April 20, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 19


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Chair is waiting until all visitors can find a spot in the visitors' gallery.

Before we begin today's session, the Chair wishes again to welcome all visitors to the public galleries. In doing so, I have to remind them that they are not to participate or to demonstrate in any way, or show any approval or disapproval of any proceedings in the House. On six occasions in this session, including the sitting yesterday afternoon, the Chair has been obliged to suspend the sitting due to disorder which originated in the galleries. On such matters, the Chair, as presiding officer, has responsibility to maintain order and decorum and, in doing so, has very few options.

The Standing Orders of this House are very clear. They are based on tradition. It goes back many, many years; many, many decades. Any person who misconducts himself or herself, or persons, shall be asked to leave the galleries. As a last resort, the Speaker may ask that the galleries be cleared and the House be suspended until the Sergeant-at-Arms is satisfied the House conducts its proceedings in a manner consistent with our rules on order and decorum.

Finally, as a last resort, the Speaker can, as has happened on several occasions in the past in this House, including the last House of Assembly, the 44th Assembly, the Speaker can have the galleries cleared and cause the doors to be locked for the balance of the sitting day.

The Speaker does not do these things without due consideration. I am most reluctant to bar any person or persons; however, in this regard, all visitors are asked for their co-operation. Again today I ask all visitors to refrain from participation in any way that might be seen as approval or disapproval of anything that is said, either by the way of asking of questions or in responses that might come from the government side of the House.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a matter of urgent public importance. Normally when a member says that, the member is referring to Standing Order 36, which is the adjournment of the House for an emergency debate. However, the nature of my request at this time is not to do that but to recognize that the House of Assembly, as master of its own proceedings, has the right to address a matter of urgent public importance in any way that it chooses.

The specific request - and I have given notice to the Government House Leader and to the Official Opposition of this request so that they could consider and hopefully agree to this request and have time to think about it - is that the Leader of the Newfoundland Association of Public and Private Employees be given leave to address this House, outside the bar of the House, as is the parliamentary procedure, to address the issue of the public service strike on behalf of both the Newfoundland Association of Public and Private Employees and CUPE.

We are tomorrow entering into the third week, the twenty-first day, of the legal public sector strike, and it has been, up to this point, with considerable strain on public services, generally speaking, a very straightforward and civilized matter with bargaining carrying on intermittently. We are, at this point, according to the statements made yesterday, at a point where, in the words of the Premier, that things are so far apart that there is no possibility of any negotiated settlement.

I am informed that today at about 1:00 p.m. a new offer and position from the union's side has been presented to the government, or was to be presented to the government, and there is a desire on the part of the Newfoundland Association of Public and Private Employees' leadership to negotiate and provide a solution that would be acceptable to government and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The request from Mr. Leo Puddister to address the House is part of an earnest and sincere attempt to both explain the current situation and to bring an end to this dispute and to return public services to normal in the Province.

In terms of precedent, Mr. Speaker, we do have precedent of strangers, as they are known in parliamentary terms, addressing the House in historical times. The first time I recall such an event in this House was the appearance of Mr. John Shaheen, who was before the bar of the House as a witness who spoke and answered questions. The House, of course, as part of its historic privileges, has the right to summon any individual in the jurisdiction before the bar of the House to speak to the House. Of course, there is a long-standing tradition of offering, in a different context, distinguished visitors such as prime ministers or other premiers, to address the House and in the House of Commons, international leadership. This is not that type of category. This is more along the lines of the House using its privileges to - in this case at the request, but with the powers in authority of the House, to allow an individual to address the House on a matter of urgent public concern.

I would urge all hon. members to consider this, not as an attempt to have a forum, I mean this individual has access to public forum in the media on a regular basis, as do members of this House. But, given the nature of the public sector strike, the fact that it has gone on for just about three weeks, the fact that at least in the government's view there is a significant impasse - which we are told by the leadership of NAPE, is not an impasse from their point of view. In fact, they have a new position that has been presented to the government. So, the government knows what it is, but to address all members of the House in this extraordinary, admittedly extraordinary and unusual way, but given the nature of the circumstance, given the nature that in the past public sector strikes have led, at certain points, to major disruptions of peace and order in the Province, and given the fact that we do want to avoid any possibility that such an event might occur in the current circumstances and as a consequence of exhausting every possible means to bring some rationality to the current circumstances, it seems to me that the request is indeed an earnest and sincere attempt to bring an end to this dispute.

I ask all hon. members to consider this request seriously, and that such an event could occur later this afternoon, at an appropriate time. If there is the consent of the House, I think the appropriate action would be for the House Leaders, and myself, to meet with you, the Speaker, to discuss how it might be done. The request is for, essentially, ten minutes, whether it requires the suspension of the normal rules of the House, that is something that could be discussed with you, Mr. Speaker, if there is agreement for this procedure. As I say, it is extremely unusual, but we are dealing with a matter of, what I would call, urgent public importance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to make a few comments with respect to the point of order raised and the request made. Unfortunately, we are in the twentieth day, soon to be the twenty-first day of - what in our view - is a totally unnecessary strike. We have had the people of the Province subject to paid advertising campaigns from both sides, both print, radio and television. All three, I guess, not both. We have had a disruption of services in the Province, now into the end of its third week, Mr. Speaker. We have had the fact that the Premier of the Province and the leader of the government continuing to refuse to speak directly to the elected leadership of the unions, and publicly stating so.

I believe the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, has made a very sensible request on behalf of the main spokesperson for the 20,000 unionized public employees who are on the streets and are not providing services. If our elected leader will not go talk to them, why won't we have their elected leader come and speak to all of us, and through the auspices of this House, speak to everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador who has access to television and through the broadcast of the particular events that occur in this Legislature? I take it to be a very serious request. I take it to be an opportunity for us to have the open debate which, right now, may lead to breaking this log jam and enabling all of us to put aside whatever it is that is causing the difference and causing this totally unnecessary strike to drag on and on with no end in sight; particularly with the comments that are in the media today from the Premier, as the elected leader of the government, from yesterday, saying that he sees no prospect for an end to this strike, and the elected leaders of the unionized public workers and public employees saying that they see a very easy and obvious end to this particular dispute.

I support the request fully and would hope that maybe with the consent of the House Leader, as referenced by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that you might consider recess at some point in these proceedings, consider the request seriously, and see if we can arrange for it later today.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I appreciate the request, and government appreciates the request. We should also understand that it is an unusual one. Based upon my information, I think there has been twice in the last thirty-three years or thirty-four years: John Shaheen, I believe, addressed the House, when the House requested that he come before the Assembly to deal with issues related to the Come By Chance Oil Refinery, and the debacle associated with that refinery and the financing of that refinery at the time.

My understanding, as well, is that the last time it happened was during the Meech Lake Accord, if I am not mistaken, when some members were actually here in the House - I was not at the time - where the Prime Minister of the country actually addressed the Assembly, all members, on a matter of grave public but obviously national importance.

The request, in our view, is not timely and we will not be supporting it for these reasons: Number one, that the offer that the member has alluded to has not been seen by government as of yet, and that the House of Assembly is not a forum for open negotiation between two parties. It does not inhibit or limit the ability of any member in this place to discuss, debate, question, prod or poke government about the issues that are outstanding, and in this case issues that are outstanding that are particular and peculiar to the public service strike.

Secondly, and members are aware on both sides of the House, the Minister of Labour is making a statement this afternoon under the Orders of the Day, under Ministerial Statements, that deals specifically with this issue. She has also, prior to this House and prior to this strike, prior to the meeting on the front steps of CUPE and NAPE workers, out standing, the public service strike - that she herself has spoken to the leadership of NAPE prior to that rally taking place on the front steps of the Confederation Building.

We will not be supporting the request, Mr. Speaker, for those reasons.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker, in ruling on the point of order, really it doesn't qualify as a point of order, as such. However, the Speaker could facilitate a meeting and could make an arrangement between the House Leaders. Certainly the Speaker's Office is available to do that on any issue at any time. Since there is a lack of consent on behalf of the governing side of the House, the Speaker does not, at this particular time, see any merit in trying to convene a meeting between House Leaders to resolve this particular issue. However, if a point should arise at which there is an agreement between House Leaders to convene on that particular matter, then the Speaker is, by all means, ready to facilitate any dialogue that might occur.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise at this time on a point of personal privilege on behalf of myself and on behalf of all members of the official Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, we are here this afternoon thanks only to the good graces of your personal intervention. There are only a few important privileges that any of us, as MHAs, have. One of them is the freedom of speech. The second, of course, is to access the place where we need to do our job, which is right here. Despite what some people might think, this is the people's House and we are representatives of the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we came to this building today, and I mean the House and the precincts of this House where we have our offices, fully intent upon doing our jobs. Somebody gave someone directions that we were not to enter this building. Who gave those directions, I do not know. I can assure you it certainly was not any striker in this Province or any union member. We gained access to the civil servants entrance of this building quite freely and without harassment or interference from anyone, but the door was locked. I made a personal request to the person inside of the door, not once but three times, to allow myself and the other members of the Official Opposition to get into this building so we could do our job, and I was denied. Three times.

Mr. Speaker, it is only because of the personal intervention of yourself, when I placed a phone call to you, that you yourself came to the door and allowed us to enter this building. That is totally and absolutely unacceptable to the members here. It is an absolute breach of our privileges, and it is an insult to the people of this Province that their representatives cannot come here to go to work.

I do not know who is in charge of security of this building, and I doubt very much that any individual outside involved with the security of this building took it upon himself or herself to make that decision. Someone gave someone instructions that there was to be no access to this building. That is totally unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, our privileges, I would submit, have been breached. I would request that the Chair rule on the fact that it is, indeed, a breach of our privileges to have access to this building, to this Chamber, and to the precincts of this House where we do our jobs, or try to do our jobs. Mr. Speaker, we would like assurances that this is never to happen again. This is absolutely insulting and unacceptable.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to support the question of privilege raised by the Opposition House Leader. When the Member for Labrador West and I arrived to come to the session of the House this afternoon, the door was locked. There was no one inside. There was no way of getting in the door without the personal call that I made to your office to gain access to the precincts of our House of Assembly.

When I saw you come out, the door was actually opened by police officers, which I find also to be contrary to the privileges of Parliament. In fact, Beauchesne 6th Edition refers to the question of police within the precincts of Parliament, and I would consider the entrance to the Parliamentary - the access that we have, as members, to get from outside to here - as part of the precincts of Parliament, in the absence of a separate entrance to here.

The police came to what is known as the civil service entrance, the security entrance here, and it was police officers who opened the door and gave access to certain people; that is, myself and the Member for Labrador West and two staff members and certain others, including one member of the press, but it was only through that action and my call to your office that access was even obtained.

Page 21, §72 of Beauchesne says, "It is still not clear whether the House of Commons regards as contempt the presence of members of federal, provincial or local police forces within the precincts of Parliament without the consent of the Speaker."

Now, we have an unusual circumstance here where, on occasion, as an honourary situation, a member of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary will sit in the place of the Sergeant-at-Arms, but I do not think in those circumstances they are acting as a police officer but rather as an officer of this House, which is a very different matter. They are not here responding as part of the police forces.

The paragraph, §72, goes on to say, "The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections found in 1973 that it was ‘well established that outside police forces should not enter the precincts without permission', but failed to establish such an entry as a contempt."

Now, we are not dealing with contempt of Parliament or contempt of the House of Assembly here. We are dealing with the presence of police forces preventing or alternatively admitting people to the precincts of Parliament.

This is totally unacceptable for a Parliament who has its long-standing privileges going back many, many centuries. It is very important that you, as Speaker, and that the House in general, uphold these principles of Parliament. I would ask and support the request of the Official Opposition, the Opposition House Leader, that you conduct an investigation into this, find out what orders were given, and I ask you to report back to the House as to what the circumstances are in your ruling, as to its acceptability, and to urge you to find a way to ensure that members of this House have access to the precincts of this House, unobstructed.

The obstructions that we are talking about were not obstructions of any public sector workers on strike, or picketers. The obstructions were obstructions of a locked door, apparently under the control of police forces, not this House of Assembly.

I would ask you to rule on that very significant and important privilege of members of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say in the first instance that we completely agree with the point of privilege raised by the Opposition House Leader. I will say this: If one member in this Legislature is blocked from getting into the precincts of the House, and the precincts of the House as defined by former governments - and I recall having this conversation, the Leader of the NDP and I, in 1999, when the precincts were defined for this House during the nurses' strike, which was the entrance right there, not the entrance to the doorway but the entrance to the precincts was defined then, because there were some 140 to 150 police officers out in the lobby at the time. I believe the member and the Leader for the NDP would acknowledge and recognize that.

If one member is blocked from getting into this Legislature, for any reason, then it is not only that member's privileges that have been breached but it has been all of our privileges that have been breached, each and every one of us. That is why, on that premise, Mr. Speaker, we agree wholeheartedly with the Opposition.

I will say, Mr. Speaker - and it is just the nature of the situation and the circumstances and the environment that we are working in - not all members had the luxury of coming in unobstructed today. Maybe if the strike continues, that may continue, but members did get here and that is important. By whatever means necessary, members arrived and are here in this Legislature today.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to you, with absolute confidence and knowledge, that the Opposition House Leader said somebody has ordered that the Opposition not come in. I can assure him, and I can assure all members of this House, and each and every member of the public, that no such order was issued by any member in this government, by the Premier, by the Minister of Finance, by myself as Government House Leader, or by anybody. I am equally disturbed, and all members in this House are equally disturbed, to find out that happened to the Opposition today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me also say this: While we may disagree on issues in this Legislature, and there will be times that we do agree, there is one thing that you will find from my point of view and members opposite: Even if we disagree, we will be your biggest advocates to get in this House so that you can absolutely disagree with us if you feel it necessary.

Mr. Speaker, let me say finally to you that the request made, the point of privilege raised by the Opposition House Leader, supported by the Leader of the NDP, and absolutely, unequivocally and unqualified support from the government, and in my capacity communicating that to you, in the Chair, that we too would like to see what the situation was that arose. We spoke about this earlier - all members, myself and the Opposition House Leader - that we too would like to see what transpired, and understand what transpired, so that no member, in his or her capacity, acting as a member, is not able to do so because of a situation that occurred today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I want to thank the hon. members for their contribution to the discussion. I do feel, however, before I say that I am going to take this matter under advisement and come back, I should make a few comments.

 

One, to say that the Speaker accepts the responsibility for the security to the House and to the immediate precincts around the House. That is part of the mandate that is given to the Speaker of the House.

I want to say as well that any person or persons who locked the doors today were not operating on instructions from the Speaker. Nor were they operating on any instructions from any of the administrative team or the government of the day. Certainly there is no direction that was given to the Speaker for these matters to occur, and if they were given the Speaker would not accept them.

Consequently, what I am saying to you is that when it comes to the rights of members, I would like to correct - not correct - say to the Opposition House Leader, he mentioned it was a point of personal privilege. If he reads Marleau, he will find that it really qualifies as a point of parliamentary privilege, which is a different thing all together. It is a higher category than personal privilege.

I quote for members a case that comes out of Ontario, and it was heard before Justice Winkler in 1996. I quote some things from that so people will know where I am coming from. He says, "There was a strong prima facie case in that obstruction of the Members of the Legislative Assembly..." - here called the House of Assembly - "...constituted a breach of parliamentary privilege. Such an interference with legislative function caused irreparable harm which could not be remedied in damages."

Further in this judgement it is made quite clear, and it says, "First, that the obstruction of members of the legislature constitutes a breach of parliamentary privilege."

There are other references that the Speaker will refer to; however, legal cases and cases in other provinces clearly indicate that in this particular case, while the Chair will carry out an investigation as to what happened, the Chair is of the opinion that a serious matter occurred and that investigation is indeed warranted.

The Chair will come back to all hon. members. I should say that the hon. members who spoke, there were members on all sides of the House today: from the government side, who had difficulty getting in; from the Opposition side, including members of the New Democratic Party.

I have spoken to the Opposition Leader on this matter earlier, and also to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. The Chair apologizes for any inconvenience; however, the Chair will carry out an investigation to ascertain exactly what happened in this circumstance.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by members, I have one statement and that is the Member for Terra Nova.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mrs. Jean Chatman of Charlottetown for receiving the Newfoundland and Labrador Entrepreneur of the Year Award from Memorial University's Faculty of Business on March 30, 2004.

Mrs. Chatman is the owner of Chatman's Bakery which started twenty-five years ago to supply baked goods to Terra Nova National Park. During that time, through determination, hard work and commitment, Mrs. Chatman has grown her business tremendously, now supplying baked goods to fifty-five grocery stores throughout Atlantic Canada.

This business has grown into a family affair, as two of Mrs. Chatman's daughters are also involved in the management and operation of the bakery.

Mr. Speaker, Jean Chatman and Chatman's Bakery are an example of the entrepreneurial spirit that is alive and well in rural Newfoundland and Labrador where hard work and dedication are a way of life.

I ask all members to join with me in extending congratulations to Mrs. Chatman on being named Entrepreneur of the Year.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to inform my hon. colleagues that, as Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency, I will instruct the Agency's mediators to conduct exploratory talks with government and union negotiators to determine if there is any basis for a settlement in the current public sector dispute.

The public sector dispute is now into its twentieth day. I have been closely monitoring this situation, including the past several days, during which time there have been repeated attempts by the parties to negotiate a settlement. I have also noted, Mr. Speaker, that both sides have clearly stated their desire to end this dispute. Despite that, they have been unable to reach a resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the Labour Relations Agency has a mandate and responsibility to provide conciliation and mediation assistance to all parties during contract negotiations. This applies to both public and private sectors in this Province. In previous circumstances the assistance of mediators has proven beneficial.

Mr. Speaker, under my instruction, Labour Relations mediators will contact the parties involved to explore with them any common ground that may still remain and could result in a negotiated settlement.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I thank the hon. minister for a copy of the statement about ten minutes before the House opened.

I guess awhile ago this would have been great news, wonderful news, a good news story, but I think everybody in the Province now sees it for what it is really all about; too little, too late.

I think the message that is coming out loud and clear in this Province is that the Premier needs to get back to the bargaining table. It seems the people who are negotiating for government do not have any authority, no authority whatsoever to be able to negotiate. Not even the senior negotiator, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, has no mandate whatsoever to negotiate. I think it is very, very clear that the only person in this Province who can resolve this situation is the Premier, and if the Premier is not going to get back at the table -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. BARRETT: - then the part-time Minister of Labour is just wasting her time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggested this some time ago as a possibility of getting a negotiated settlement. It was not taken up, and last weekend we had a bit of charade with no real commitment by the government to resolve this. I had hoped that this might work, but I think, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the atmosphere has been poisoned by the Premier's comments yesterday, that he sees no possibility of a negotiated settlement. I hope, despite that, that the officials of the minister will be able to follow up on requests that have been made in the past by the leadership unions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: - to have mediators involved and possibility reach a solution.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, before I get to questions directly related today to the strike, I would like to ask the Premier a couple of questions with respect to what is happening in the Legislature and the public galleries today.

We are aware, and I can tell by looking around because I have been here for fifteen years, that the public galleries today are largely occupied by political staff, which is probably understandable, and management staff, which is not at all understandable, who, we understand, have been ordered here today by the government. Supposedly, Mr. Speaker, these staff are in this building, having crossed picket lines, like we did, because they are providing some essential services and there is something that they should be doing on behalf of the government. I am not sure that sitting in the gallery, at the behest of the government, is one of those essential duties. Mr. Speaker, meanwhile, members of the general public are being denied access. They are being told outside that they cannot come to the public galleries because it is full. I just counted twenty-eight empty seats that are already here.

The question for the Premier is this: Who ordered these people to be in the galleries today? Would he not agree now that if they are here, management personnel, supposedly providing essential services, which is why they crossed the picket line, that won't he let them go back to work? Could we agree to recess for ten minutes and let some members of the general public, who might like to enter and have been denied, come to this gallery if they choose to do so, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, there are lots of empty seats in the galleries of this Chamber. I can indicate to members present that I certainly did not order anybody into this House today. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, and government members know, lots of times employees of government do actually sit in the galleries and observe the proceedings that go on here. This is very normal.

I do remember, of course, during the Voisey's Bay debate, when government blocked the galleries and those particular circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Of course, the hon. gentleman was Premier at that particular point in time and he would remember it.

There are lots of seats, and the public are certainly more than welcome to come in and occupy these seats.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the Premier would take it as a serious issue. The question, seriously, is this: There are people outside who tried to enter the galleries today and were told that there was no space available. That is a serious issue, Mr. Speaker. All of us can look around and see that there is space available and that there are people in these galleries, we all understand political staff, who have never been here before, who are here to provide essential services as management personnel and surely goodness, the Premier is not going to suggest that it is absolutely essential that they sit in the galleries. They have been here for half-an-hour already, Mr. Speaker, while services to the people of the Province go unattended to.

Will he agree, as an act of good faith, to a recess for a few minutes to let the management personnel go back to work and provide the essential services, which is all that is being provided to the people of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to finish his question.

MR. GRIMES: - and let those who might want to come into the galleries enter the gallery, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If there are some people outside this Chamber who want to occupy the twenty-eight seats that are available in this Chamber and for some reason they are not being let in and you want to recess to allow them to come in to fill these seats, absolutely, let's recess and allow them to come in.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair seeks direction from the House Leaders. It is not required that the House recess in order for visitors to enter the public galleries. Visitors can enter and leave as they wish at any time. That is not a reason to recess the House. If there are visitors on the outside who wish to come in, then they are free to come into this House at any time during the proceedings, or they are free to leave.

However, if there is an obstruction, for example, if the doors are locked or something like that, and if there is agreement to have a recess, then we can do it. I seek direction from the Government House Leader and from the Opposition House Leader.

The point of order raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I think, Mr. Speaker, the point of order relates to the question raised, that if in fact people are being told that there is on room and they are not allowed in, then I think that would call for, if not a recess, a suspension of the House until we can assure ourselves that in fact people are not being prevented from entering. I think that question really should be resolved.

I understand, and we all understand, that the public ought to have access to this House just as members ought to have access to this House. We know that we were denied and we understand that the people are being denied. We should recess until that is cleared up.

MR. SPEAKER: If I could, I think there is consent that we would recess the House probably for five minutes. We will stop the Question Period time and continue it on the end of the time when we come back from the recess.

Before we go, I think we have a question raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Again, I appreciate the ruling and appreciate the agreement to do it.

Because of the fact that you have to be very careful with the words of this Premier, I ask again - because he talked about agreeing to a recess to only allow the twenty-eight vacant seats to be filled - would the Premier agree that any management or political staff that would like to go back to work are free to go back to work at the same time, so that there might actually be a lot more than twenty-eight seats available?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I respond with one word, Mr. Speaker: Absolutely!

MR. SPEAKER: I think there is agreement that we will recess the House. It is now 2:15, the House will reconvene at 2:20, and it will be noted by the ringing of the bells.

The House is now recessed until 2:20.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House will resume the Question Period. The Chair has recorded the amount of time that has expired as six minutes and fifty-eight seconds.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is day twenty of a totally unnecessary strike, the biggest strike in the history of the Province, and caused single-handedly by the Premier and his government. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, publicly in the media, the Premier stated that he does not see any possibility of reaching a negotiated settlement. I ask, Mr. Speaker, is that still the Premier's position today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that statement was made yesterday based on, of course, what we had before us; based on the negotiations that went on over a four day period, headed by the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board, who entered into good faith negotiations with the unions and made progress. He made very good progress to move forward, however, reached a point when the union came back to us and indicated that they wanted a signing bonus, which represented a significant amount of money to the government.

As well, we are looking at a CPI bonus, which was in fact about $55 million to $66 million on an annual basis to the treasury; as well as the other two remaining issues that were outstanding. At that particular point in time I felt, the minister felt, and the Cabinet felt, that we were too far apart to reach a satisfactory negotiation and to reach a settlement. However, today, I am advised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party that there is an offer which has been presented, which is news to me, when I heard of it today. That an offer is now being presented and has been presented to government. We will certainly have a look at that offer and have an opportunity to either see it or discuss it. We will certainly have a look at it.

As well, there is an initative today by the Minister of Labour with regard to having mediators involved in the process on a preliminary basis to see if there is any room to move forward. I am certainly encouraged by that and I look forward to the offer that has been put forward to us by the union.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure, again, that many people of the Province will take some hope - hopefully not false hope, like the last several times with respect to possible resumption of some negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, the issue is still basically this. The negotiations obviously will end in failure, again, unless the Premier finally takes - and he laughs at it, Mr. Speaker. He laughs at it. It is very serious. Some of his caucus members are laughing at it, Mr. Speaker. It is a very serious issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, they will end in failure, again, unless he finally takes the concessions off the table. This is clearly not about money. The issue that has been talked about today - and the union leaders have always said: We can settle the money if we can only get away from the concessions.

Mr. Speaker, in asking the Premier the question, let me remind him of this, the sick leave issue in particular, the health care managers - and the Premier should know this, the Minister of Health and Community Services should know this, the President of Treasury Board should know it, if they do not - that any one of the options offered publicly yesterday by the union, they would gladly take. They told me when I was Labour Minister, they told me when I was Health Minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- and they told me when I was Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the question for the Premier is this: Is he finally going to take the sick leave concessions off the table and allow a deal to be negotiated or is he going to continue to turn his back on any of the other options just because it is not the one that he presented himself, personally?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition forgot to mention that when he was Minister of Labour and Minister of Education and when he was part of the Wells government that he participated in legislative wage freezes, legislative rollbacks and cutting several thousands of jobs and delivering pink slips at Christmastime. He failed to mention that. I think that is probably relevant information.

Mr. Speaker, because there has been a good-faith offer made by the union now, which perhaps accepts our last proposal, I do not know, and if that is the case, it would be most improper for me to conduct a negotiation with the Leader of the Opposition at this particular point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the meantime, the Premier, as the leader of the government, would full well know that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador did not elect him to live in the past. They elected him for real leadership, a new approach and a bright future, Mr. Speaker, which they have not seen any of in the first six months.

Mr. Speaker, a serious question again for the Premier: Is he now telling us, in this Legislature, that he is going to stop going to the media and mocking publicly the proposals put forward by the union in trying to reach an agreement and that he is actually going to engage in some real, earnest, genuine negotiations later today or is this just another ruse to try to buy some time for some people while he gets back to an agenda of dictating to the workers what it is they have to give up in order to satisfy him personally and his government?

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 at a bit of a loss to understand exactly what the Leader of the Opposition would like me to do. Does he want me involved? Does he not want me involved? Does he want me to talk to the media? Does he not want me to talk to the media?

When the Labour critic gets up, he talks about mediation being a waste of time. Those are the words he used today: a waste of time. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi talks about mediation being a charade, when he was the one who asked us to get involved in mediation. They are all over the place. Absolutely everywhere. They are all over the place. We are doing our best. When the request for mediation was made by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, we entered into negotiations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It is interesting, the Member for Bellevue, who has a very serious labour situation in his own district - whereby there are over 400 people's jobs at stake in his district, a very serious problem - he has not even picked up the phone and called me about the problem in his district when myself and the Minister of Fisheries are dealing with it and trying to correct it. You should get concerned about your own district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Instead of attacking the Member for Bellevue, maybe the Premier would like to take the questions seriously and try to deal with the absolute, total unnecessary chaos that is going on in the Province today caused by him single-handedly, never mind dealing with other issues.

Mr. Speaker, what we have heard today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks for your cooperation. There is a dialogue going across the House which is not (inaudible) to the debate between the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier.

The Leader of the Opposition, a moment to finish up your question.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, rather than be sidetracked by issues that the government, at this point, finds very amusing. They are laughing again, Mr. Speaker. The twentieth day of a strike, and they find it very funny. They must be in a very funny mood today because they have their friends and supporters looking at them instead of members of the public who were denied just a little while ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: That might be why they are all smiles today. That might be the real reason.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair again asks the Leader of the Opposition to finish his question. If not, I will have to return the floor to the government side.

The Leader of the Opposition, about fifteen seconds.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the health boards in the last twenty-four hours and they publicly stated they are having tremendous difficulty coping, and that they would like to have more essential workers available.

Again, I would like to ask the Premier directly. How does he plan - and he probably will not answer this question, Mr. Speaker - to deal with the plea from Mr. Peddle and the health boards for more workers in the health care system to help deal with the circumstance? Does he plan to bring available management people into the gallery instead, like he has done today? And he still has them here, Mr. Speaker. Two hours later he still has them sitting in the galleries, when Mr. Peddle and the health boards are asking for much-needed help out in the hospitals and the seniors' homes in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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 has been mentioned that there are some areas of concern, and I feel that there is an intention where an increase is needed there to ask the unions to co-operate in increasing the number of essential workers so services can be performed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, a question for the Premier.

Acknowledging that there is a request for more workers, because they are having great difficulty coping. I think that was just acknowledged by the President of Treasury Board; they understand that to be the circumstance. They are essential in the gallery but not essential in our seniors' homes, long-term care and the hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, the question is this: Is the government, in this negotiation they are talking about today, going to follow the plea of Mr. Peddle, which is to enter into a negotiation about possibly getting more essential workers designated, which will only prolong the strike, see a continuation of reduced services, and the agony continue for the people in the health care sector as well as in education, or, are they going to go back to the bargaining table and try to take the concessions out of the picture and settle the dispute by agreement once and for all?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I gather from the Leader of the Opposition that he does not want those services increased. That is what I gather from his question, that he would like - it is our preferred choice to have negotiations settle this. Over the weekend we exchanged five written proposals, from Thursday to Sunday, five written proposals - I have eleven here - and others prior to March 31. We have had proposals here, probably fifteen in total, approximately there, that showed a change from our position on each particular one when we went back again. There was a lapse. There was a lapse, I might add, Mr. Speaker, of eight days that we did not get a response to the proposal. From Good Friday to the following Saturday we waited. We waited for over eight days before we got a response to the last proposal.

I did not know, Mr. Speaker, there was a proposal here in the House until the Leader of the New Democratic Party indicated in the House today that there is another proposal that came to us. Several minutes after he made that statement in the House today, I had a message sent in to me that it just arrived at my office now, after it was raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

We want to deal with this issue fairly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - we want to deal with it honestly, but it is difficult to do when there is grandstanding and numerous things happening here that are not conducive -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - to good collective bargaining in the Province. They are more interested in instigating starting a process than getting a solution to this process.

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 getting to be a bit of a tired, here we go again; blame anybody else except the government, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for the Premier, or if he has given up answering questions again today, like he usually does, maybe to the President of Treasury Board, we do not support choices that prolong the strike. The choice that he talked about, Mr. Speaker, of designating more essential workers only guarantees that the strike goes on and on, and people suffer and suffer, and do without the services that they need.

Mr. Speaker, doesn't he understand, does the Premier understand or does the President of Treasury Board understand, that under current legislation, if they want more essential workers, which Mr. Peddle has called for, and he acknowledges that they need, they he can get all the essential workers that they need under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act today. Does he know that or not? We are certainly not supporting more essential workers for the purpose of prolonging a strike that has already gone on too long.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we understand all the provisions of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. I would like to know from the Leader of the Opposition, which one does he support? The one where they brought in legislation to roll back collective agreements, or when they stood in this House, when he was minister and my critic opposite, and read a statement to legislate people back to work? The date was March 30, 1999. I could read it, Mr. Speaker: This legislation provides for nurses to return to work and for government to put in place a settlement.

The Leader of the Opposition, on numerous occasions, said: We will not hesitate to legislate if the occasion arises.

I do not know where they are. They are all over the map. They do not know what they want to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wishes to remind members that, given the circumstances that confront our Province, the Chair is allowing much more latitude in terms of time allocated for asking questions and for the responses. I would appreciate it if we could get back to a position where we make our questions more concise. Also, that means that we have our answers more concise as well.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately again we are witnessing the President of Treasury Board who wants to fight with anyone who dares even ask a question, and wants to live in the past when again they were elected to show real leadership, take a new approach, and lead us to renewed prosperity, which is certainly what we have not witnessed in the last six months.

Mr. Speaker, I ask again - it is not for the government to ask me what option I would choose - what option is the President of Treasury Board suggesting, that he is going to speak to Mr. Peddle about, to get the additional essential workers that have now publicly been asked for and requested of the government if there is no agreed-to resolution with the talks that I assume are going to happen later today? What option is the government going to explore, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are going to look at any particular process that we consider appropriate, and we will respond to any particular request. What I do find very offensive is that I come to this House today and I am told by colleagues on that side of the House, or a colleague, that there was an agreement presented to us that I knew nothing about. That is not proper collective bargaining, to me, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week I said to the minister that I knew she had a head for figures but I still fail to see her heart for people. Every day now we hear about people who are desperate for health care services, but we have heard nothing from the minister. What do you say, Minister, to a twenty-three-year-old woman who is sitting home today with a brain tumor, waiting for this strike to end? The stress is building every day for her and her family. Does the minister realize this, or even care about the impact that this strike is having on people and families in our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As I have indicated to this House before, we have daily discussions with the health care boards on an ongoing basis and we leave it to the health care providers and physicians to determine what are emergency and urgent cases. Those are the cases that are being handled by the health care boards at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under the rotation, the Chair now recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

One thing is very clear, and that is that the unions in this particular dispute are anxious to get a negotiated collective agreement. Mr. Speaker, the real question is: Has this Premier given up on negotiating a collective agreement, as he said yesterday, and is the reason because he actually wants to have an effective wage rollback offering 5 per cent over four years when he knows that PricewaterhouseCoopers has said that inflation will eat up 8.4 per cent of wages over the next four years? Is the real reason that this Premier wants to have an effective rollback, and that he is not prepared to be flexible and to actually look for a negotiated settlement instead of impose one?

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 assure the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that I want an agreed settlement with the unions. That is why, as the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board has said, we have exchanged several offers. How many offers in total? Probably a dozen offers in total.

MR. SULLIVAN: Twelve to fifteen, I think.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Twelve to fifteen offers we have exchanged. We are doing everything we can to try and work towards a settlement. As indicated today, the Minister of Labour has indicated that we will have mediators involved to see if there is any possibility - perhaps if the hon. gentleman knows exactly what the offer is that is proposed to us today, if he could tell me now, than I can react to that offer, if he knows it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Contrary to the Premier's assertions earlier, I am happy that mediation services are being offered. But, my concern, Mr. Speaker, was that those mediation services may fail unless the Premier is prepared to show the kind of flexibility that will be needed. The kind of creativity that is needed to reach an agreement in these circumstances.

The real question here, Mr. Speaker, is the Premier prepared to be flexible? Is he prepared to recognize that a deal can be made if he is prepared to be reasonable? Is he prepared to give his own government officials and his own Minister of Finance the kind of authority needed to reach a deal in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland, showing the kind of flexibility that is required?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and as he well knows, we have shown significant flexibility. A major issue for the union of course, as you know, has been concessions. We have taken away pension indexing. We have taken away the issue of sick leave for current employees. We have taken away the issue of severance. That is off the table. They were taken very, very early in the negotiation, they were taken off the table. As well, during the course of the last weekend, job evaluation has been agreed upon. As well, during the last weekend, remaining issues on pensions have been agreed upon. We have made significant movement in order to alleviate any concerns that have been expressed by the union. We are doing absolutely everything we can and we are prepared to continue negotiations whenever they are ready.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, on a supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last night I listened to a woman, named Christine from Badger, cry over the airways because her mother who is in a long-term care facility has been left in bed for the past twenty days. Her hands are swollen from no therapy and her condition is deteriorating by the day.

Mr. Speaker, this woman can only sit and watch, helpless to fix the problem, but the minister, she and her government, can fix the problem and bring an end to this suffering. What does the minister have to say to people like Christine? Would you tell this woman, minister, that the system is still coping?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. member knows that I cannot speak to specific cases. I can assure her that cases which are urgent and emergency are being dealt with by the hospitals and long-term care facilities. There is a safe level of service being provided to residents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, just prior to the recess the Leader of the Opposition raised a point of order that people outside were denied access to the gallery, and as a result of that, there were people who wanted to be here, could not be here.

During the recess I asked a question and was informed that there was nobody - I am going to get to that, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, why they left - who wanted to be here, that was denied to be here. That is from security, not from anybody here.

Secondly, I have also been informed that the reason the public service workers who were in the gallery left is because their union asked them to leave because of the statement by the Minister of Labour. I just want that cleared up for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There were two issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition before we took our brief recess. One was about why we had management personnel filling the seats of this gallery this afternoon when we are all in a strike situation and they are, I would assume, essential workers in this Province. The question was asked: Would they leave or would the Premier allow them to leave, rather than have them stay in the galleries? I note, as well, that they are still there. It is quite obvious that we know where the priorities are as to how essential they are, when they can sit in the galleries and fill seats this afternoon. That was one piece of it.

The other issue was about whether or not public servants who are on strike could access this Chamber this afternoon. It may well be that the ones who were in these seats decided to leave, once they became aware of the statement by the Minister of Labour this afternoon, vis-à-vis irrelevant. The point is, I say to the Government House Leader, the issue that was raised here was: Why were people being told that they could not get in?

We have had that issue of security in this building twice today. I raised the point of privilege here earlier and a question was raised vis-à-vis the public servants. Whether this government wants to recognize it or not, Mr. Speaker, there is an issue about people accessing this building and this Chamber.

Now, the Chair may feel that it is not anybody in government who is instructing this to be done, but the bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, someone in authority in this building has had people barred from this building today. Now, whether it is to the Chamber up here because they are told they are not allowed in, there are no seats available, or whether it is we cannot access the building because someone has the doors locked, there is an issue. Whether it is an Assistant Deputy Minister, a Director of Security, there is still somebody, I would assume, in this Province taking their direction from this government. Somebody is making that decision, and it doesn't take away from the issue of the accessibility here and what we see happening in these galleries today with management staff filling the seats here when they ought to be providing essential services to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to respond to the point of order of the Government House Leader, to emphasize that the issue that was raised here today is still a live issue, that is that between one o'clock and one thirty there were large numbers of people who wanted access to the House of Assembly and were told, by somebody - and I don't think it was officers of this House - that the galleries were full and there was no room for them to enter. Now, whether they were able to, an hour or so later, when this House was recessed, whether they were still there trying to get in or they had gone on somewhere else because they couldn't get in, is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that some people were denied access to the House, presumably not by your authority, Mr. Speaker, so that the obvious problem here is that the control over the operation of this House is no longer in the hands of the Chair, of the Speaker, but it is somehow in the hands of the government or whoever is directing the security force.

I don't believe it is the Speaker who is telling people that the House is full when the House is not full. Somebody is directing the security forces. Somebody is directing somebody to tell people that the House is full when it is not. Members opposite have denied that it is them, but somebody is doing it, and I think it is incumbent on you, as the chief officer of this House, to solve that problem so that we don't have that happen again.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to you to decide the allegation that is made against you, but the allegation that has been made against this government by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has already been dealt with in this House, and I take personal affront and exception to the allegation made by the member.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: The Leader of the Opposition, prior to the recess, asked a question to which this government responded: Absolutely! He accepted it. When we left I stood on a point of information to clarify a situation. One, I asked security: Was anyone who wanted to get in denied? No. Secondly -

AN HON. MEMBER: They were.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, if that is the case, we will have to figure it out.

Secondly, that the reason public servants who are on strike left the galley is because their union asked them.

Now, the fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, I tell the Opposition House Leader, if we want to talk about who is providing direction, let me ask the Member for Port de Grave: Outside this building this morning, while he was pointing out the strikers, the member for Trinity North, that is one of them, she is one of them, was he providing that direction this morning? Yes, he was. So those allegations can go both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has heard various representations on this particular matter, I don't believe it is necessary to hear anymore. The Chair will consult with the Officers of the House and others. I make it quite clear that security to this House of Assembly is the responsibility of the Speaker and others who serve the House.

As to the access to the rest of the building, that is not an issue that concerns the Speaker but is an issue that concerns people who are responsible for security to this establishment; in other words, Confederation Building outside of the precincts of Parliament itself.

The Speaker is responsible for security in the precincts of Parliament only, and we will report back to the House at a later date on a ruling and explanation of what happened today.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Chair cannot get members to co-operate, the Chair has no choice - it is unusual - but to call a recess and to call the House Leaders together to make sure that we function co-operatively and in a manner that is pertinent to and supportive of the parliamentary process.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not want to belabour the issue, but a brand new point of order relating to the same issue.

It is obvious that it is a little sensitive and a bit hot today, and the government is under tremendous pressure because they have talked about the issue and they even insulted one of their own members by saying: How dare you point out and name that young woman?

The young woman, by the way, happens to be competent and capable enough and highly respected enough to be a member of this Legislature just like all the rest of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I am sure she does not need any defence from a Premier who would say: How dare you do that to a young woman? The people of Trinity-Bay de Verde see her as a very competent, capable individual, Mr. Speaker, and I am surprised that the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women did not rise on a point of order today like she did last week.

Mr. Speaker, the point, though, is this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to get to his point of order very quickly.

MR. GRIMES: It is another serious point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know the zoo crew over there are a bit sensitive today, and I am sure the Member for Lake Melville would like to be saying something other than he is saying. I am sure he might again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If we continue to have interruptions, the Chair will recess the House and I do not want to do that. Ordinarily, members co-operate, but if we continue to have interruptions we will have to call a recess so we can have members reflect on their roles here and we do not have members shouting at each other. It does not serve any purpose. It does not promote parliamentary practices, and I ask members sincerely for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I ask you to finish up your comments now on your point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask again, on behalf of all members under this point of order, for clarification that maybe you can provide when you check into it, because I am sure you will want to investigate this just like you have given an undertaking to investigate the other points of order that have been raised.

The other thing that has occurred today is this: For the first time, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, the visitors to our gallery, who are staff members - political staff who had already been in the building, they work here - and management staff who are not needed for anything essential, obviously, because they are sitting in the galleries, they were all required today, Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, to sign it at the security desk and register as if they are visitors to the building and visitors to this Legislature.

They were also required, Mr. Speaker, and it is a serious point of order and I ask the members to listen because some of them are new and do not know the rules here yet - for the first time ever they were asked, people who work here, just like us. Our staff, the two or three from the Opposition office, because we only brought in essential workers, most of our staff did not cross the picket line out of respect, they did not need to sign a book and they did not need a visitor's tag because they are not visitors. They are workers here. They have a card that identifies that they are allowed in the building and they do not need to sign the book.

Mr. Speaker, my contention is this: Management personnel and political staff from the government, under somebody's direction - and I am sure that you will say it is not yours, Mr. Speaker - were asked to go and fill in the book, and take a visitor's badge and put it on their lapels so that the security could tell the members of the general public that the book is full, the galleries are full, there is no room for you.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask, in your investigation - because you have undertaken to do so - could you, if it is not your office, because I am pretty confident that it is not, check and see who has changed the rules so that employees of the government who are already in the building, entitled to be here - we were all issued a special security card for the duration of the strike - were asked to participate in a sham and a scam today to suit the purposes of the government by signing in as if they were visitors from outside the building, by wearing a visitor's sticker on their lapel and by totally abusing access to this particular Legislature that the government has now been caught doing?

I am sure you will identify that it was not your office. Then it is up to the government to identify which one of them gave those instructions to the staff who have a right to be here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The point of the order raised by the Leader of the Opposition is sufficiently close to the previous points of order. The Chair will consider both points of order together and come back at the appropriate time with a commentary.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order regarding Question Period, and I want to be quite frank about this but I certainly do not wish and will not offend the Chair. I am concerned about the conduct of Question Period and what we see here. I waited, in accordance with the rules, until after Question Period was over.

The conduct of Question Period itself - it is my understanding the purpose of Question Period is so that the Opposition can ask questions of government, and the rules stipulate that there should be, maybe for question number one, a preamble and then a question, and subsequent supplementary questions would not require preambles.

I guess nobody ever called it answer period, because there is no requirement, I guess, that they answer, but there is at least an expectation that the government would try to provide an answer, or some information, not to lecture the Opposition, certainly not to ask questions of the Opposition. We will fix that in four years' time when they will be over here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: In four years' time, Mr. Speaker, they can be over here to ask all the questions that they like.

I am not raising this point frivolously, because the Government House Leader has been very, very straight with the Opposition in this session when it comes to free time, how much time we would like to have to talk, but I note in Question Period, and I think if you do the timings, which I have been doing for some time, it is very clear that in Question Periods we have been asking the questions, and we are trying to get in as many as we can, but some members of the government, particularly the President of Treasury Board, tends to give a lecture rather than an answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I submit, Mr. Speaker, in view of that, we need to take a serious look at the timings. We appreciate a response provided it is being informative, and provided it is not pontificating, it is not preaching and it is not lecturing us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has heard the hon. Opposition House Leader. As members will note, during Question Period today, I did reflect at one point. When we began this session I indicated that the objective of this Chair was to have questions which were approximately forty seconds to forty-five seconds in maximum length and responses of an equal duration.

In the last number of days, because of the circumstances facing the Province - today we had one set of questions that went on for a minute and thirty-eight seconds and equally drew a reply that went on for approximately the same time. That happened on three separate occasions today. The questions were rather lengthy and the answers were equally lengthy.

I should quote from Marleau and Montpetit, Chapter 11, page 425. It says, relative to Question Period, "Time is scarce and should, therefore, be used as profitably as possible by as many as possible."

This afternoon, we had cases where people had questions and they could not get a chance to ask all their questions. The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, I do believe, had a third question. I noted that the Member for Twillingate & Fogo had a set of questions. When we do not keep our questions short, then likewise there is a tendency on the government not to keep their answers brief as well. Consequently, according to Speaker Jerome in the House of Parliament in Ottawa, he said, the first principle of Question Period is brevity.

I remind all members, as to the answers in Question Period, members know there are a number of options that are open to a government. They can decide to answer the question. They can decide to take it as notice. They can decide to refer it to some other day, or ask it be put on the written questions, or they can simply not answer at all, say nothing. The Opposition cannot command the type of answers no more than the government can command the type of questions.

Thank you very much.

There is no point of order but I do take the opportunity to make a comment. Let's trust that the next day we can get back to making sure Question Period functions as close to the intent of the Chair as possible: brief questions and equally brief answers.

The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to assure the Opposition House Leader that I will not lecture. I will be very short and sweet.

Yes, I am new to this House and I may not know all the rules yet, but I do know that the Leader of the Opposition cannot put words into my mouth. He had said that I was insulted when I was referred to as a young woman. I would like to assure him that I am absolutely not insulted. I am very proud to be a young woman in this House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: - as I am sure the people of Trinity-Bay de Verde District are very proud to have me here speaking on behalf of them.

I did try to get into this House this morning and I have no problems. If I encounter a situation where there is an issue where I may have to call for assistance to get in - but once again a member opposite, as members opposite continue to do, they continue to instigate and they continue to hinder this cause, and I do not think that is (inaudible).

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair rules that there is no point of order. It is a point of explanation but certainly no point of order.

I ask members now if we could continue on with the proceedings as per our agenda.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have seen it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I am hesitant to rise on another point of order because I would like for us to get to the business of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this time you witnessed what just occurred. There have been rulings in this House before about points of order and privilege and proper decorum and behaviour, that not only include the spoken word but also include gestures.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of our Province, whom we would all like to be so proud of, whom we would all love to be so proud of, and would hope that he is doing such a good job and providing such great leadership, after the last exchange with respect to the point of order, which I listened to in silence, out of respect for the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, three different times he pointed across the floor at me, in a threatening gesture, and went: Bang! Bang! Bang!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: Now, Mr. Speaker, they are laughing. They are laughing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the members opposite might notice -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was going to say the members opposite who laughed so hard that some of them are wiping tears from their eyes, that is how funny they find these issues, because they do not understand and respect Parliament. They might learn and respect it a bit more than their leader does some time soon. Hopefully they will, Mr. Speaker.

I would not raise it normally, except for the fact that there has been a history of this, with this particular leader and this Premier. He has, in the past in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: - in the past, Mr. Speaker, the happy gang over there, which they want to be today because they are under such pressure.... I know they need some comic relief. They think anything is comic relief with the mess that they have created in the last twenty days.

Mr. Speaker, in the past, the same Premier has looked across at members of this side and has used this gesture, in this House of Assembly, and that same Premier, Mr. Speaker, in the last few days, which you may not have seen, but I am sure that you saw the gesture today, he went to one of our members in the last week and did this: Bang!

Mr. Speaker, we have a history of it and a record of it and it is serious. The members opposite, particularly the brand new members up in the gallery, in the zoo crew that do not know the rules yet, are laughing at it as if it is hilarious. Mr. Speaker, you have been trying to set a new example for us. You, to your credit, as the first ever historically elected Speaker in the Province, have been trying to bring a new level of decorum and respect to this Legislature, but those kinds of things that we see from the Premier - and then when I raise a point, he goes like this, as if we are crying crocodile tears.

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of behaviours we have from the Premier of the Province, the leader of their party in this Legislature, where we are supposed to be showing respect for each other. I normally would not raise the point except to say this, that we expect to see a better example from the new approach with the real leadership. I believe that you, as the Speaker, would expect to see a better example than that. I would expect that all of us would be better serving the people of the Province if our number one leader, the Premier of the Province, sets a better example for his own caucus and for the whole Legislature than what we have seen today and in the last several weeks, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair takes note. The Chair did not see any gestures. I was focusing my attention to the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde and then back to this side of the House.

In ruling that there is not a point of order, because the Chair did not see any of these things happening across the floor, however, in doing that, again I ask all hon. members to treat the House with the dignity that it has historically required of members and to avoid gestures, to avoid things that provoke, things that cause disorder, things that do not serve the goals of parliament and things that prevent us from debating the issues that are before this Province, which is what we are here to do. I would ask all hon. members to get their cooperation, if I can, so we can return to the normal agenda that is put forward by this parliament for discussion of the public's business in the public's interest. Let's do it in a manner that respects the integrity of all hon. members and the integrity of parliament, the institution that we, as all parliamentarians, value so much. Regardless of whether we disagree strongly, fervently and very, very aggressively with other members, we may not believe or follow what they are saying or support what they are doing but civility is the essence of parliament. When civility is compromised, than Parliament is compromised. Asking, again, for your complete cooperation.

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.

Pursuant to 26(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling two Orders in Council relating to funding, pre-commitments for the 2004-2005 fiscal year.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Motion 1, to move that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1 has been called. I do believe that the last speaker was on the Opposition side. The hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans addressed the House last.

I recognize now the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly happy today to take part in the Budget Debate. I think this is my eleventh Budget Debate here in the House of Assembly and I never fail to be impressed in seeing new members. Since the last election, I say, Mr. Speaker, that all of the new members are on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I have stood here before at an earlier time since we came back and congratulated other members and all members of this House for being re-elected. Mr. Speaker, it certainly tells me that we are in good hands and that this House and this Province is going to be left in good hands for a long time to come, when you see new members stand on their feet and speak for the first time and, for the most part, the Chair has to remind them that their twenty minutes has expired.

I remember first when I got elected. It took me about three days to get ready to speak in the House of Assembly. I see new members now standing up, no notes, just going and delivering their speech and talking about the concerns in their districts; the good things that will be happening and the positive things about this Budget. It is certainly very encouraging.

Mr. Speaker, the duties of the Opposition certainly have not changed from the eleven years that we were on that side of the House up until now. Everybody realizes that the Opposition is the group that sits in this House, that asks questions, holds government accountable, and that will not change.

I notice that our Government House Leader, every time somebody on the opposite side stands to speak they have never been denied leave. They have been given ample time to make their points, no matter how long they have spoken. Never have I heard anybody take leave from a member in Opposition. I can assure you, there were many times when we were not granted the same courtesy.

We talk about the Budget, Mr. Speaker, and people are talking about the negative things that are in this Budget. Nobody ever talks about - except the people here who know the good things in the Budget - the positive things that are here, and the good things that are brought forward for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is one thing that every member on this side of the House has always said when they stood to speak, to talk about the need to get a better deal from the central government in Ottawa. That is something that the members on the other side of the House continued to talk about when they were here, and it has not changed from October 21 up until now. Because, until we get a better deal from the central government, we are always going to be looking to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to put their hand in their own pocket to shell out more in order to provide the services that we provide here in this Province today.

The one thing that I have continued to raise here in this House of Assembly is the returns that we get from our offshore oil fields. I remember a number of years ago sitting on the opposite side, and I think I was the critic for development and rural renewal at that particular time, when the former Premier stood here and talked about the wonderful event that he had just attended out at Whiffen Head; about this major project that was being brought forward, all the benefits that would transpire and be acquired by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. He had just come back from Whiffen Head, made this big announcement, where this giant production contract, construction project, was going to go ahead, and the wonderful things that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would see. Of course, Mr. Speaker, he was talking about the Whiffen Head site where we store oil that comes from our two oil fields today, Terra Nova and Hibernia.

A couple of days ago, I called a worker who works at the Whiffen Head transshipment facility and asked him how much oil flowed through that particular facility and how many people were employed there, Mr. Speaker. I was shocked at the figures that he gave me. These are the benefits that we are acquiring, and a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians put benefits in direct relationship to jobs created, because that is the way we are. We want to find work. We want to be able to go out and work and get some benefits from our resources. If we find work, that will naturally bring prosperity to each of us who finds work, and the communities where we live.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you that at that particular facility, he gave me the per quarter figures first of all. He said there were fifty million barrels of oil that go through the Whiffen Head facility, in a quarter. Fifty million barrels of oil. You break that down, Mr. Speaker, per week, and you find out - and you relate it to gallons because most of us can relate to gallons and not barrels - you will find that there are 170 million gallons of oil per week that go through Whiffen Head facility, 170 million gallons per week. Mr. Speaker, that translates into 24 million gallons of oil per day. This 24 million gallons of oil per day is landed at the Whiffen Head facility, stored there in a big tank, and is shipped out again by another tanker to be taken somewhere else for full benefits.

People are saying: Well, if there are 50 million barrels of oil that go through that facility in three months, then there has to be a lot people working there. That is a lot of oil. You talk about 24 million gallons of oil per day, there have to be a lot of people working there.

I ask people opposite if they would like to tell me how many people work at the Whiffen Head oil facility? Does anybody know? Does anybody on the other side know how many people are employed at the Whiffen Head oil facility, this great oil project off our shores that is supposed to give us full and fair benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Does anybody know? One member said two.

Mr. Speaker, there are three people per ship working at the Whiffen Head facility. Three people per ship. There are some tankers that come in and out there as well, that deliver the oil and take the oil from the Whiffen Head facility to carry it somewhere else to be refined. So, I said, if there are only those many people working there, then there have to be a lot of Newfoundlanders working on oil tankers. He said, I have it all right here. I have it all right here, he said. Bringing oil into the Whiffen Head facility, he said, there are three shuttle tenders. Three ships, twenty-five people per ship worked on those oil tankers, taking oil out of the refinery. Ah, I said, that is where Newfoundlanders are employed. They have to be taking the oil somewhere else. Newfoundlanders go all over the world. They are not only working off our coast or in our communities and towns.

Mr. Speaker, there is one ship called the Avalon Spirit, that lands at the Whiffen Head facility that hires Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. There are twenty-five local people working on that particular ship. Every other ship, every other tanker, every other shuttle that comes in there to Whiffen Head, picks up oil, takes it around the world. It is not even flagged with the Canadian Flag. It does not even fly the Canadian Flag, and probably the Prime Minister of Canada might own some of those. It is a good chance, because he does own a fair number of ships that operate in the Great Lakes, under the Upper Lakes Shipping, that employs people who are not Canadians and pays them poverty wages. It is an understood fact. It is understood, that is the way that Prime Minister operates.

Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why the people in Newfoundland and Labrador decided that it was time for a change on October 21.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: That was the reason people went to the polls and said that we have had enough of being raped here in this Province. That is why people wanted a new direction. They wanted a new beginning, and that is why you see a new Premier sitting on this side of the House, and a new government and a new Cabinet today. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, from every caucus meeting that I have attended, and from every meeting I have had, and every conversation that I have had with people on this side of the House, I think it is fair to say that those kinds of things will never happen again in this Province. Those days are over!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is shameful!

When you see our government using a new approach - because that is the approach they are taking with Ottawa. I can tell you, it is an approach right now that is friendly. It is conciliatory. It is going forward and putting forward our needs and hoping somebody will listen. I can assure people, not only in this House but right across Newfoundland and Labrador, that if we do not get results by going in that direction then you will find that we will shift gears and go in another direction and go down another road very quickly.

Mr. Speaker, that is one particular facility which certainly does not provide many opportunities to people in Newfoundland and Labrador today. I heard the Minister of Tourism when he talked about increasing his budget this year to $1 million, over and above last year, to bring us closer to the Atlantic average; bring us up closer to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Money well spent, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. Money well spent. Unfortunately, the former administration was spending money in tourism and promoting tourism as something that would help generate some economic activity - and it has, there is no doubt about that - but, Mr. Speaker, the one thing they failed to do was put any money back into road work, to do what needed to be done in order to attract, what I would call the rubber tire traffic, and having them go down the Bonavista Peninsula and up the Northern Peninsula, and down the Connaigre Peninsula and the Burin Peninsula. That is what that government failed to do.

Sometimes we hear them talking about not being treated right, not getting their fair share, even though we have only been sitting over here for five or six months. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what my fair share was last year in road work. Let me tell you what my fair share was of the $23 million that they brought forward. My fair share was the changing of one intersection in Lethbridge. That was my fair share, I say, from the $23 million. Mr. Speaker, that was an exception. That was an exception, I have to be honest here, because in the past it was a situation where I could go and sit down with a minister and talk to a minister and put forward the needs. It was not uncommon to have a minister come to my district to look at the needs, and I always got a fair share. I always got a fair share - until last year - with the minister who looked after Works, Services and Transportation, last year. Money was put forward, at least to most people on our side of the House, because I heard it here before. I am not the only exception. Without any consultation the money was put there, not asking what your needs were, what needed to be done, other than: here is what you are going to get, and that is all that is there for you.

The former Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is here in the House. I say to him, when he was the minister there - we talk about job creation projects when we come forward - some of the money - look, we find ourselves in debt today by a tremendous amount of money, a debt that is certainly unsustainable. That is why some changes had to be made to the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I, for one, was probably one of the first people over there looking for job creation money in the fall of the year because there was a great need. While somebody might find it difficult to understand why you have to put $2 million, $3 million or $4 million out to a job creation exercise, it is not hard to understand by rural members. It was a way to be able to put a few dollars in somebody's pockets to allow them to continue to live in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was a way to sustain families. It was not so much about the job that was done - although that was important and there was very valuable work done - but, Mr. Speaker, it was about helping families. It was about helping individuals. It was about the survival of communities. I, for one, will stand here in this House at anytime and defend any money that was every spent in that kind of an initiative, and it will continue to happen because there is a great need there. When you look at the district that I represent, where we lost 2,300 jobs in 1992, how can you go and pull yourself up by the boot strings, if you would, and make a recovery from that, especially when those jobs all came from one industry where people were trained at one job and did not have the flexibility to make adjustments or to leave the Province? So it was money well spent.

The Premier talks about - in fact, he does not even talk about it, he is going to do it - creating a new office in Ottawa to deal with problems that directly affect this Province. I can tell you, if there was ever need for a presence - and I know we have seven members there now. I know members opposite say: Why do we need an office, we have seven members there now? Rightly so, there are members there who are certainly working for the good of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but with the mindset that exists in Ottawa, I can assure you that we need somebody to be in somebody's face there all the time.

I have made two pilgrimages - I call them pilgrimages, because that is what it was to Ottawa - once with members from the opposite side. It was two all-party committees, actually. The first trip we made was to initiate and have a new program brought forward called the Post-TAGS program, if people remember. There was an NCARP, then there was a TAGS program, and then it was another program called Post-TAGS.

I remember seven or eight of us going up to Ottawa. We tried to arrange some meetings before we left. A couple of the meetings that were prearranged was a meeting of the Liberal caucus, a meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries who, at that time, was Minister Mifflin, if I recall. Then we had a meeting with Newfoundland Members of Parliament separate that night. When we got there we decided: Well, since we are here maybe we should try to arrange a meeting with the other parties too, which was the PC Party - we did not bother the Bloc - and the New Democratic Party. The first meeting we had was with the New Democratic Party. We were invited into their caucus room. We were given an opportunity to speak and to put forward our views of what we would like to see happen with this new program, the need of it and how it related to, not only our districts, but all of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Then we left, Mr. Speaker, and met with the PC Party. I think the PC Party was pretty well there in full, as well, at the time. We had lunch, and then the next meeting was with the Liberal caucus. We went into this great, big room, a bigger room than we sit in here. It was full of chairs, Mr. Speaker. We showed up, seven or eight members. How many Liberal caucus members do you think showed up to that particular meeting? A meeting that was from a committee which was formed in this House, an all-party committee, the taxpayers' dollars paid for the trip up. How many Liberal members do you think showed up to that particular meeting? There were two. There were two Liberal members. At that particular time they must have had - well, what did they have? They must have had 160 or 180 people there. There were two ministers. We got up and made our presentation - two members, I mean. There were two members and there was one senator. Two members and one senator. We made our little speech and we talked to them because it was important. No matter if there was only one there, we would have still done our thing.

Mr. Speaker, I remember, and it always stuck with me, the member for - I think he was the Member for Spadina; I think it is Spadina. I am not 100 per cent sure, but it was some Toronto riding anyways, a Mr. Dennis Mills. He is still there today. He is still a Liberal caucus member today. I remember him saying to me: Mr. Fitzgerald, if you have so many people down there who are unemployed than tell them to bar up their houses and move up to Toronto. I was shocked. Just imagine! What an approach to take. To come to Toronto, for what? To work for the minimum wage? To leave communities where some of those people were fifty-five and sixty years old and probably have never been any further than the Avalon Peninsula. That is not an option, Mr. Speaker. That is not a solution to the problem. We went there to be heard, but I can tell you, that is the mindset you face when you go to Ottawa and you try to convince people from Central Canada about the problems that we are experiencing here in this Province. As long as we can put somebody up there to be in front of somebody, to put forward our needs and our concerns, Mr. Speaker, until that happens, nothing will change. Hopefully, when that office is established there and we get it staffed we will see some better things coming from Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of other things that I would like to speak about today. Something that I have to talk about is the EI program, where we have $50 billion today in an EI account up in Ottawa, taken - I say it was robbed from the most disadvantaged people, for the most part, in this country, a lot of them Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are either unfortunate enough, or fortunate enough, whichever way you look at it - it would be fortunate for some, unfortunate for most - to be working at seasonal jobs. When you work at a seasonal job, whether you want to or not, Mr. Speaker, EI will always be part of your income. The Employment Insurance paycheque will always be part of your income.

I tell you, seasonal jobs are important jobs. They are great contributors to this economy, Especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador where we have a resource-based economy, you will find most of our jobs are seasonal jobs. It is shameful today where you have $50 billion in an EI account and people are denied, number one, benefits, collecting employment insurance, and number two, denied the opportunity to go back to school and receive funding to be retrained to go out and make themselves more employable. That is the kind of mind set that has to be changed. It is disgraceful! It is discouraging to me and it is hurtful when somebody makes a phone call and says: I want to get back into school. I can't afford to go back to school because I have children.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just by leave? Just for a second?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave to clue up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I certainly won't take advantage of leave, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly hurtful when you see people, family men and women, who realize that they need to be trained and retrained in order to make themselves more employable, and want to go back to school, need to go back to school - that is the message that we all carry, people here will not disagree with that, Mr. Speaker - and you call the Human Resources Development Office and they say: No, I am sorry, you don't qualify because you have been out of work for more than thirty-six months. That is shameful when you have $50 billion in that account that is being spent, for the most part, probably with the scandal that happened in Montreal. I know that it was called a different pot of money, but it all comes from the same pockets and it is all channeled through the same government. Mr. Speaker, that is what is shameful.

That is the reason we need to be in front of our members of parliament to make sure that we get our fair benefit from the EI program, not only in paycheques, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, but also in benefits to put forward to retain people to make them more employable when they want to go and look for a job. You don't have to tell those people they have to go back to school, those people are going back to school taking training because they want to do it.

Mr. Speaker, with that I will sit down. There are others who want to speak. I certainly appreciate the opportunity today to take part in the Budget Debate.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome this opportunity to speak today and pass a few remarks along on the 2004 Budget. I guess a lot of people, when they look at this Budget, they have to make a determination about whether or not it is a responsible Budget or an irresponsible Budget. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, when I look at what has gone on in the House of Assembly today, and I look at the waste that we have seen and the circus, with all due respect to the Speaker, that we have seen here today with respect to management people filling the galleries of this House, clearly there is an indication that if we are in a crisis situation with respect to the economy of this Province and the fiscal situation in this Province, then what we have experienced and seen here today points to the fact that we know where there can be savings made.

Unfortunately, what we witnessed today was an abuse to have the gallery filled today with management personnel, essential personnel, here to do a job, here to make sure that the people's needs are met, here to make sure that the business of the government is carried out as essential workers because we have 20,000 striking employees on the street, and we turn around and see today the galleries filled with management personnel. To think that these people were told to sign in, to wear a visitor's pass so that they could gain entrance and ensure that there was not enough room in the galleries for striking workers is a cause for concern.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that if you work in this House, all you have to do to get into the building, all you have to do to get into Confederation Building, is use your pass. You do not need to sign in. You do not need a visitor's pass. All you have to do is use this pass that was given to every employee who can access Confederation Building while the strike is on. So, to have people from management, management personnel, sit in the gallery, again at an expense to the taxpayer because we assume they are here to do work that would normally be done by the striking employees, but they sat in the galleries not for half an hour, not for one hour, but for two hours today sitting in the gallery wasting time, wasting taxpayers' dollars.

If we have a financial situation in this Province that requires such drastic measures as the government opposite is putting forward, then I call into question again what is being said in terms of where we are financially in this Province. When we can have management sit in the galleries, there is something wrong with that picture. Again, to have them sign in - and I can see why they did not leave when they were asked to leave. They were all asked to sign in. There is a record of everyone who signed in, to sit in the gallery, and that concerns me, Mr. Speaker. It clearly shows there is an abuse here - by whomever, I do not know - but I am glad to see that the Speaker is going to be looking into this and undertake an investigation, because what happened here today created a circus of this House. That is uncalled for, unnecessary. When we are here representing the people who elected us to come and sit in the House of Assembly and make sure that their concerns are addressed, what we saw today, that would not happen.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about the Budget, Budget 2004. The members opposite talk about why they had to do what they did, how necessary it was to get our fiscal house in order. You know, if you look at the Budget, you have to question the direction in which this government is going to get that fiscal house in order. Nobody would question the need to make sure that our fiscal house is in order, but when you say in the Budget - this is what the government opposite promised to do in the Budget Speech - "We promised to protect the most vulnerable people in our society - our seniors, children, students, the disabled, the unemployed and the working poor - and we are delivering on that promise."

I would challenge anyone opposite to ask the seniors, to ask our children, to ask our students, to ask the disabled, to ask the unemployed and the working poor, if they feel this government is delivering on that promise with this Budget. I guarantee you that the answer you will get back is not the one that you want to hear, because when you talk about introducing fees, 150 separate fees that impact on the vulnerable in our society, clearly the people that you promised to serve well and to deliver on a promise of making sure that they are taken care of, then you are not living up to that promise with this Budget.

I have to talk about the economy, growing the economy, and what this government is holding out as the future prospects for our Province, and what they are going to do to make sure that they tame the fiscal tiger and get that economic tiger up and running. You know, it is hilarious when you look at the approach, the vision, and a Premier who puts up his hands, saying: We do not know what to do. If the federal government does not come to the table and give us a better deal, I really do not know what we are going to do.

What does that tell you about a person who, during an election campaign, professed to have all the answers to turning around this Province's economy? What does it tell you about a person who promised, during the election, to deliver on vital capital projects throughout Newfoundland and Labrador? One such vital capital project in Grand Bank on the Burin Peninsula. What does this tell you about an individual who saw a $17.5 million facility promised and who guaranteed - we have it on tape - that if he became the Premier he would deliver on that promise, that health care facility would be promised?

What I have heard today, Mr. Speaker, is that the steel is coming down for that facility. You do not know who to believe, because on the one hand you hear the steel is coming down, but if you look at comments made by the Premier recently, when he was in Gander, the Gander redevelopment was cancelled in the Budget but, in a comment he made in the Gander Beacon, an interview that he did, he insisted that despite what was said in the Budget, the Gander redevelopment would go ahead.

Further down in that same story, which I took some hope out of, he said, in fact, with respect to the other capital projects like the one in Gander and the one in Grand Bank, we will have to see how the money is going.

He did not say, when he gave that interview, that the project was cancelled. So, we are living in hope. Now, it may be false hope but it is based again on a Premier speaking out of both sides of his mouth, depending on where he is. Whether or not he is in Gander, where it is important to convince the people of Gander that he is going to do well by a promise that he made, or whether it is in Grand Falls-Windsor, where again he made a promise.

I guess my only problem is that I have not gotten him back down to Grand Bank where he could stand and say: Forget the Budget, we are going to deliver on that health care facility for the Burin Peninsula because that is a health care facility that is so important to people throughout the Burin Peninsula, not just Grand Bank, but clearly from all senior citizens who use that facility.

That is an issue for us, Mr. Speaker, and one that I think we need to deal with. That is a facility that is long overdue, that needs to be done. The Member for Virginia Waters can talk about - speak to Sam - but I am sure the Mayor of Marystown, while he has his priorities, would also acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with building a new health care facility in Grand Bank for the people of the Burin Peninsula. There is a clinic associated with that, as well as a long-term care facility.

Let me talk about, again, the economy, and how they are going to grow this economy. The Member for Virginia Waters, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, says: Wait and see. We have a new approach. We have a Rural Secretariat. It was in the Budget. We are still trying to figure out what the Rural Secretariat - which will, by the way, be in St. John's, inside the overpass. They know all about the Rural Secretariat, so we are really anxious to see what that is going to contain.

Of course, we have the department which is headed by a minister, under the direction of a Deputy Minister, Dr. House, who has clearly espoused the vision for this government. I am pleased to see that she is shaking her head over there because I am not sure if she agrees or disagrees with him, but in Corner Brook, in fact, his focus was on the fact that we have - a right to employment insurance, not necessary. Job creation monies, not necessary. Sick leave, not necessary. Pay increases, not necessary. Well, this is Dr. House, Dr. Doug House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Absolutely. It conflicts with the speech just given by the Member for Bonavista South, who I have a lot of respect for; who understands the need for job creation monies, how important they are to rural Newfoundland; who, in fact, stood and said seasonal employment is very important to the rural economy of Newfoundland and Labrador; who talked about the importance of people who are engaged in seasonal employment to be able to access employment insurance.

We all know we will always have our seasonal employment with us. I would be very concerned, if I were the minister, to have a deputy minister out talking about the economy and how they are going to get where they want to get, and look at these types of programs that are available to people in Newfoundland and Labrador that he considers unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, when I read these comments by Dr. House, I have to ask if, in fact, they are the policy of the government of today. It says: We, as a government, want to partner with the business community and labour to build a viable, self-sustaining economy in Newfoundland through strategic partnerships.

Well, I wonder what happened to the strategic partnership that was already in place, the strategic partnership between business, labour and government. Where is it? We have not heard a thing about it. It has been six months since this government took place. We have not heard where it is, where it is going, if it is meeting, how often it is going to meet. We know, of course, that the Premier has espoused the Irish model as the model that he would like to pattern our economy on, and we know that is an important component of that Irish model, so I am hopeful that very important strategic partnership has survived the Budget and will continue.

We do know that in terms of the economy, and growing the economy, that where previous governments had one Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, today we have two departments focusing on the economy. We have a Department of Business, headed up by the Premier, and we have the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Now, why you would need two is questionable, especially when you take a department like Labour and roll it into Human Resources and Employment, along with the Status of Women.

Again, you question the wisdom behind such a move. Then you look at the Budget and you see that, in addition to the two departments, you have $1 million allocated for the Department of Business, being led by the Premier, and you have $8 million for the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

The funny thing about it is that there are no details with the Department of Business being led by the Premier. In fact, if you look at the Budget document, the Departmental Salary Details for the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, we have Strategic Industries Development, still within the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and you have nine employees there. You have Business Development. You have Regional Economic Development Services, and you have eight employees there. You have Business Analysis, still within the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and there are ten employees there, for a total, when you look at all of the headings, of a little over $8 million and 149 employees.

I guess the question for those of us who are watching very attentively in terms of the economy and how this government is going to turn around the economy, is: What exactly is the Department of Business, headed by the Premier, going to do? And, what does that do to the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and the mandate of that department?

I would like to think that, because it includes rural development, there will be a focus on rural Newfoundland; but, again, we are not hearing a lot out of this government in terms of rural Newfoundland. In fact, what were are hearing, and the measures that are being taken in the Budget, are detrimental to rural Newfoundland. Whether or not it is the closing of offices throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador, whether or not it is the increasing in fees, whether or not you see people who are having to leave the Province, because now there are 4,000 fewer jobs in the public service, all of these decisions are going to have and are having a negative impact on rural Newfoundland.

You speak to any business, whether it is inside or outside the overpass, the sale of large ticket items has gone down drastically. People are not buying because they really do not know if they are going to have a job. We know we have people on the picket line today who, while they want to get back, they want to negotiate a settlement and they want to get back to work, they really do not know if they have a job to come back to. So, these are scary times for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, we look at the initiative to put an office in Ottawa. The Member from Bonavista South applauded that move and said it was absolutely necessary, given the attitude of the federal government, and recognizing that we have seven MPs in Ottawa. I can tell you, if you speak to someone in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and you say you are going to spend $350,000 on establishing an office in Ottawa, they will ask you what tea leaves you are reading, if you think it is necessary to put the office in Ottawa. We have seven MPs, well paid, elected to do a job for us in Ottawa, and they are doing the best that they can. If we think that putting an office in Ottawa is going to bring pressure to bear on the federal government, then you really do need to think again.

We also need to look again at the direction in which this government is going in terms of the economy. We talk about the need for small business. I have yet to see anything coming out of this government in terms of small business. I know that, when we were government, there was a significant emphasis placed on small business because we know that small business is the backbone of the economy, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Seed Capital Equity Program that we have is wonderful. It is the kind of program that small business can access, in fact, to grow their business, and I applaud the government for continuing to keep that program in place. It is a very important program. It is a program that is available to business, and the government will invest dollar for dollar. We did a lot of that when we were government. I am so pleased to see that they have kept in that program. In fact, a lot of what we see still in place and being managed by the government of the day are terrific programs put in place by previous Liberal governments.

It is wonderful to see that some of our initiatives are continuing on and that they have, in fact, recognized the need for many of those programs. In fact, when I was asked why the PC government does not tend to tout the good things that are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, my response was: Because, by and large, the good things that are happening are as a result of decisions made by previous Liberal governments. I guess they have great difficulty standing up and applauding previous governments for the wonderful things that are happening in terms of the growth in our employment numbers. We have more people working than ever before. The fact that we, in fact, saw out-migration end and people moving to the Province. The fact that we have seen a lot of positive things happening as a result of initiatives that this government has taken.

I want to go back to Dr. House, because, again, I am very, very concerned about the philosophy that he is espousing if it is, in fact, the policy of this government. He said: What this government needs to do, they plan to cast off the mentality of dependence. Dr. House said: Their new approach was not just rhetoric for the election. It is new in the sense of taking a businesslike professional approach to economic development.

Well, there is nothing wrong with that, you know, if you have a new approach, but we have yet to see a new approach. Six months in government and no matter what the issue, we have yet to see a new approach. The ministers stand on the other side, in answers to questions, and they always say: Well, look what you did. Or, how can you question this? Look at the approach that you did.

You know, you campaigned on a new approach. You campaigned on real leadership. You campaigned on knowing how to do things differently and how to improve the economy and how to make things better for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, when Dr. House says they plan to cast off the mentality of dependency, I am going: Who is he talking about? Who has a mentality of dependency? Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are very hard-working, industrious, energetic people. They do not want to be told they have a mentality of dependency. I do not think any of you would want your constituents to be viewed in that way. Yet, this is what Dr. House is saying: We have to cast off the mentality of dependence.

Well, I am standing as the Member for the District of Grand Bank and I can tell you that none of my constituents would like to be thought of as having a mentality of dependence.

He says, the way to do that is to stay positive and optimistic and focus on successes such as tourism and agrifoods. You talk to anyone in Newfoundland and Labrador, and if anyone works hard and tries to improve themselves, and they have a positive attitude, it is Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I do not know where Dr. House has been for the last twelve years, since he was there with the Economic Recovery Commission, but he has obviously taken a report that was written twelve years ago, dusted it off, dusted himself off, and come back as a great guru who is now going to change Newfoundland and Labrador for the better. With this kind of an attitude, I question how anything or anyone can be changed for the better.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the member that her time has lapsed.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to this Budget. I am sure I will have another opportunity because the list goes on in terms of what is wrong with the Budget instead of what is right.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to say what an overwhelming feeling to speak in this House of Assembly.

Before I get into my speech, I would like to say to the hon. member of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition, that I am proud to stand here in what he referred to as the gallery. I might remind the hon. Opposition Leader that when he was speaking to the Finance critic, that she sat in the gallery also for awhile before she made it to a position where she could put us through psychological torture.

Mr. Speaker, I want to sincerely thank the citizens of the District of Gander for the great honour they have shown me for electing me to represent them in the House of Assembly. I am aware, as well, of the considerable trust that they have placed in me in so doing. I want to assure them that I will strive to the best of my abilities to work diligently on their behalf, regardless of their political affiliations -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: - and to provide the district with strong and consistent leadership on matters of regional and provincial concern.

I have also been blessed, Mr. Speaker, with a strong district association, one that has never wavered over the past fifteen years. As most would know, I ran in the 1999 election under the leadership of now the hon. House Leader, Ed Byrne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Despite being out of the country on business when the election was called, and only campaigning for fourteen days, Mr. Speaker, I lost that 1999 election by a mere 137 votes. Even after that loss, close to forty people attended that first district meeting and the number has stayed consistent to this day.

I thank them all, and I thank all the people who worked on both my campaigns for their believing in me. I thank my family: Rhonda, Adrianne, Tricia and Taylor. They have solidly stood by my side with encouragement, support and advice.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not thank those who have helped and guided me since October 21. Although, they would rather remain in the background -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. O'BRIEN: - their impact has been so great that I would simply like to say thank you to them. To the town councils, to the people at the James Paton Memorial Hospital, all other board members and all interested citizens, I sincerely thank you for all your advice and support.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to speakers before me and heard them speak of why they have entered politics. Well, I have reflected on that many, many times before and after the 1999 election. I have always considered myself to be Progressive Conservative; Progressive Conservative at birth. I remember as a child throwing rocks at the loud speakers they used to place on the campaign cars back then, and I know the hon. Member for Bellevue is in shock, but I did throw rocks at Joey Smallwood.

Mr. Speaker, I always knew which ones were Liberal and which ones were PC. Mr. Speaker, forgive me, then I was just a child. Now that I have been elected I realize that I am reduced to words, not rocks; which is probably a good thing. Mr. Speaker, as I sit here in my first session I have heard each side refer to the other as that crowd over there. If my hon. colleagues would forgive me, I would like to thank that crowd over there because they are the reason I entered into politics and I am over here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, this is mainly due to the past government's lack of decision and what I consider as mismanagement.

Gander, being one of the four communities in my district, is a very young town. If you were to travel across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the early decades of the past century, there was little to distinguish much of my district from the surrounding countryside. As you travelled, you would first pass the logging community of Benton. Then you would pass Haties Camp, next to the railway bed, and then the mighty Gander River, already famous for its Atlantic salmon and sturdy river boats poled by even sturdier boatmen. Since then, Appleton has grown into a beautiful, scenic community of its own right.

Mr. Speaker, Gander was chosen as the site of the Newfoundland Airport because of its strategic position and played a crucial role in the allied war effort. Ever since then the Town of Gander has been synonymous with the airline industry and the military. In recent years, Gander has entered into the aerospace manufacturing industry with CHC Composites, and now we have several companies capitalizing on the new technologies in that industry.

I see opportunities, Mr. Speaker, that will come from the recent Budget, as more than $2.2 million was allocated to the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development to support economic growth in this Province and to continue key initiatives, such the Ambassador Program. A chief information innovation officer will lead the development of a comprehensive innovation strategy that will build upon emerging opportunities in a wide range of sectors. I commend and thank the minister for this, as I believe that trade will be brought to a new level as a result. Just knowing that there will be support for those who are interested in entering the global market is a very positive development, and I am confident of the difference this government will make to the province's economy through positive developments such as this.

How many times, Mr. Speaker, over the past decade have we witnessed how vulnerable our Province's economy is to even the slightest forces of change? Yet, for the past ten years in spite of that vulnerability, in spite of the obvious lessons of the past, we have been living in a fool's paradise, Mr. Speaker, with the former government running up huge deficits as if it thought it could spend its way out of trouble. Unfortunately, it does not work that way. If we are to be masters of our own destiny, we have to be realistic. We have to determine exactly where we stand, how to re-establish control of our financial affairs, marshal our own resources - both human and natural - at our disposal and then proceed cautiously as we build on what we already have, while keeping an eye on the future.

Mr. Speaker, I spent thirty years in business and I am well accustomed to starting new business ventures. Any business person today would tell you that it takes a minimum of three to five years to establish a business and place it on a firm, financial foundation. This is exactly what we need to do with our Province. With the new Department of Business, guided by the Premier with his extensive business background, this government will grow the economy and will establish this Province as a global leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: The phrase, economic tiger, was used in my hon. colleagues Budget Speech, and I have heard that phrase thrown back across the floor with contempt, I believe by the hon. Member for Bellevue. Based on our two-pronged approach, get the financial future in order, then slowly with a firm plan for the future, grow the economy in small business, large business, manufacturing resources - rurally, urbanely, globally - we will unleash that economic tiger, Mr. Speaker, and then the naysayers will have to eat their words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Our federal-provincial relations will improve. I have seen the greatest strides in just six months. The new Newfoundland and Labrador office in Ottawa will enhance and allow us to have a day-to-day contact with all levels of the federal decision makers. We will capitalize on an emerging military, we will capitalize on our fair share of IRBs, we will maximize benefits from our resources, we will grow and we will be strong.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard my name and my district spoken of in this House over the past couple of weeks. Once it was referred to when I was absent from this House and another at the end of a day's session when I was out of my seat. Also, it was mentioned last Thursday and again yesterday. Not knowing the rules of this hon. House and being newly elected, I hesitated in responding. Mr. Speaker, if I had been in my seat I probably would have called a point of order, but maybe it should have been a point of caution. Also, I would have set the record straight and I will.

My name has been used in reference to the completion of the redevelopment of the James Paton Memorial Hospital. I know that at least one hon. member who mentioned my name overnights in Gander injecting money into the local economy, and I thank him for that. I also know that one hon. member has relatives in Gander and stops there fairly often. I would not want those hon. members to make fools of themselves and have the people of Gander laugh at them behind their backs in regard to that project. I would not want that to happen, Mr. Speaker, so I caution them to distance themselves from that project. I am surprised to even hear it mentioned by them in this House.

The reason for caution, Mr. Speaker, is simple, but I also would like to set the record straight. The hon. Opposition House Leader referred to that project as a Brian Peckford initiative. Quite interesting! Quite a twist of words, Mr. Speaker! Yes, there was a study commissioned and delivered in 1987 that recognized the need in both Grand Falls-Windsor and Gander, but this did not make it a Progressive Conservative project, just identified the need, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to give a little history, set the record straight, and give examples of what fourteen years of mismanagement means.

On April 3, 1991, Winston Baker, the Liberal MHA of the district at the time, was quoted in the Telegram as indicating that this expansion was set to be completed over five years. This was a Wells Government, Mr. Speaker, a Liberal Government, but nothing happened, just a plan.

On April 20, 1992, the Liberal MHA was quoted in the Telegram as saying, the James Paton Memorial Hospital remained a priority for the Liberal government. I might say again, no construction in 1992 and still a Liberal government.

I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, September 23, 1994, Sod Turning For New Site, 1994, a Liberal project, the Evening Telegram, and I quote: The sods have been turned for the redevelopment of the James Paton Memorial Hospital. The multimillion dollar project officially began Friday and is expected to be completed in three to four years. MHA, Winston Baker, said the development of health care in Gander has come a long way. He said, it is only appropriate that the hospital itself change with the times. Quite interesting! 1994, a Liberal government, but it is still supposed to be a Brian Peckford initiative

In 1995, there was site development and a steel contract was completed in 1996. Quite interestingly enough, in 1996 there was a freeze put in place on all capital expenditures and construction was halted. I was not in this House at that time, Mr. Speaker, but there were a good many that were.

The steel remained exposed to the weather until 1997. At that time, Mr. Speaker, a citizen of Gander who had become so frustrated with the Liberal government threatened to chain himself to the steel to prevent the Liberal government at the time from removing the steel and calling off the project. This delay caused the need of another study. This time the study was done to determine if the steel was still good to be used in the project.

I heard yesterday, I believe, by the Opposition Leader, he referred to a $250,000 study on post-secondary education, but I should say, and my research shows, clearly, that there was around about $9 million in studies and consulting fees paid on that project; $9 million. If you took it over a ten-year period, that is $900,000 per year; $650,000 if you base it over fourteen years. Quite interesting!

Mr. Speaker, I see that she is out of her seat but I will go on anyway because my name was used when I was not in the House so I will keep on going, not knowing, and as a newly elected member I possibly can get away with it.

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Member for Grand Bank, instead of trying to get to Ottawa -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: I interrupt, Mr. Speaker. I realize it is the members maiden speech and any time that I take in this point of order I certainly have no objection to him tacking it on to his time.

He made a comment and made a reference to another member in this House who is not absent. He acknowledged that the person was not absent, and said that maybe because he is giving his maiden speech he might be accepted and be permitted to make reference to the fact that the member is not in this House.

I just point out, Mr. Speaker, that maiden speech or not withstanding it is inappropriate in this House to make reference to the fact that anyone is absent. I realize it may be because of the novelty of this House and the rules to the member that he did that, but I would suggest that in future, all of us, we have rules, we live by them, and it is not appropriate to refer to members who are not here - because they may be absent for any reason as we well know.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order is certainly well taken. I say to the hon. Member for Gander, it is unparliamentary to refer to a member if they are absent from the House. Members have all kinds of reasons to be out of the Chamber. I caution the member to not refer to members whether they are present or absent in the Legislature.

The hon. the Member for Gander.

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw the comment. I apologize to the House because I do not particularly know all of the rules. I am learning, and learning fast.

I might say that maybe someone should actually go to Grand Bank and chain themselves to the steel, like one of my citizens had to do. I will tell you right now - and I do not begrudge anybody in this Province a hospital, if that is the case and it is needed, not at all. Not at all. I am just giving a history on Gander and, as referred to in the past, it was a joint project, a project that was started by the Progressive Conservatives and then on to the Liberals and we should have had that finished. So, maybe somebody should go down there - the person I was referring to, whatever.

Mr. Speaker, I will not go through the rest of the story year by year but it is now 2004 and yes, we have a partially completed redevelopment but a great new wing. I agree with the hon. the Opposition Leader, this project should not have been ongoing for fourteen years and not have ballooned from a $29 million to a $75 million project, but I remind everybody that this is a fourteen-year Liberal government, and mismanagement and no leadership.

Mr. Speaker, a project which ballooned from $29 million to $75 million, a Liberal project not a Brian Peckford project, this is mismanagement. To give a comparison, the Empire State Building, built in 1930 - technologies were not the same then as they are today - it took one year and forty-five days to build. The Sears Tower, started in 1970, finished in 1973. It is 100 stories high, built in just three years.

Fourteen years, Mr. Speaker, fourteen years, and if I were over there I would not want my name associated with that project. When you visit Gander, especially with an upcoming convention there in October, I cannot be responsible for the people of Gander laughing at you. I take my hats off to the people of that hospital and that community who have fought for every cent, for every stage of that hospital, and I commend the minister. Yes, I would have like it completed, that project, in six months compared to their fourteen years but I commend the minister, the Premier, this government, for the vision, the leadership and the honesty; because, at this time, we just do not have the money to finish that project. We have to first clean up the mess that we have.

The government will do things right, analyze and determine the sites of location of services, analyze and correct the strain on our health care professionals, make certain that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can access the highest level of health care possible in a reasonable time frame, and then, Mr. Speaker, address further infrastructure where needed and as we grow the economy and our revenue base.

Mr. Speaker, that crowd have asked me if I will fight for this hospital. Yes, I will have the James Peyton Memorial Hospital at the forefront of this government and any government as long as I am here. Again, they have shown a lack of - no, they have shown no vision, no leadership and, as a matter of fact, no support for that project.

Mr. Speaker, I have been involved with seniors all of my life, one of my proudest projects being the Golden Legion Manor, a non-profit complex with 102 units for seniors, and it makes me proud to see an increase of $8.6 million to the drug program which affects all seniors. An additional $800,000 to provide access to a new chemotherapy drug; $200,000 to assist the New Ministerial Advisory Council for Aging; indexing of the seniors' benefit, and the elimination of personal provincial income tax for low income people.

Mr. Speaker, today's seniors are the people who have built this Province. These are the people who have allowed us to live so well today. This government will not forget our seniors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: How important is our Provincial Roads Program? Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, I believe, the Finance critic, I think I heard it suggested somewhere, by someone, that a four-lane highway be put down to Buchans; or, that could have been the hon. minister saying it in jest. I cannot remember. Our long-term plan will not only address the need for good roads for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but the absolute need if we are to grow the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

If I could take, Mr. Speaker, the highlights and I quote, "7 million in additional funding for a total of $30 million for the Provincial Roads Program. $24 million to proceed with Phase III of the Trans Labrador Highway and complete Phase II. $15.1 million in the Strategic Highway Infrastructure Program (upgrades to the TCH)."

Transportation infrastructure is the first crucial aspect of growing the economy, and I commend the minister, my colleague, my neighbour, for his commitment and vision.

Mr. Speaker, I have learned a lot over the last six months and I will continue to learn and hopefully never stop. I look forward to working with my hon. colleagues. I thank them for coming forward to tackle the task ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that his time has lapsed.

MR. O'BRIEN: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. O'BRIEN: I look to such people as the hon. Ed Byrne, although I will never forgive him for not at least warning me that I would be subjected to thirteen hours of debate or response to the Budget, but I am here. Also, I look to the hon. Tom Rideout, a man of passion with a wealth of experience, and to all members, my colleagues, and to the Premier, a man, to the dismay of all on the other side, who is a team player, a man of conviction and a man of vision.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss, and I would be out of line again if I did not thank the hon. Opposition Leader for being such a fan of Gander, and possibly myself, in suggesting, I think - you might find in Hansard last week - that all boards and offices should be located in Gander. In these economic times, I tell you, I need all the help I can get.

To the hon. Minister of Education - I do not see him - I want to assure him that I apply the same advice that I gave him two weeks ago to this speech.

I am proud, Mr. Speaker, and I mean I am proud, to represent the District of Gander in the hon. House and I look forward to challenges ahead, and speaking for my district, and I will speak on behalf of my district until I leave this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak on the non-confidence motion. First of all, I would like to address a comment or two that was said by the Member for Gander; probably in jest. He said he can remember from a very young person involved in politics and throwing rocks at Joey's car. Well, I might be the second senior person in the House here. I think probably the Member for Port au Port is my senior. I do not think there is anybody else that is here, but I was one of the few people in the House who was born a Newfoundlander. It was a number of years before Confederation. I can remember, quite distinctly, what life was like in rural Newfoundland. I want to say to the Member for Gander, it depended on where you were if you threw rocks at Joey's car or not. It depended on if you lived in St. John's, down on Water Street, Water Street merchants or if you lived as a fisherman in the coves and bays around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It depends.

I was listening to a documentary prepared by the CBC only recently and the nature of the document was a five part series called, Not Fit. One of the people quoted in that particular documentary, which was done by CBC, was Eric Bowring. Basically, his comments were that the people of Newfoundland, in the rural part of the Province: They are ignorant. They are uneducated. They vote against the government. They do not know the reason why they are voting. They do not need a franchise. They need to be disenfranchised.

It was under these conditions, Mr. Speaker, that the people in the Province - and Joey Smallwood was a figurehead of old. It would not have mattered, either one of us, if we had been in that position. It would have still been the same thing for them. Let me tell you something, my grandfather and my father fished all their lifetime, up to the time that they left the fishing and went to work with Bowaters, and formerly AND. My grandfather told me stories about the fact that they would catch a lot of fish and at the end of the fall, even though they had hundreds of quintals of fish caught - they were not the exception, Mr. Speaker, they were the rule. They would take their fish to the fish merchants - even though they had good quality. They would take their fish and they would double them up and break them and say: This is not good quality. They referred to it as dun, the worst type of fish that could be procured. Do you know what? They would take their fish at the end of the season and go to the fish merchants, and they never had enough money after fishing all year to pay their debts. Then they had to go (inaudible) and begging on knee, to see if they could get some food for the winter for their families. That is not a figment of imagination, that is reality.

Then a person came who gave them some hope. It does not matter who the person is, it was a person that they recognized, and for the first time in their lives they had some cash. They were not dependent on the merchant in the community or next door. They did not have to sell potatoes in the fall so they could get butter and sugar and molasses from the merchant down the road. They did not have to do that. It was the first time they had some independence; they had money.

I can remember, very distinctly, saying to my grandmother: I would like to have a nickel. You know, she looked at me and said: I don't have one - and she didn't either - but I will tell you what we will do, after we get the fish spread we will drain off a gallon of cod liver oil on the stagehead, and you can go up to Freeman Crewe's and ask Sandy Loveless if you could get a pack of Cracker Jacks for the gallon of cod liver oil. I can remember that. That was in my time.

And you wonder why people gravitated toward Joey Smallwood as an emblem of hope and prosperity for people in the rural part of the Province? I would say that they would.

I heard all kinds of stories. My own father told me only recently, when he was in the House here one day, he said: I walked from Seal Cove to Hermitage when I was a grown man in my late twenties and it was the first time I ever bought a suit of clothes. That is why they gravitated to Joey. That is why they wanted unemployment insurance. That is why they wanted family allowance. This is why they saw, for the first time in their lives, independence.

You want to hear the guys from up on the Southwest Coast - and not only from my area - when they talk about the conditions in the lumber camps, when they slept on boughs and ate beans four or five times a day. There was nothing else in the diet for them. It is a wonder they had the strength and ingenuity to provide for their families, but they did. I can see, Mr. Speaker, why they would gravitate toward that. I am sure everybody in this House and everybody in this Province can see that as well, why they would gravitate towards it. I understand very distinctly where you were, under what conditions, family income, family status that you would have in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, why you would rock Joey's car. I understand that.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I want to talk about, and everybody has said it here - and I am one of the people too, I have said it before and recognize - that on October 21 there was a change. People voted us out of government, but I was one of the lucky ones. I guess the first time I got elected was when the blue wave went out, and I was able to survive and win. This time I was able to win after the party was in government for a number of years. So that was my fifth time, and I really thank the people in my district for giving me that opportunity. But, do you know what? I remember one of those times when the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development ran against me in one of the elections and we had a good contest. I was still able to win under those conditions. So I understand how we win and understand how we get there.

One of the things I remember, and I can think of the Blue Book, from the third paragraph, first sentence. This is the Premier saying, "I want to be honest with people from the very beginning... The people are looking for new leadership, real leadership, new approach and to guide this province into the future." They are his words. They are not mine. I believe that. That was true. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador - actually, last October - believed that line, hook and sinker and they wanted it to happen. Now, what has happened since then? It is not Oliver Langdon saying it. It is the people out there in the Province who will be the judge of that, not me. Just think about it.

The people in Grand Bank during the election - and the guy, Carl Rose, a teacher in Grand Bank on tape had the Premier saying: Regardless of who the person to be elected in Grand Bank is, whether it is a Liberal, whether it is a Tory, we will finish your particular health care centre for you. On tape. Real evidence. So, what happens to the people of Grand Bank and the people on the Burin Peninsula? It says in the Budget, it is cancelled. Is that being upfront with people? Think about the people in Labrador last February when they had the conference call. On tape the Premier said: We will not interfere politically with the decisions that are being made here. We will spend $150,000. We will bring people in from the university and whatever they recommend, we will do. What happened? It was not upheld. It was not kept. The word was not there. All of us here, when we think about these types of things, October 21, and we think about it today, it is a far different cry. There are a lot of other examples that we would lead as well.

When we think about the public servants - and a lot has been said about the public servants - no layoffs. Well, we know that we getting 500 teachers laid off. We know that there were 400-plus civil servants laid off before March 31. There is going to a reduction of another 4,000 people over the next three or four years. I mean, I did not say the words. It is not mine. I am not saying anything. I am just leaving the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to make up their own minds. Is that the new leadership? Is that the real approach? Is that what they were looking for? You know, I do not think for one moment that it was; not for one moment.

When we think of a situation about the ferries for the communities that are isolated. I have six of them in my district. If I can read, Mr. Speaker, from page twenty-four, I think it is. Page eight of thirteen in this book here, and I will read it. It says: Phase in adjustments over a five-year period to bring rates on the provincial ferry routes in-line with the cost of highway travel. Do you know what? A lot of people bought into it.

One of the communities - for example, Ramea, I worked hard with these particular people. They believed that and they believed for a new beginning. Guess what? When the Budget came down it did not indicate that. It says a 25 per cent increase in ferry rates over the next three years. What happened to it? What happened to the commitment that was made to the people in Ramea, that was made to the people in François, that was made to the people in Grey River, that was made to the people in Gaultois, that was made to the people Rencontre East, Change Islands, Fogo and everywhere else? I am telling you - and I have said this in the House before - that the people we serve, the electorate, are quite different from the electorate back in 1949 when Joey first - the first government when we became a part of the Dominion of Canada. A big difference! The people that I represent in my district are no different from anybody else that is over here. They are well educated, they are university graduates, they are technical graduates and they have had a lot of experience. Do you know what? They will never, ever let the Premier forget about these commitments that he has made. I am telling you, you are early into the mandate, I recognize that. A lot of people here recognize that as well, but I am telling you, the first impression is a lasting impression. I have cited all of these examples where one thing was going to happen and it did not happen.

Just think about, for example, the school boards and the schools. It is here in the book again. I think it is on page five in this book here. I was reading it earlier, and it says that when we - through consolidation of school boards or whatever the case might be, we will take the savings for education and we will reinvest it back into the system. Guess what is happening? We are not going to put it back into the system. If we were not going to put it back into the system why did we tell the people out there that we were? I am telling you - and I do not have to tell it, we are all in it together, there are forty-eight of us that are here. We realize, Mr. Speaker, that our word should be our bond. When we make a commitment - you cannot make a commitment to the people and realize that it is not going to happen and not come back to haunt you, because it will. It does not matter what we think or what it is that we say. It is definitely going to come back and haunt us in the things that we want to do.

Also, Mr. Speaker, and I spoke about that the other day. I talk about the fees that are being charged to the ordinary individuals in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Leader of the Opposition got it right the other day when he said there are two really distinct courses that you can have when you talk about government. You provide education and you provide health services to the people that you represent. In Newfoundland and Labrador, with 10,000 miles of coastline, we have a lot of communities. You provide the basic services and the enhanced services to the people, and then you go and grow the economy to make it happen. The other way around is simply this, we have $1 million or $2 million to spend, you cut and shape the particular program to make it fit and if you have to bring in cuts, and if you have to bring in a short change of programs or whatever, so be it. That is what we have seen here. It is the whole idea about the Budget.

I must talk about, for example, the mess that people are talking about. I had the opportunity to serve in Cabinet just six years of the fourteen years that government was there; that was the last six. The last six, that is all. There might have been, and there could very well have been decisions that in hindsight probably you would have done better. Nobody willingly makes a decision to hurt the people of the Province that you represent. Good friends of mind, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I am sure he will do his best just the same as what I did, and others. That is what we are here for, but when we think about the situation that we are faced with here, and to think about and to say that - and the Premier said that. I do not know if he said it in jest or not, but it is said, it is out of the mouth. They asked him in Toronto, with Maclean's, they said: Can you give me an example of how the previous government mismanaged the economy? Yes, he said, I can. No doubt about it. Fifteen percent to the government workers - too much, too fast! Over three years. That is what he said, 15 per cent was too much, too fast.

Remember what I began my speech with, when I said that depending on if you were going to throw rocks at Joey Smallwood or not? It depended on where you were; where you were in Newfoundland and Labrador and where you lived, and what your economic status might have been. Well, guess what? The people who are on strike here today are not making salaries that we are making here in the House. A lot of them are in the $15,000 to $20,000 range, and if they make $30,000 that is a majority of them. Fifteen percent on that, too much, too fast? When, as a government, we have just taken the fees - you register your car from $140 to $180. Your personal licence has gone for $80 to $100, and a death certificate for a family has gone from zero to $25. If a person wants to come and visit you in the park or to use a bathroom you have to pay $5 for it. Come on! I am proud if that is the case of mismanagement for the six years that I have been here, that I mismanaged it. If I mismanaged by giving to the public workers after - Liberal governments had frozen their wages and in some cases rolled them back. Than I stand here and I applaud them for doing it.

Last year, for example, when the doctors were on strike, everybody - we are in the House. We have to remember where we were and what we said. When we were over there and the government members, a lot of them are on this side, and the doctors were on strike. What was their word? Shame! Shame on you for not giving the doctors what they want. Give them what they want. They deserve it. The nurses, got them out, give them what they want. The same thing with roads, more roads, more ever. Then, when it is just flipped over a matter of a few days, then it is all mismanagement. You mismanaged the economy. You did not do things that were right.

You cannot have it both ways, can you? It is where the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, they themselves, over the last while - you go back to your district and ask the people what do they think has happened to this government since October 21? I am telling you, you will get a stark reality. You will get a stark reality on the leadership of the Premier, I guarantee you. If you do not find that out there, you are not going back to the people you represent.

I talked to the people in CUPE. Some of them are friends of mine. In the same church, we go together. They were saying: Look, before the election we were guaranteed by the people who came to us and looked for our vote that we would not see this happening. There would be no layoffs. Our sick leave would not be touched, and our pensions and so on. When they have gone back and confronted them with it, they said: Well, I did not tell you anything wrong. It was not me.

You can see my point. People are beginning to question. They are beginning to look at all of the things and say: What I was told, what really was the thing for me? Is it a reality today?

I am telling you, in many, many instances you will find that is not the case. I think about the Member for Gander, too. I will make a comment. I heard a person from Gander one night call open line and talk about the waste of the previous government. I thought about a couple or three projects. I thought about the water supply for Gander, where the council came to see me and they said: Can you do a little better for us than the one-third, one-third, one-third on the water quality for Gander? We looked at it and said: We might be able to do it for you.

Then they wanted a new recreation or a new arena there. That was done under the one-third, one-third, one-third program, and I can think of a lot of programs around, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, where we looked at the debt of a number of communities, 150 probably, and we spent $50 million, and I am glad to see that the minister has an extra $9 million this year to deal with some of the small communities in the rural part of the Province. I am pleased with that, but how can you have all of these services in the community and look at those things and then at the end of the day say it was a waste, it was not needed.

I do not think for one moment that it was waste. I think it was needed. The redeveloping of the hospital, it might have taken longer than was originally intended, but at the end of the day it will be a particular facility that even the people from my area can use and find the benefit of it, because it is a region that has many of the orthopaedic services that we need down on the South Coast.

I could go on with a litany of other things.

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

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

MR. LANGDON: I just want to clue up.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. LANGDON: Madam Speaker, I will say this: When we get in the Legislature, and there are forty-eight of us and we are all equal, lots of times we are in denial of the things that are happening in the area that is out there, and we do not want to make ourselves believe that they are. I can tell you one thing: In my fifteen years of experience - yes, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador voted for this government on October 21, no doubt about it, in vast numbers. Seventy per cent of the people did that, and they were looking for real leadership, a new beginning, and a new approach to things. After six months, that particular vision had disappeared. It is like vapor in the morning when the sun comes up. I am telling you, the way that the people have been treated, and I think the Opposition House Leader said only a few days ago, the first report card of the first six or seven months, F, absolutely.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to join in the debate this afternoon for a few minutes on the Budget Debate, and pass on a few comments. I listened with some intent and some interest to the previous speaker's comments, and I listened to a number of the speakers on both sides over the past few days on this bill, on the Budget.

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of valid points being made on both sides. There is that delicate balance that we have to try and strike between the needs of the population of the day and the ability of the population of tomorrow to be able to pay for the debt that the population of the day is accumulating.

That is one, in my view, of the fundamental pieces that have been missing from this debate; one of the fundamental issues that has not been addressed by the speakers opposite; one of the fundamental issues that we, as a government, and we, as a people of this Province, finally have to come to a realization on. We, as we all know here - I am not sure of the numbers. I think there were one or two years since Confederation that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has had a balanced budget.

 

Madam Speaker, we have gone from 1996 - I think it was 1996 - where the total debt of this Province was $6 billion. Today, it is roughly running around $11 billion. Based on projections - and I know the members opposite might challenge the validity or the integrity or whatever of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report - but based on that report, by 2008 we will be running somewhere around a $15 billion debt. Right now, we are running just about $1 billion a year in a total deficit in this Province.

Madam Speaker, it is time for us to ask ourselves, as I have asked myself, with a nine-year-old child and a thirteen-year-old child, what legacy are we going to leave our children if we keep going down the road that we are going down? That is the question that we have to ask ourselves. It is time for us, every one of us forty-eight in this Legislature, and every one of us 513,000 in this Province, what legacy we are going to leave the children of tomorrow, the children of today.

I listened, as I said, to the member opposite when he was talking there a few minutes ago, and I watch him from time to time, wheeling his granddaughter or grandson - I am not sure which it is, because I have not been close enough to see - wheeling them along the street out in front of our house, because he only lives two doors down from me. I see him entertaining his grandchildren, like he should. What legacy are we going to leave his grandchildren if we continue on the route that we are on, and end up in 2008 with a $15 billion debt?

Some of the people in this Legislature, on both sides, I suspect, went to school at a time, and went through university at a time when, thanks be to God, the government of the day was able to, or did - whether it was able to or not - provide free tuition to post-secondary education students, to university students. In some cases, I understand - I was not around then - they were paid to go. My father certainly went to school under that scenario, back in the early 1960s -

AN HON. MEMBER: Late 1960s.

MR. TAYLOR: - or late 1960s, whenever it was. Madam Speaker, that was a wonderful concept, something that I am sure every member in this House today would love to be able to do, but there is something that we have to remember. Within the confines of a $4 billion-and-some-change Budget, there are choices that we have to make. There is also the thing that we must remember, and I will say it again; it is the theme of what I am going to speak on here today. We must remember that the free education that the people who sit in this House today enjoyed back in the 1960s, and the medical care that the people in this House enjoy today, and the medical care that the people in this House and in this Province are going to need in the coming years, are all going to be paid for by the next generation; not by this generation, not by previous generations, but by the next generation.

My grandchildren, my children, are going to have to pay for my medical care when I am too old to look after myself, my education that I racked up a bill on. They are going to have to pay for their own and they are going to have to try and live themselves. What are we leaving them? Madam Speaker, that is what the people of this Province have to come to realize. That, I can tell you, Madam Speaker, was one of the driving forces when I sat around the Cabinet table in the debate that we had on the Budget.

Madam Speaker, yes, I recognize that there is some pain associated with the Budget that we brought down a little while ago. I can honestly say that I am not proud to stand here today and have to defend a Budget such as we had to bring down. I wish that we could have stood here, or I could stand here today, and talk about a Budget that has a $30 million surplus, that we could stand here today and talk about how we are reducing tuition fees at Memorial University, or eliminating tuition fees at Memorial University, but we have to realize that we only have a certain amount of money.

Yes, we campaigned on a platform that we would balance the Budget over the course of the term, that we would grow the economy, Madam Speaker, and that we would look after and preserve the integrity of our social program and our education system and our health care system. In this Budget we have attempted to do that; but, as the Minister of Finance said a few days ago, it is not like yeast, growing the economy. You cannot just throw it in a bowl, add a bit of hot water and things start to grow.

Madam Speaker, those are the challenges that we have to face. Even if we did grow the economy, which we hope we will, if we do have increased oil production from the Grand Banks, if we do realize more benefits from our fishery, if we do realize more benefits from our mining industry, if we do realize more benefits from the federal government in the form of a changed Equalization Program, an increase in transfer payments, a reduction in clawback, Madam Speaker, those are things that we need to get beyond the point that we are right now where we are running a $500 million, $600 million, $700 million or $800 million deficit each year. That, Madam Speaker, is what we must strive for.

As I said, Madam Speaker, I listened to the member opposite when he was speaking a few minutes ago and I heard him say - he talked about some of the infrastructure programs that he oversaw when he was the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Nobody is condemning him for investing in water and sewer programs around this Province. Madam Speaker, what we do take issue with is the handling by the former Administration of issues like the Trans City Holdings. Those types of things, Madam Speaker, that is the type of government waste that we are talking about. That is what needs to be brought in check here in this Province.

We only have a very limited ability to be able to balance the Budget when it comes to reducing spending. We recognize that. We recognize that there are certain core services that have to be maintained throughout this Province; but, Madam Speaker, as I have said here in the House before, bricks and mortar and steel stuck up all around this Province for hospitals or schools or whatever, just for the sake of making people believe that we are providing a good service to them, that, Madam Speaker, does not necessarily mean that a good health care system is being provided. Just because a hospital is built in a certain town does not mean that there is a good health care system available to the people. That, Madam Speaker, is where the fundamental change in direction has to be taken here.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has to - and this is what we announced in this Budget - we have to focus on the delivery of services to the people of the Province, delivery of services in relatively close proximity to those people, and making sure that they have access to good quality physicians who are there for the long haul, not people who are turning around in our health care facilities like a revolving door, like we have seen in the past in many of these facilities that are built all over the Province just for the sake of making people believe that because a hospital is twenty miles down the road, that they have a wonderful health care facility.

I am sure, Madam Speaker, that many of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador would not mind driving a little bit further to get hospital treatment, to get health care treatment, if they knew that the people who were providing the service to them were going to be for the long haul and were the highest calibre people that we could get. That, Madam Speaker, is not what they have been assured of in the past; because in many cases, as everybody here knows, we have doctors who come in, are here for a year, here for two years, because of the workload, because they are on call for so long, those people pack up and are gone as soon as the opportunity arises. As some other member I heard say today or yesterday, just recently anyway, bricks and mortar do not necessarily mean that you have a wonderful health care system.

Madam Speaker, those are some of the comments that I wanted to make. As I said, we are in a very difficult position in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. What people must realize is that we have the highest per capita debt of any province in this country. While it may have been a painful Budget, it is the highest deficit that the people of this Province have ever seen - was delivered in this Budget, unfortunately. In the context of that, people should then understand or better understand why some of the tough decisions have to be taken.

I listened to some of the members opposite over the past number of days, over the past two weeks, and I think they think our sole reason for being here is to drive 20,000 people out on the street in a public sector strike. I thought the way to get popular in Newfoundland and Labrador was to thrown money at people, to throw buildings at people, to throw benefits at people. Madam Speaker, if we are in this business to be popular, then that is what we should be doing.

We have to realize, as I said, that there is another generation coming after us, and yes, we have to, in the course of delivering a Budget to the people of the Province, ensure that we provide health care, education and social services to the people of this Province, that we have a highway for people to drive on, that we have basic infrastructure and water and sewer for people of the Province, but we also have to recognize that we have an aging and diminishing population in many parts of this Province, in all of the Province for that matter, and that the few people who are left, the few young people in this Province who are here now, who are coming along, those are the people who are going to have to look after the debt that we continue to rack up.

We cannot continue to use the credit card indefinitely. We cannot continue to rack up deficits. We cannot continue to keep piling the debt on the people of this Province. We cannot do it to the people of this Province. If it were my mother, who is getting up around sixty-odd years old, it is no odds to her. She is not the one who is going to have to pay it off. She is the one who needs the health care. She is the one who has gone through and used all the services of the Province, but it is her grandchildren who are going to have to pay for it with the course that we have been on over the past number of years.

I, for one, Madam Speaker, am not going to sit by and just allow the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, while I am here - and it might only be another three-and-a-half years. If that is the case, fine. If the people want to kick me out then, good for them. That is their democratic right to do so. I might be around for another ten or fifteen. That remains to be seen. All I will say is that for the short time, however long it is, that I am here in this House of Assembly on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, my decision will be driven not by what is going to get me re-elected, but what is going to look after the children of this Province who ultimately are going to have to pay off the debt that we accumulate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Speaker, I did not stand up here today to place a lot of blame. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition at one point today, you know, we will blame everyone else. Well, we can blame everyone else. I listened to him from time to time here in the House over the last couple of weeks and he wants to blame everyone else. He does not want to accept any responsibility for the state that this Province is in. He does not want to accept the responsibility that comes from fifteen years in office, and making the decisions that he made.

Some of the decisions that he made, and his government made, and the government that he was a part of, were good decisions, and I will grant him that. Some of the decisions that he made were bad decisions, and he needs to accept that, just like some of the decisions that we have made are good and some of them are not so good. That will continue on for some time yet, good and bad, but we all have to recognize that fundamentally we cannot continue on the track that we are on. John Efford, MP, who used to sit in this House, accepted, earlier this week, in a speech - or last week, whenever it was - that he had to bear some of the responsibility and some of the burden for the mess that this Province is in, so why shouldn't everybody else here have to bear some of that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Speaker, as I said, I am not standing up here this afternoon to blame the Opposition for what they did over the past fifteen years, and I only say that because I respectfully ask the people on the opposite side, the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, to understand that this Province is at a critical point in our history. We need increased benefits from our offshore oil. We need increased benefits from our mining. We need increased benefits from our fisheries, and we need increased benefits from the federal government. Those things are not going to magically appear overnight. Those things are going to take time. Those things will help us pay down our debt, please God. If we could get our fiscal house in order and get our deficit eliminated on our own, those things will be gravy, and, Madam Speaker, God knows we need a lot of gravy in Newfoundland and Labrador today. We need a lot of gravy to deal with the roads that are in the mess they are in. That is why this government, why we, as a party over here and a group of people over here, decided that it was in the long-term and the short-term best interest of the people of the Province to increase vehicle registration by $40, because it gives us an additional $7 million to invest in our roads infrastructure, to maintain our economy, to maintain our fishing industry and to maintain our tourism industry that relies so heavily on that transportation network.

Madam Speaker, my point is, that while people may condemn us on certain issues and certain aspects of our Budget decisions, that there are certain decisions they may take issue with, people must recognize, on that side of the House, on this side of the House and in the general public, that the direction this government is taking on deficit reduction, in trying to get our fiscal house in order, is the only route that we can take. It is the only option open to us. God knows, if we cannot do it for any other reason we should, not do it for ourselves, not do it for ourselves as politicians, not do it for the communities that we live in today, but do it for our future generations, do it for our children.

That, Madam Speaker, is what we must remember here, that we cannot be like previous administrations and we cannot be like previous governments. Every one of them, since 1949, have been prepared to spend the buck in the short-term to be popular, to spend the buck in the short-term to stick up a building to convince people that just because they built a school right there, or because they built a hospital right there, that the health care system and the education system was wonderful. Madam Speaker, that does not make a good education system or a good health care system. There are lots of places in this Province where people would be better served by consolidation, lots of places in this Province.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker - I will say it right here, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, right down in Gunners Cove, Sir, and I will say it right here for the record, that in Gunners Cove, Sir, there are two schools three miles apart and one school can handle them all.

MR. REID: You were talking about health.

MR. TAYLOR: I was talking about education and health, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, and I am not afraid to stand up and say what I think because I believe in -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: - doing things for the long-term best interest of the people of the Province and the children of the Province. I do not believe in doing short-term things for the best interest of myself, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

I do not mind standing up here today and saying that, when I went to school in the early 1980s, when I graduated from school in the early 1980s, there was a school in Gunners Cove that was all grade, that had roughly 200 students in it, and there was one in St. Lunaire that had roughly 300 students in it that was all grade. Today there are less than 300 in the two of them, probably closer to 200 in the two of them. Madam Speaker, there is an opportunity for consolidation and it will not have an adverse affect on the students in the area. It will reduce the cost to the public purse and it will provide the people of the area with just as good a quality of education.

Madam Speaker, as I said, people might want to make issue with it, and there are people in my area, in my own community, who will probably take issue with me saying it. Well, fair enough. I do not have a problem with them taking issue with it, but the bottom line is the government is in the business of providing services, in the most cost-effect way, to the people of the Province, and not in the business of running buildings for the sake of convincing people that they are getting a good service when they are not.

Madam Speaker, on that note, I think I might conclude. As I said, my decision and my conviction when I sat around the Cabinet table working on this Budget - I recognize that there are decisions that are not very palatable. Madam Speaker, I will say this, when you have to make a decision between the funding for a school lunch program or a school milk program and a decision on $40 for increasing vehicle registrations, I can tell you what the easiest one to make is.

As I said - and I will close off on this - our decisions must be made based on what is in the long-term best interest of the people of this Province, bearing always in mind that as long as we keep racking up the credit card the children of tomorrow are the people who are going to have to be confronted with the decisions.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I will stand here today and of course I am going to support the non-confidence motion, and there is a number of reasons. I will outline my reasons why.

I have to bring something forward, Mr. Speaker, that was brought to my attention as a point of order from the Minister of Human Resources, Employment and the Status of Women, when I asked one of the hon. members to stand up and be a man. She objected that, no, you shouldn't refer to anybody by their gender. The member stood up today and said: I don't mind be called a woman. I say to the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and the Status of Women, that if you are going to apply it, apply it both ways. Don't just use it for your own benefit. You are representing the Status of Women, not just your own group over there when you are trying to protect one of your members. That is just one point there.

The second thing I would like to bring up: The member was saying - I really, truly believe he is an hon. member, an hon. gentleman here. Madam Speaker, I can say one thing, and I can say it honestly, if I had the conviction that what I was doing was right, if I had the conviction that I don't care who listens, who hears it, I would not fill those galleries with a bunch of management people so the people out on the street would not be here to listen to what I had to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: That is one thing I would not do. At $100,000 a pop I would not do it, Madam Speaker. If I was going to say something, if people want to come in and hear it, they can come in. They might not like what I have to say, but I would allow anybody who wants to come in to listen to it.

Madam Speaker, there was a question yesterday from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. It was about the PricewaterCoopers report. I will just read from Hansard because they like to try to twist the words around. Madam Speaker, this report itself was based by the government to go ahead and lay off 6,000 people. It was based on no wage increase whatsoever. It was based on all the cuts that the Member for the Straits just mentioned. It was based on that. That is what they based their whole plan, the whole fiscal plan for the Province, on.

Here was the question from the member: PricewaterCoopers report commissioned by this government states that the inflation over the next four years will be in excess of 8.4 per cent. That was a question to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. Madam Speaker, his answer, by the great report, the $130,000 report, that was put forth by that government to justify all the cuts that they made: The rate of inflation based on projections can vary. There are all revisions occurring, of course, and we do look at it.

Madam Speaker, that is the big report that this government has brought forward, on a question to the minister, has said that no, the report can change, it can vary. That is the report that this government is using for their own needs, to justify the things that they want to do, but the minister himself has stated that the report can change, it does vary, and they must make adjustments to the report. So, how much validity do you give the report, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker, to show why I object to the Budget itself, you do not have to go far. You can go to page three of the Budget Speech, Madam Speaker. We also wonder. The Budget that we are presented with here, that we as hon. members have to vote on, is it the Budget that is going to be out in the general public, Madam Speaker? I will just use the Member for Humber Valley, when the Minister of Transportation and Works said that all class four roads will be eliminated, there will be no more upgrading, there will be no more grading of these roads, they will be absolutely cut out across the Province.

That member has been in Corner Brook and she met with one of the groups - and I give her credit for trying - but what she said, the first answer she gave, and it is in The Western Star in Corner Brook, was: We think we may be able to get it under the Department of Tourism.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: Now, that is what the member out there said, that we may be able to get class - I say to the Minister of Tourism, that is what she said out in Corner Brook.

MS FOOTE: Say it again. Repeat it.

MR. JOYCE: The Member for Humber Valley, when questioned by the residents in an area in her district about the class four roads, where the Minister of Transportation and Works said there will be no more class four roads graded or upgraded, no more across the Province, a savings of $400,000 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Eight hundred thousand dollars.

MR. JOYCE: Eight hundred thousand dollars, I was just informed. When the member was questioned out in her own district, I say to the minister, her answer was: No, but we will be able to get it under the Department of Tourism.

That was the answer. That was the first answer she gave. The second answer she gave, she would have to wait until the Minister of Transportation and Works gets back so that she can discuss it with him. There may be something they can work out. So, what Budget are we voting on?

AN HON. MEMBER: She said it is lies.

MR. JOYCE: I have it right here. If she says it is not true, I have it right here. I really do. If you say it is not there, it is. I will give you credit for trying but, for our purpose here today, what Budget are we voting on? Are we voting on a Budget that was presented in this House, or are we voting on a Budget that each individual member goes outside this House and says -

MS FOOTE: Including the Premier.

MR. JOYCE: - including the Premier, out in Humber West, including the Premier when he was in Gander. Which Budget, Madam Speaker, I ask, are we speaking on?

To get back to why I will be voting for the non-confidence motion, I will just go through page three of the Budget Speech, just page three, Madam Speaker. You do not have to go any further. I will just read the first sentence on page three. "First, they want us to focus on reducing costs by doing things better, not by raising income taxes or by cutting services...".

I ask the members opposite, how can anybody in this hon. House, how can anybody in this whole Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, how can anybody who is affiliated whatsoever with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, tell me how you are going to take 6,000 people out of the civil service and not reduce services? How are you going to do it? I would love to know how you are going to do it. I really would love to know how you are going to do it. Is it nurses who are going to come out of the system? Are there going to be plow operators during the winter taken out of the system? Are there going to be individuals who they are saying are in St. John's, that they do not need?

The second part of it -

AN HON. MEMBER: I would say it is the gallery stuffers.

MR. JOYCE: It could be the gallery stuffers. Obviously, we do not need them.

Madam Speaker, the second part of it, 475 teachers taken out of the system and you are not going to reduce services. That is on page three of the Budget Speech. You do not have to go past page three. You are not going to reduce the services.

I ask the hon. members: When the minister stood up and read the Budget Speech, on page three, when he said we are not going to reduce services, and when the hon. members went ahead and heard later that there are going to be 6,000 people taken out of the public service, did they really believe that there is going to be no reduction in services? Did you really believe that the Premier can now stand up, in his Blue Book, and say: All the primary schools will have a ratio of twenty-five to one? Did they really, truly believe that? After speaking to every school board member in Corner Brook that I usually deal with, after speaking to the principals and the teachers, it is impossible. It is impossible to take that many teachers out of the system and not have reductions in services and then turn around and fulfil the commitment, in the Blue Book, of twenty-five to one.

MR. REID: He said every cent was going back into the system (inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo also mentioned that they promised in the Blue Book that every cent saved through the cuts in education would go back into the classroom, and the minister outside this House of Assembly said: No, that is not going to happen now. It is going to go back towards the deficit.

Just go to the second thing on page three. Just to page three, Madam Speaker, I say for people to read, if you want to see why I am voting for this non-confidence motion in this House. The second paragraph, "Second, they want to make sure we continue to have strong economic growth and job creation." That is what the Premier said in the Budget Speech. Here is what the Premier said on October 2, 2003, re on the Real Leadership, PC policy and job creation, not layoffs. This is what the Premier said in his own words referring to the second paragraph in the Budget Speech on page three: I have clearly stated there will no public service layoffs. He went onto say: We have learned that their actions, that massive layoffs and public service rollbacks do not work. They only serve to hurt the economy in the long run. We will not repeat their mistakes.

That is the same Premier, Madam Speaker, on October 2, 2003, talking about how to make sure we have a vital and very robust economy. That is what the Premier said on October 2, 2003, but right here in the Budget Speech, on page two, it is completely contradictory to what the Premier said on October 2, 2003. So, if you want to look at it, you can see why the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, and all the business communities are saying that the economy is hurting. With 6,000 people taken out of the system the economy will hurt. There will be repercussions to the economy.

Madam Speaker, we will go to the third bullet in the Budget Speech. "They want people treated fairly and equitably." They want people treated with dignity. October 17, five days before the Election Day, here is what the Premier put out in Corner Brook. If you want to treat people with fairness and balance, look what he put in the paper in the Western Star in Corner Brook. It is here for everybody to read if you do not know it, because I know he says and does one thing in Corner Brook and does the opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he sign it? Who signed that?

MR. JOYCE: Yes, Madam Speaker, he signed it.

The Danny Williams team has clearly stated: Under a Progressive Conservative Government there will be no layoffs in the public service. We will not reduce the public service by 25 per cent, contrary to allegations of our political opponents. That is what the Premier of this Province stated on October 17.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member ought to know this, you may read from notes but you may not use props in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: Madam Speaker, that is not a prop. That is a news article that I am showing you. The members opposite asked me to show it, so I am showing it to them just in case they never seen it. If this is a prop, Madam Speaker, I can guarantee you, on October 17, 2003, there were a lot of people who thought it was a prop at the time. And I can guarantee you, they wish they had their time back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Madam Speaker, if you want to treat people fairly, you treat everybody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador fairly. You treat everybody fairly. If you go through the list of 150 fee increases -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Madam Speaker, it is kind of noisy here, I would think. We are getting near the end of the day, we can certainly contain ourselves for the few moments that we have left.

I would say to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, Winston Churchill said one time, and I think it applies to him here, that the hon. gentleman has arrogated onto himself a function which this member is supposed to be doing. It is his speech. Please refrain and allow the member to continue his speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I was talking about people being treated fairly, Madam Speaker. If you go through the fee increases -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Madam Speaker, if you look at the license for a car, everybody has to pay it who drives, no matter what your income. If you are on social assistance, Madam Speaker, you have to pay the same amount as anybody in this Province who makes $200,000 or $300,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or millionaires.

MR. JOYCE: Or millionaires, Madam Speaker, even some who are millionaires.

If you look at lands, the lands branch which is usually rural Newfoundland, Madam Speaker, the document preparation has gone from $100 to $200, 100 per cent.

I heard the Member for the Straits, Madam Speaker, talking about seniors, respect for seniors. I don't know if the members opposite realize what this is. It is road test reassessments. This is a very serious issue. The price was zero before and it has gone to $100. It is a very serious issue.

I ask the members opposite just to think for a second what this is. For example, if my mother or father, who are getting a bit old, getting a bit feeble, who have a few problems, and I go to motor registration: Do me a favour, reassess my dad for me, reassess my mom. I am not sure they are capable of driving. Do that for me.

Motor Registration used to go in free of charge, for safety reasons, and do it, usually because a family member requested it. They would come in and say: Okay, we will reassess you mom or dad free of charge. Now, Madam Speaker, for someone to come in and do that they have to pay $100.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? To get reassessed?

MR. JOYCE: To get reassessed.

MR. REID: Seniors on a fixed income.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is interested in listening to the hon. Member for Bay of Islands and we are having altogether too much interference and the Chair is having difficulty hearing the member. I would ask members for their co-operation.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, it is hard for members opposite to listen to the truth anyway, so I don't mind.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the members opposite, this road reassessment is very important to a lot of seniors, a lot of family members, so, in all sincerity, if you would just look at it. I ask the Minister of Government Services to look at it and see what can be done there because it is for the safety of all people in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is something that a lot of children come in so their mom or dad or whomever will be reassessed so that in the long run they do not hurt themselves and they do not hurt other people. It is a very serious issue. I am not sure how much it costs the government in the run of a year, but I just ask the members opposite to reassess that.

On page three, Mr. Speaker, I have not gotten past page three on the Budget yet, why I am going to vote for this non-confidence. There is no need to get past page three. It says, "Fourth, they want decisions made openly and performance results reported accountably in accordance with measurable standards."

Mr. Speaker, it was just last week we saw the measurable standards when we looked at Labrador and the ferry service. We look at Labrador and how the Premier himself, on a conference call with the members and the committee from down The Straits and Labrador said: We will commission - whatever the report comes out with, whatever the business community recommends, we will follow.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Southern Labrador respected the Premier at that time. They respected what he said. They believed in what he said. They had all the confidence that the Premier was a man who was going to stand by his word. They had all the confidence and they agreed to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, whatever the report comes out with, we will live by it. When the report came out, the member and the Minister of Transportation and Works could not allow that to happen for his own district. Mr. Speaker, when you look at the fourth bullet, page three of the Budget, it did not take long for them to show that, once again, was put there just for someone to read and not to live by.

I will say to the Minister of Transportation and Works, I remember when I ran in 1989 - fifteen years ago today, in 1989 - I remember Transportation and Works, and I say to my colleague from Cartwright-L'anse au Clair -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave for a moment to clue up.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the members opposite for listening so intently. If there is anything that I ask the members opposite, it is: Look at that reassessment fee, please. It is for the seniors of this Province. I am not sure how much it costs. It is an important issue. There are a lot of children of seniors who are getting to the point where they are not sure if they should be driving or should not be driving, so I ask the government members to look at that seriously. It is an important issue. I do not think it is a big cost item to the government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity for me to pass on why I am voting for this non-confidence motion.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Tomorrow being Private Members' Day, I believe we are debating a private member's resolution either by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace - I should know, I am from there - or the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, either one. I believe the Opposition House Leader is going to let me know some time in the morning. We look forward to that debate, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I do now move the adjournment of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I put the question on the adjournment of the House, I wish to inform members that during the afternoon I have had some discussions relative to some of the issues surrounding some matters raised earlier today regarding difficulties that some hon. members had in getting access to the House today.

I am assured that these difficulties have been resolved and that on tomorrow members and their staff should not have the same difficulty arising out of the doors being closed, but there may be other difficulties that may arise over which the Chair has no jurisdiction whatsoever.

I want to thank the members for raising the issue and I am trusting that the matter now has been somewhat resolved. I wanted to report that before we closed today.

The motion to adjourn, all those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, April 21.

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