidental, I do not know, but inflicting fees on people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador on a sacred thing like a moose licence, a trout licence or a salmon licence, an ambulance fee, a driver's licence, and also cutting the guts out of health care, cutting the guts out of education, cutting the guts out of human resources and employment - 476 teaching positions going over the next two years. Teachers, that is a high-paying job in anyone's community, and they are able to spend that money and contribute to our economy. Can you imagine that, no new school construction?

I was looking at Budget 2001 and it was education highlights, Investing in Our Youth, Investing in Our Future. You decided, as a new government, not to invest in our young people and not to invest in our future. At that particular time, since 1998-1999, $160 million has been invested in new school construction and renovations, the largest investment in education since Confederation, and that budget was an education budget, 2001. That was when I was appointed as the Minister of Labour, at that time. I looked back and I saw it myself. There was a school built that year in my district, in Buchans, and it cost $3 million. Some would say: Why would you put a $3 million school in Buchans? A lot of people would say that. The mine has been closed since 1984 and you are still providing services to the people in Buchans. As a government, you want to invest $3 million in the school in Buchans where you have a declining population and there is no real employment. Now, that is the difference in the thinking of the Liberal government.

The Liberal government, which I was so proud to be a part of, had great compassion for the people of this Province. At the time that school was built, we had 116 children who were attending the school in Buchans.

You know, things happen, because now there are great prospects from ore resources that they will start a mine in Duck Pond by Millertown, and if they do, that will be ten years of permanent employment. It will take about 250 people during construction and there will be about 150 people employed full time for ten years. That is having foresight and it is also having compassion. Under your plan, you would have probably said, move somewhere else and go to school, judging from the Budget you put forward two days ago.

At the same time, we put a new school in Clarenville at $3.3 million. We also put a new school in Hopedale at $5.4 million and in Nain at $2.8 million, Norman Bay, $334,000. Now, if you were to ask the Member for Torngat Mountains or the Member for L'anse au Clair were they pleased with the 2001 Budget, they would say yes. What happened in this Budget, Budget 2004 brought forward by the new Tory government? This Budget completely forgot about the people in Labrador. This Budget 2004 completely forgot about the people in Labrador. They had been promised by the Tory government that they would put an auditorium on their school in Goose Bay, and the minister responsible for Labrador is not even paying attention to what I am saying about the people that he represents. In fact, he is chuckling down there in the corner. But this year in this Budget that the new Tory government put forward, they decided to eliminate Labrador. There was nothing in the Budget.

[Laughter]

MS THISTLE: Can you hear them laughing?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Can you hear them laughing?

That is what you care about Labrador? You are just chuckling away. You are not paying any attention.

They would not even commit to the auditorium for the school in Goose Bay, that they promised during their election campaign. They opted to go along with the courthouse, and the young people, the students, have no other place to hold their concerts, their events - no exposure. They were promised an auditorium by the Tory government, when they were campaigning, and what are we hearing two days after the Budget? Cancelled. Cancelled. Cancelled.

In Rigolet in 2001, there was a new school built at a cost of $2.9 million; a new school built in Pollards Point for $3 million; a new school built in Blaketown for $7 million. At the same time this report came out I will tell you about the new schools that were under construction: Arnold's Cove, $6 million; Burgeo, $4 million; Englee and Roddickton, $4 million; Goose Bay $11 million; Lethbridge, $4.6 million; New World Island, $9 million; Plum Point, $4.5 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I want to be clear for people who may be watching. The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans just indicated that the auditorium for Goose Bay was cancelled. That is absolutely not correct. If you had listened to the Budget Speech, or read the Budget Speech, or the Estimates, the decision with that is deferred.

There is a big difference between cancelled and deferred. Deferred means exactly what it is, that it will not happen at this time, this moment. The decision on that could take place at any time in the near future.

MR. TAYLOR: It could be next week, next month.

MR. E. BYRNE: It could be next week. It could be next month, as the Minister for Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs just indicated. But, there is a big difference, Mr. Speaker, between cancelled and deferred. I would not want the people in Goose Bay, in that electoral district -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - to take the view today, because they may not have seen the Budget Speech and may be watching or hearing what is being said here today by the member, that what she has said, whether knowingly or unknowingly, is incorrect, is not factual and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, finally, just let me say this. I believe the member knows the difference between a cancellation of a project and a deferral of a project. In this case, this project is only deferred.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader used an example for clarification. It is not a point of order.

I call on the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans to continue with her speech.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Even though I know it is not a point of order, this might be an opportune time for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs and the minister who represents The Straits & White Bay North to stand on his feet and let the people know when they can expect their auditorium in Goose Bay. I will take leave of my time if he would like to stand on his feet now and let the people in Labrador know when that deferral will be over and they can expect that auditorium to start construction.

Mr. Speaker, have you recognized -

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have just repeated, but the Government House Leader was not listening. I offered my time. I offered to take a moment or two from my speech, my time, to offer to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs, and the Member for The Straits & White Bay North to stand on his feet and let the people in Labrador know how long that deferral will be on the auditorium. If he would like to state for the people today when that construction will start, I will sit down and ask him if he would like to do that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say this to the member, I do not know how you take time from a member who has unlimited time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Unlimited in my view and the definition that I read in any dictionary means it is unlimited. It means in perpetuity. It means as long as she can go. So, I appreciate her giving me some of her time from her unlimited time, Mr. Speaker.

Now, let me directly answer the member - and I appreciate the member now acknowledging that the project in that district, in Labrador, in Lake Melville, is not cancelled but indeed deferred. My answer to her question is this, when that decision is made I can assure the member that the people in Goose Bay will be the first to know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we know, there was no statement made. The people in Labrador are no wiser than they were the day of the Budget, but I do hope for the children in Labrador that they will get their auditorium, which they so rightly deserve.

I want to tell you about the new schools that were underway in 2001, and all of those are open today as I speak. There is a new one in Lethbridge, $4.6 million; a new one in New World Island, $8.7 million; Plum Point, $4.5 million; Pouch Cove, $3.1 million; lower Trinity South, $5 million; Manuels, $ 6.9 million. So, Mr. Speaker, you can clearly see that the new schools which were under construction and now open were not simply ones in Liberal districts. When the former administration made a decision it was always based on the well-being of children all over this Province.

The Government House Leader just stood and asked me if I knew the difference between a cancellation and a deferral in the Budget. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to say - I am looking for the Budget now. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I know the difference between deferrals and cancellations. No one would know it any better than me.

What I saw in the Budget book - it says, "We are cancelling several health projects, namely the extension to the Grand Falls-Windsor Hospital..." They never had the courage, the new government never had the courage, to call it by the name it was. They never had the courage to come out and say it was the cancer clinic. Well, it was the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor.

You know something? They didn't say it was deferred. First they didn't name it. They just said the extension to the Grand Falls-Windsor Hospital. They never had the courage to name it and say it was the cancer clinic. They didn't come out and say it was deferred, but, Mr. Speaker, it was outright cancelled. Now, how can you be such a cold and heartless government as that?

Anyone who watched television last night and saw the importance and the longing that people had in my district of Grand Falls-Buchans and, indeed, in all of Central Newfoundland for a cancer clinic - I don't know how members across can sit there and chuckle and laugh. I bet you there is not one person in this House that doesn't know or hasn't got a family member or a friend who is not afflicted or had some connection to having cancer. I bet you there is not one person who can say that they don't know a person or haven't got a relative or a family member who hasn't had a brush with cancer. In fact, we have lost people in this House that way.

Madam Speaker, the cancer clinic has been such a single most important project that I wanted to make happen for the people of Grand Falls-Buchans. I don't know if I had the support from the Member for Windsor-Springdale, I don't know if I had the support from the Member for Lewisporte, the Minister of Transportation and Works, the minister who is leaving his place now, and he is laughing, and I don't know if I had the support of the Member for Baie Verte, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. If I had it, it was unknown, because the three members I mentioned have never been vocal on wanting a cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. They have their constituents, from Lewisporte to Baie Verte and down the South Coast, who use the health care services in Grand Falls-Windsor, but yet I have never heard them - and I tried to bring them to their feet in this House and get a word of encouragement from them, but they refused.

I watched television last night and I saw the Member for Windsor-Springdale try to weasel out of what the government had done. He said it was needed and hopefully it would happen in the future, but did the Member for Windsor-Springdale see or hear the Budget? I know that none of the caucus members were party to this Budget, nor were they party to the Premier's speech on January 5.

Madam Speaker, I want to say that the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor is so important. There are reclining chairs there; there are three. There is not enough room to recline those chairs. Now, chemotherapy can be hard treatment. Thank God, I have never had that treatment, but I know of people who have had it. Sometimes it can be so harsh, it is almost more than a person can bear.

I know of an instance, and it was relayed publicly this week, where it took two nurses to hold down a patience to take this treatment. That person got violently ill, physically ill, and needed to throw up. If you know the Grand Falls-Windsor hospital, there is no washroom there in that particular area so they had to go out through a waiting room and they had to go to a washroom after going through the waiting room. Anyone who is not feeling well, and has to go through this kind of treatment in a public area, you know how bad they feel.

There is one bed there, that is multi-purpose. Sometimes it is used for examinations by the doctor, and other times it is used if somebody gets sick and they want to lie down. Can you imagine, you are only in a very small room and whatever the doctor is saying to a patient, you hear it. Whatever treatment is taking place, whoever is there, they know what is going on. There is not room enough in that cancer clinic to bring your family to hold your hand or give you any kind of encouragement.

This was a project that was put forward when I was in Cabinet, three years ago. Anyone in Cabinet knows how hard it is to jockey for money. Members across will know that, if they are sitting around the Cabinet table and they have a particular project that they want to see happen in their districts, or by a member in the back benches, there is a great deal of lobbying effort and you must put forward a strong case. You must put forward a strong case.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) stop playing with his cellphone.

MS THISTLE: Madam Speaker, I know there is a cellphone in here going off right now. If the members do not think what I am saying is important and they would rather play with a cellphone - I cannot imagine that. Anyway, I am not going to be distracted. I am going to talk about, number one, what I had to go through in Cabinet to actually get this project approved.

The Central-West Health Care Board came to me with their project. We refined that project about a dozen times. We had officials go back to the hospital. There were several studies done by independent and inside government: Can you find more room in the hospital to expand that clinic? That would have been the route to go if we could have done it. The studies were done and they came back and said: There is no room in the hospital. We cannot do it. The hospital said: Okay, we will go with the project like this now and we will do our best.

The project in total is going to cost $4 million. The Central and South Health Care Foundation have a good record of fundraising. They did their fundraising. In the old Carmelite House that was used for seniors, there was a sale underway that would give the board $500,000 and, in addition to that, they had a contribution from Newfoundland and Labrador Cancer Foundation, of $400,000. That was actually given to the hospital board so they could start doing their plans. While I was part of the previous government, that was given to them. They started in on their project and brought their case to me, and I in turn brought it to my Cabinet colleagues.

As I said before, it is very hard to get something approved in Cabinet unless you have your homework done and you present a good case and you have the support of your Cabinet and the Premier for doing so. That happened, and I brought that case and that project to Cabinet. That first hassle was over and that took awhile, let me tell you, so I thought we were okay.

On June 27, last year, I was able to announce that project. We were actually able to stand in the parking lot of the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor and make that announcement. To see the smiles on the faces of the people, the volunteers, the cancer patients, and the community at large, who wanted that project so much, was really a humbling experience and everybody was so enthusiastic about it.

Shortly after that - I though it was August but it was September - the Cancer Foundation in Grand Falls-Windsor held their first relay, and I know that goes on all over our Province, but last year they held their first relay and they did not know how it was going to go. I think it was almost $40,000 that they raised, but during that relay, part of the relay was to actually buy a candle for $5 in a paper bag and when it got dark to light it in memory of a friend or loved one who was special to you and who had passed away. Well, I could not believe the response that we got for our first cancer relay. As far as you could see, when it turned dark that night, there was nothing but lights as far as the eye could see. Every one of those lit candles represented a loved one who had passed away from cancer. When we got back to the Mount Peyton Hotel for supper, prior to this, they all had on - the people who were participating - a yellow shirt. It just really told us, the general population, that these were people who were now experiencing cancer or were in remission, or so on. You know, I got the biggest surprise of my life. I saw people there with that yellow T-shirt on, that I had no idea were going through cancer and cancer treatments. There were young people, young mothers, young fathers, middle-aged, seniors and people who I knew in the community, and I thought I knew everything about everyone in my communities, and if they were experiencing sickness or so on, but I was really shocked that night to see the number of people with a yellow T-shirt on, the people who were currently battling cancer.

Madam Speaker, I had every confidence that, since we announced that cancer clinic and people had worked so hard to make it happen, I felt so good going into this Budget, I just felt that the new government were going to do something that we could all be proud of. I really felt deep inside my heart and soul that the new government were going to say okay to this cancer clinic. When I went to the Budget lock-up on Tuesday morning, my gosh, I was heartbroken. I could not believe it. I could not believe it, when I read for myself that the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor was totally cancelled. It was not deferred. There was no date in mind when they would look at the project again. To come here then in the Budget exercise at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and to sit down and hear the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board announce that the - well, he did not say the cancer clinic. He did not say it. He did not bring himself to uttering those words. All he said was the extension to the Grand Falls-Windsor Hospital. That was really an affront. That in itself was really an affront to the people who depended on that cancer clinic and who had worked so hard to get it.

I cannot believe it. I am still speechless as to why they did not find that money because when I was the minister that financing was in place. They had a good portion of their own that they were bringing to it. They had the fundraising and they had the donation from the Cancer Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador. They were only looking for about half of it, just over half of it in a government loan. They are one of the boards that have done so well. Everybody knows, within government and outside, that they are the model board. They took on to build the Carmelite House for senior -

MADAM SPEAKER (S. Osborne) Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would just like to have a few words on the comments the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans said while I was out of my chair to the washroom.

I understand she took the opportunity when I was away to say that I was not notifying her or speaking out about the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. I would like to remind the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, at least three times I gave her my commitment that I would support the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. Three times I went public with it. I was on Open Line once; I was in the local paper once; I was on CBC Television once. I even told her that I have been lobbying my colleagues here on our side, particularly the Member for Lewisporte and the Member for Baie Verte, who gave me their support, and my colleagues here on this side gave me their support that a cancer clinic someday would have to be done to meet the needs of the cancer patients of Grand Falls-Windsor. Unfortunately, at this time, because of the mess that we inherited in the last, particularly seven or eight years, we had to cancel this project.

Madam Speaker, I have always said that I would support the people in Central Newfoundland, and I have always done the best I could to do that. The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans knows that I have been lobbying my colleagues on this side. She knows that this has been done because of the mess we are in. She knows that. She knows that I am fully aware of the conditions at the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor because I have been there, and I understand that. I have been talking to people on the board, people in the district and people in Central Newfoundland that I will continue lobbying this government that someday, hopefully in the near future - hopefully sooner rather than later - we will have a new cancer clinic. In the meantime, because of our -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Madam Speaker, it surprises me to hear the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans say that, because if she started lobbying three years ago, how much commitment did she have from her colleagues at the time to do the clinic, when they could have done it three years ago or two years ago?

Not only that, Madam Speaker, they started the project last year in the first phase of the parking lot just because they knew an election was coming. They knew this would be one card that this member could play during the election and after the election because they knew they were not going to get elected. They knew that. The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, I would suspect, figured out that if she could get this started than she could take all the glory for it when it is done. Then it would be another card that she could play against us after the election because she knew full well that we were going to be elected and we were going to form the government of this Province.

Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the member that I will keep lobbying, and I have all the confidence in the world in this government and our Premier to do the things that need to be done. In the short term, Madam Speaker, we are going to provide the best health care possible to our cancer patients in Central Newfoundland and if at all possible, in the near future. Soon we will find another space, somewhere available on the premises, to make the conditions a lot better for the cancer patients in Grand Falls-Windsor and Central Newfoundland.

I just wanted to assure the member and the people in Central Newfoundland that I am not sitting back and doing nothing. I am doing my best, and I have confidence in this government that we are going to do the best for the people of this Province with health care.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I am glad we have had this opportunity to bring the Member for Windsor-Springdale to his feet. He might have done his lobbying but I guess it was not heard loud enough throughout the Cabinet. I am glad he took the time today. This project is almost a year old now. That was announced a year ago and we have not got it yet.

It is interesting, Madam Speaker, to see that in an austerity Budget that was announced two days ago, there were still projects announced. It is all about choices. It is all about priority. I noticed that there was a school announced in the Witless Bay. I noticed that there was a long-term care facility announced for the Premier's district. I noticed that there was an MRI announced for the Premier's district. I guess, Madam Speaker, it is about choices; it is about priorities.

If there is anybody who can sit in their seats over there and say that the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor - which is a very small investment. A very small part of financing by a good board, and I do not want any credit for the cancer clinic. There is only one group of people who wants the cancer clinic, they are the cancer survivors and their families and the volunteers who help them. I am not looking for credit. I just want that for them. They deserve it and they should have it. They should have the basic care and respect and dignity that any other cancer treatment patient in this Province would have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Madam Speaker, there are a lot of things that I can talk about in Budget Highlights. We have been accused of spending money foolishly. Now, I just went through a list of new schools of $160 million; $160 million since 1999, and that was only up to 2001. There was no preference given for Liberal districts. There were Tory districts there. We were, as a previous government, a government with compassion; a government who cared.

I can tell you, when a new water system was required for Buchans we knew that they could not pay 100 per cent. They could not pay 50-50. So, you talk about spending money foolishly. We were the first to step up to the plate and say people should have a good water system. That is a basic right of everyone in this Province.

When the Minister of Environment and Conservation, now in this new government, was the critic, he was on his feet almost every other day talking about: good clean water is a necessity for people in this Province. We all know that there are lots of times when lots of municipalities around this Province do not qualify for 50-50 funding. They do not qualify for 60-40. They do not qualify for 70-30. Some of them, when they are in an emergency, they need 100 per cent.

Madam Speaker, I want to say to you that during the Badger flood we knew that the people in Badger had no way of paying off the deficit they had with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; their municipal debt. Now, it was a decision made during that flood because they had no tax base, that when we were the government we would write off their debt, $1.6 million. Now, is that foolish spending?

A while ago I had an occasion - it was actually February 15 - to celebrate the one year anniversary of the Badger flood. They named the two new streets in the subdivision after - one was a lady who worked with the Red Cross, a Miss. Cook, and the other one was in memory of our people who served in our war effort, and it was named Memorial Drive, and one was Cook Crescent. Now, were we foolish as a government in redeveloping a new Badger? Were we foolish in that, in putting in a new subdivision and new pavement and new houses, and new water and sewer? Were we foolish in doing that?

For people who need water and sewer, as I just talked about, were we foolish in putting in $100,000 for the YMCA early learning centre for children? Were we foolish in doing that? Were we foolish in putting autism funding, for the first time, in place in our Province?

There was a teacher in Grand Falls-Windsor by the name of Carolyn Forsey, who came to me and educated me on what autism is all about. I had no idea, when Carolyn Forsey came to me and told me about her son. He was two at the time, and had autism. There was no program within government that took care of autistic children. It was indeed a learning experience, and there were a great many hurdles to go over before we finally convinced government that we must set aside some money for autistic children, for early intervention. It took awhile, it took a lot of lobbying, and it took a lot of effort on Carolyn Forsey's part, and many parents who had autistic children, but it was done, and for the first time autistic financing was in place to make sure that pre-school children had treatment, education treatment for autistic children. That program now is permanent. That program is permanent and has expanded. Was that foolish spending?

I had a young man come to me, his name was Brian Quigley from Grand Falls-Windsor, and he was on renal dialysis, a family man who worked with the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor. I can see him now when I close my eyes. He would be painting the lines on the streets in Grand Falls-Windsor every spring. He came to me and said: I am going into St. John's three times a week for dialysis treatment, and I just cannot do this. Physically, it is killing me and I have to be away from my work and my children.

Imagine coming to St. John's from Grand Falls-Windsor three times a week for dialysis treatment. I said: Well, you have given me a tall order now, but we will do our best. Through a lot of the efforts of a lot of people, we did get dialysis to the Grand Falls-Windsor hospital. In fact, we named the unit in Brian Quigley's memory. Brian Quigley has since passed away, at a very young age, unfortunately, but I would like to ask the members opposite: Do you call that foolish spending?

I will talk about the Carmelite House in Grand Falls-Windsor. Everybody knows their district the best. We had a Carmelite House in Grand Falls that used to be a hotel at one time, and it was never built for seniors. They needed a new Carmelite House, so we started out and we said: Yes, we will built a new Carmelite House. First, we said, we would try to cut back and only build a Carmelite House, a seniors' house, to accommodate forty residents. There was an outcry saying: No, no, no, we have to have sixty residents. We have done the demographics. We know that we have needs for sixty residents. That would have meant that the price would have gone up from $6 million to $10 million. That was a worthy project and it is a wonderful project. When I walk in there today and I can see the conveniences that the residents have, their rooms are so bright, it is almost like a main street concept. You could look out through their bedroom window and see other residents going down the corridors. They all have their own washrooms, and everything is beautiful. They are happy and they deserve to be happy. I would like to ask the government opposite: Was $10 million put into a seniors' home in Grand Falls-Windsor foolish spending? If somebody can say yes to that, they are not telling the truth.

I heard a man on the radio yesterday, I think it was, and they wanted a CT scanner for Grand Bank. That has been delayed, I think -

AN HON. MEMBER: Cancelled.

MS THISTLE: - or cancelled, I am not quite sure. I remember when we were trying to get a CT scanner for Grand Falls-Windsor. We needed it in the worst kind of a way. We did find $800,000 for a bone densitometer and a CT scanner so people do not have to go to St. John's when they need that kind of testing done.

You know something? I can see now where we might have spent this money foolishly. There was $73,000 given to the Central University Committee to do a post-secondary education feasibility study. Now, from what I can see that came out of the Budget two days ago, I think that was probably foolish spending because this new government has no intention of expanding educational needs in our Province. In fact, they are going to slash and burn. They are going to combine school boards, fire teachers, and I wonder - the one thing that I hold sacred, the one thing that I hold dear, because I do represent a rural district as well. We brought in what we called a necessarily -

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

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I do not mind standing on a point of order on the member's unlimited time, and if it was not unlimited I would give her more time, but any time that the member makes a statement that is not correct or tries to leave an impression, whether knowingly or unknowingly, then we are going to correct it. She just talked about us firing teachers. Now, there is a big difference, and I will say this to the member, there is a big difference in firing a teacher and not replacing a position. As a matter of fact, the Department of Education's own analysis this year, Madam Speaker, says that approximately 400 teachers are going to retire. Now, what we did - a tough decision, one of the toughest that we ever had to make and probably will ever have to make in government - what we did is said that there were 256 positions, according to the Sparkes-Williams report, it was not coming out.

I do not know about anyone else's mathematics, but here is mine. There are 400 teachers, approximately, retiring from the system in the Province this year. There were 256 positions that are not being replaced. That leaves approximately, doing my math, about 140 new teachers that will be hired. There is no one being fired, to the best of our knowledge. It is positions that are not being replaced, and about 400 teachers are retiring. There is a big difference, I say to the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I knew there was no point of order but, anyway, I guess -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: Here we go again.

I am talking about how this new government has talked about the previous government as spending money recklessly. I don't think I mentioned one project today that would constitute reckless spending; not one.

We had Millertown Come Home Year a couple of years ago. Millertown is a small community that was thriving at one time, a logging community, with a population of 100. Can you imagine! They are now 102 years old. They needed their six kilometers, from Buchans Junction to Millertown. It was only last year that I stood up in the community hall for an economic development meeting. Can you imagine! One hundred people in the community and the Community of Millertown wanted to talk about economic development. I was absolutely thrilled.

One of the questions I asked, when I got to speak, was: Is there anybody here who has just moved back to Millertown or is there somebody here who is choosing to live in Millertown for the first time? Well, I tell you, I was floored with the results. One after another people got up and said: Well, we lived in Millertown, we lived away and worked away, and we are back, we are retiring in Millertown. Wow! One after another, I think, there were seventeen people who had chosen to come back to Millertown to live and either retire or even look at the prospects of new economic development for Millertown. That naturally swelled the population from 100 to 117. It was wonderful!

You talk about the rural secretariate. These are people taking the situation into their own hands and deciding to develop their own communities.

Some people look at make-work projects as recklessly spending money. I bet you there is not one rural member in this House of Assembly who would refuse funding for make-work projects; not one. People out there do not realize, I suppose, the value of job creation, another word for make-work. There has been a lot of good work done on make-work projects.

Anyone who has traveled the Buchans Highway will know full well what I am talking about. It is not a bit unusual to have to stop in the road going up over the Buchans Highway and wait for ten or a dozen caribou to cross. If you are coming down in the nighttime you would think there would be patio lanterns on the side of the road, but what it is is rabbits running here and there across the road. Anyone who would say that you do not need brush cutting on the Buchans Highway or anywhere on the Trans-Canada, they are wrong. If you are trying to promote safety on our highways - and of course there is a group on the go now who want to increase the moose hunting licences per year - but one of the biggest things that can make our highways a whole lot safer is brush cutting.

I would like for anyone over there on the government side to ask me: Did we spend money recklessly in job creation? I can see on the faces of members opposite - and they are starting to smile, but the ones that came always for more than their complement are smiling the greatest. They are smiling the greatest because we know that all of the rural members rely on job creation or make-work projects. It is a way to take people off our provincial government roles and put them on the federal government when they qualify for EI. It is also an excellent way to get much needed work done in communities and along the roads in our Province. I would like to be able to stand up here and say we do not need those projects, but we will need those projects as long as we do not have full-time employment in our communities in this Province.

A lot of people talk about our Provincial Home Repair Program. I know, before this member got into Cabinet, the member for Cape St. Francis as he was then, he was in the Opposition, and now he is the Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs himself, he was a regular member who stood on his feet and he is a good Cabinet minister today.

MR. E. BYRNE: He helped you in your district (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Don't get excited, Mr. House Leader, I did not say anything to the contrary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I know the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs so far has demonstrated that he does have a heart, and, as far as I am concerned, I have nothing negative to say about the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I would like to make sure that this minister gets the tools he needs, the funding he needs, to assist rural Newfoundland, and if he has a shortage in our Provincial Repair Program, I would like to think his colleagues in Cabinet would make sure he gets the money he needs to carry out his work. I can tell you firsthand there are a lot of people in rural Newfoundland that depend on that Provincial Housing Repair Program. The renovations that have been able to take place for our seniors throughout the Province have allowed seniors to stay in their own homes longer. In effect, it has cost our Province less, because if those seniors had to leave their homes in rural Newfoundland and look for accommodations in a seniors' home, it would cost our provincial coffers a whole lot more. So that is another program that is really a good program.

I would like to say to the Cabinet across the way: Do your best to convince the federal government to put more into that program, because that is where they should be directing some of their money.

One of the biggest disappointments with the federal government programs is, just as soon as you get a program up and running and it is working well, then they pull the plug on us. They did the same thing with the funding for development officers in the economic zone boards.

Someone said to me, you know, it looks like the firemen here around the Province are very well equipped and very well trained, and I said, there is no reason why they should not be. Our firefighters in our Province should be well trained and they should be well equipped. You know, for the majority of fire departments around our Province they are volunteers, and if the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador cannot give them the equipment they need to do their job, when they put their lives on the line, there is something wrong.

I would like to ask the government opposite now: Would they have any objection to spending $57,000 to the Badger Volunteer Fire Department since 1996? Would you have any objection to that? You know, Badger has been a community that has been invaded by floods and fire.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were devastated.

MS THISTLE: Yes, devastated by floods and fire, and it has cost this Province a lot of money. I can tell you now, that that Badger fire department are very well equipped and they are very well trained. They also provide highway services. If there is an accident somewhere on the highway, the Trans-Canada Highway, they are one of the first ones that are well trained and ready to assist.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Well, I could tell that you that in the District of Grand Falls-Buchans every fire department is well equipped and well trained and I am very proud of them.

Now, in the community of Badger there was $99,000 to construct an enclosure over the town's sewage treatment plant. In the interest of health and safety, would you tell me, was that unnecessary spending? Since I was elected in 1996 up until last spring, there was $445,000 spent in home repair in Buchans; $188,000 in Badger; upwards to $35,000 in Millertown, all of this is Special Assistance Funding; $1 million for paving and upgrades to the Buchans Highway.

I wrote the Minister of Transportation and Works and asked him for money to continue our upgrade on the Buchans Highway. I am still waiting to hear from that minister. I do not know if we will get that money or not, but if we do not get it, it will be the first time we never got money for upgrades to the Buchans Highway.

I am going to go back to Budget day. We were given a package like this, a Budget package, and all it was, was an umbrella package for the Province. I do not know what the implications of this Budget is going to mean for the people in Grand Falls-Buchans. I have not heard the courtesy, or seen the courtesy, extended to me, as the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, as to how this new Budget will affect the constituents in my district. There is nothing there only an umbrella package about the Province.

I think that is a bit of a disgrace, in my opinion. Do I have to find out through the media the implications of this Budget on the constituents of Grand Falls-Buchans? I got elected the very same way as you did. I got elected to represent my constituents, and I am here for the third term. I thank the people of Grand Falls-Buchans for allowing me this privilege. I thank them for the privilege. I can say to the people in Grand Falls-Buchans today that I have no idea how this Budget that the new government brought down will affect the constituents in Grand Falls-Buchans. I have not been given a package of how this will affect the constituents of Grand Falls- Buchans.

Now, I should not have to read it or hear it in the media if there are going to be changes, improvements or reductions or whatever. I represent the people of Grand Falls-Buchans, and I am proud to, and I should be given the privilege, the opportunity to know first-hand what might be happening to the people in Grand Falls-Buchans. I should not have to read about it in a newspaper.

From what I have said so far, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was one penny that I mentioned that was spent recklessly, not one penny. Now, if you think that we should not have brought dialysis, if you do not think that we should have provided autism funding, if you do not think that we should have - apparently you do not think that we should have a cancer clinic. You do not think that.

There is one thing that is bothering me, that I am afraid that you are going to chop out of the system. It bothers me a lot, because it has not been made known and I may not know it until it comes to the Legislature, and I hope that you never think in that direction. There was one sacred piece of legislation; it was called the necessary school act, for small schools.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Absolutely, the necessarily existent small schools act. I have a small school like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a small school in Badger, and that school is staying open today because-

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of clarification, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of clarification, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a point about a piece of legislation called necessarily existent schools, that was passed in this Legislature. She is kind of indicating that she is hoping that we are not going to do anything with that, or we are not going to go down the road with that. In other words, she is hoping and pleading, from what I can understand, that this government not touch small schools and the criteria put in place for small rural schools. Well, let me say to the member, that you can move on to your next topic because this government is not going to touch small rural schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that the second man in charge has made that statement today, and I think anyone who has a small school in their community can relax and rest assured that that is not going to be on the chopping block. I am glad to hear that. I am glad I gave you my time to get up and say that.

Some people have the answers and some people don't. I noticed that when the Minister of Transportation and Works - I cannot get that through my system. What they did with this new government, they reversed the names on our departments. Instead of Works, Services and Transportation, now it is Transportation and Works. Instead of Industry, Trade and Technology, now it is Innovation and Technology. Is Trade in it? I guess everybody has to put their stamp on a new way of doing things.

I noticed when I was on my feet just then, the Minister of Transportation and Works came in and blurted out and shouted out to the top of his lungs that this member, the Member who represents Grand Falls-Buchans, was not going to get one cent for upgrades to -

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works; and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if I did anything that offended the hon. member or broke the rules, I thoroughly apologize. I don't mean to be offensive or unkind to the hon. member. She is having a great day. She has under her spell with her eloquence. She has us in our seats over here with rapt attention, we are hanging on to every word she is saying. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is so invigorating I am trying to convince the House Leader to move that we not rise at five-thirty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As usual, no point of order, but he did not commit.

He did not commit and I hope that means for the people who travel over the Buchans Highway in all kinds of bad weather, a school bus that brings children from Buchans Junction, from Millertown to Buchans, and for all the logging trucks that travel over it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: I cannot hear my ears.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: For all of the logging trucks that travel over the Buchans Highway, and all the hunters, the outfitters and everyone else. Do you mean to tell me that the Minister of Transportation and Works cannot see the urgency of wanting to put another $400,000 into upgrading that highway before it is in shambles? There are people at the end of that highway and that is their only way out. It takes an hour and fifteen minutes before you see the Trans-Canada Highway.

I hope the letter that I wrote him when he was preparing the Budget - I gave it to him in lots of time - that he will carefully consider, when he is making his deliberations, on how he is going to treat rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I hope that he will see the Buchans Highway as a priority because I see it as one. There are many people who depend on it for their livelihood and their very existence. I am hoping that he will see it just as important.

I never had time today, so far, to talk about the Blue Book. They will hop up on their feet day after day and talk about reckless spending, but I have been on my feet, I think since 2:30 p.m., and I have not spent one cent recklessly yet.

I just picked up the Newfoundland Sportsman. I love this magazine. I think it is a great magazine. This is a wonderful magazine. It showcases everything we do in our Province. I cannot wait to get this magazine. It is one of the best magazines that is in existence. It tells about the great outdoors. You know, you talked about spending. We have a full page here from -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: No, not me. I am in the Opposition, remember?

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has a full page here for the Department of Natural Resources. We got better than a quarter page from the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation. We have a quarter page here from Government Services. We have one here from the Minister of Transportation and Works, that is a half page that one. We have one more. Oh yes, we did not want to leave out the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: He has two-thirds of a page ad. That is five advertisements in one magazine.

Now, I have to tell you something about your Blue Book. Oh yes, your Blue Book.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not the Blue Book.

MS THISTLE: No, I am sorry, it is a blueprint.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to caution the hon. member because clearly, in Marleau, which is the reference I am using, there are comments about exhibits. In the Parliament of Canada it had been ruled inadmissible - it says here: Exhibits have also been ruled inadmissable, and examples of printed material used as a prop and ruled out of order include: advertisements, newspapers, books and money. They also have ruled out of order many other things. In fact, on one occasion a member who was recognized asked a question to the Minister of Health, held up a toy, and that was ruled out of order as well.

When we are using props we are quite free to quote from them. The House of Assembly is a House where we communicate by verbal means and we should not be using props. Although, I admit from time to time that members may want to refer to certain literature, and that is quite within the rules. However, holding up a prop as a display is outside the rules that we usually follow.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly respect your ruling on that and I will try to govern myself in the future.

I want to refer to -

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened to the minister intently over the past little while. She talked about expenses in the advertising that the government departments do to promote our Province within our Province and outside our Province, and she referred to an ad by the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation which, my understanding is - correct me if I am wrong - that she felt there may have been a problem with purchasing an ad in the magazine.

I would just like to ask her, under the previous Administration, while she was a minister in that Administration, in September of 2002, the Corporation paid $1,104 for twelve leather placemats for the boardroom at the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation. I wonder was that, Mr. Speaker, important spending on behalf of the government at the time?

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that, in one case, the Liquor Corporation paid $3,300 in travel costs for nine employees of the Liquor Corporation who live outside St. John's so they could travel to St. John's to see a hockey game. I wonder, is that prudent spending, Mr. Speaker? I would like to ask her.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to make reference to one of the commitments in the Tory blueprint book, I guess, as you might call it today, and it was one under education. It was said that the Progressive Conservative government will cover increased operating costs of Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic so they can freeze tuition fees and maintain the current level and quality of programs. Lo and behold, when the Budget came down two days ago under the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board - I want to see what heading he had. Oh yes, it is under Restoring Fiscal Health, "We have asked Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic to each identify $2 million in expenditure reductions this year."

Now, you said you were going to make sure that they were going to cover increased operating costs of Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic so they could freeze tuition. A few days after, in your Budget, you said, "We have asked Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic to each identify $2 million in expenditure reductions this year."

I do not know what you would call that. I would think that was probably a broken promise, in my opinion, when you say something in black and white and when you get to your first Budget you do the other thing. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly look at that as a broken promise.

My understanding it that the House will shortly be closing for the day, and I cannot wait to get on my feet again the next day, whatever that next day will be. I do not want to do anything now that would lose my place here. Can I say that we adjourn for the day? Who does that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: We adjourn the debate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

As long as I know I am going to be able to stand up again.

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

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

Another member made a concern that she did not want to touch her time. I can tell that if you did, I would give you leave for more unlimited time, because we do not want it ever to be said that the government did not provide all members with the opportunity to have a debate. Mr. Speaker, we look forward to Monday, to hearing the member, and we look forward to hearing lots from her on Monday.

In the spirit of that, I would like to move, according to Standing Order 11, that the House on Monday not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. and not adjourn at 10:00 p.m., so the member will have lots of time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the member, be careful what you ask for; you just may get it.

Mr. Speaker, today being Thursday, the end of the parliamentary week, I move the adjournment until Monday, the upcoming Monday.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that this House do adjourn until Monday, April 5, at 1:30 p.m.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

This House, on its adjournment, stands adjourned until Monday, April 5, at 1:30 p.m.