March 24. 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XlV No. 7


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon I am very pleased to welcome to the Speaker's gallery, the hon. George Smitherman, Minister of Health for the Province of Ontario, and his assistant, Mr. Ken Chan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: We have members' statements this afternoon as follows: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits, the Leader of the Opposition; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; and the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand here today to congratulate the participants and winners who participated in the annual Heritage Fair at St. Peter's Elementary School in Mount Pearl. I visited this school this morning, to judge approximately sixty projects prepared by the Grade 6 students.

Mr. Speaker, the Heritage Fair is a national program in schools which encourage children to explore and research any aspect of Newfoundland and Labrador and/or Canadian culture, famous people, events and places. The children acquire a wealth of information from participating in projects of this nature, and it enables them to share their knowledge with others. The projects presented covered everything from: the 1929 Burin Tsunami, Canadian inventors, Newfoundland trivia, Castle Hill, Alexander Graham Bell, The S.S. Floizel, the Great Fire of 1892, the Newfoundland Pony, and many more.

Mr. Speaker, as I already mentioned, I was one of the judges of this Heritage Fair and I must admit it was very difficult deciding on the winners. The knowledge gained by all Grade 6 students was very valuable, and I wish them all good luck in their future endeavours.

Without further ado, Mr. Speaker, the winners of this year's Heritage Fair events are: Group Participation by: Stephanie Gallant, Laura Noseworthy, Vanessa Power, Nicholas Chretien and Ryan Works.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this House to join with me in congratulating the Grade 6 students of St. Peter's Elementary School, teachers, parents and friends who helped them out with this important activity.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Mr. Bob Rideout, a veteran of World War II, for his dedicated service to his comrades and fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Rideout of Botwood, who served with the 166th Newfoundland Field Regiment during the Second World War, was awarded the Minister of Veterans' Affairs commendation in January. This award is given to an individual who has contributed to the well-being of veterans in this country.

Since his time in the military, he has been involved with various volunteer activities with the Royal Canadian Legion, to which he was elected President of Branch 12 in Botwood in 1992. Once he completed his term, he received the Palm Leaf to the Meritorious Service Medal. He is also heavily involved with the Exploits Memorial Veterans' Pavilion at the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Centre in Botwood.

Mr. Rideout took a position on the veterans' service committee of the Newfoundland command for the Legion. He was given special responsibility for that pavilion in Botwood, which he visits at least two or three times a week to spend time with the residents there. He provides comfort and support to the sick when they need it the most.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in the House to join with me in congratulating Mr. Bob Rideout on receiving this prominent award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the accomplishment of an incredibly talented young girl from Milltown, Bay d'Espoir, in the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

Mr. Speaker, six-year-old Julie Young began writing at an early age. In fact, her keenness for poetry began in Kindergarten. Ms Young's talent is obvious. At just six years old, Ms Young wrote a poem entitled: The Circus. This poem, which was used as part of her school's graduation ceremony and printed in the local newspaper, was honoured by a national literary body.

Mr. Speaker, Julie's poem was honoured at the 2004 Canadian National Poetry Contest. The contest was open to poets of all ages from across the country.

The Circus will also be included in the Poetry Institute of Canada's eleventh annual publication. An amazing honour for a talented young writer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating Julie on her accomplishment and in wishing her all the success in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Grand Bank Theatre Festival Committee for signing on, for the second consecutive year, well-known writer and performer Bernie Stapleton as artistic director for the 2005 festival season.

The Grand Bank Regional Theatre Company and Festival will celebrate its tenth anniversary this summer. The Theatre Company is the only professional theatre company on the Burin Peninsula. During its nine successful seasons to date, the company has employed young people from the Burin Peninsula and boasted larger audiences every year. Bernie Stapleton has written four new plays for this season and she said: I see the stories and the culture of the Burin Peninsula as being as worthy and fascinating as any theatre-goer could wish for.

In addition to the tremendous support from the people in Grand Bank and surrounding communities, the festival has continued to be a drawing card for tourists to the Burin Peninsula. It is featured as a highlight in all of the tourism literature.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending best wishes to the Grand Bank Regional Theatre Company and Festival, and to Ms Stapleton for a most successful theatre season.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In recognition of Nutrition Month, I rise today to talk about and acknowledge something our government is taking very seriously - the health and wellness of our citizens.

Recent health indicators show our Province leads Canada in obesity, smoking rates and lack of physical exercise. In addition, we have among the highest rates of childhood onset diabetes and cardiac disease - chronic diseases that can be prevented and better managed through healthy and active living. The time has come to take back control of our own individual health.

Mr. Speaker, that is why government had dedicated $2.4 million for wellness initiatives in Budget 2005. This represents the single largest investment in health promotion in the history of the Province. Just like the 3 Rs are the foundation for life-long learning; prevention, promotion and public health are critical to better health outcomes and keeping people healthy.

Building upon government's Throne Speech commitment to keep people healthier, this spring government will unveil a wellness strategy to complement the ongoing work of community organizations and the six regional wellness coalitions, including programs like: Moving for Seniors, which promotes healthy aging for our seniors, or the Restaurant Heart Smart Program, launched with the Heart and Stroke Foundation to encourage healthier food choices.

Acting on the recommendations, Mr. Speaker, of the Provincial Wellness Advisory Council, our wellness strategy will concentrate on improving healthy eating, reducing obesity, reducing smoking rates, reducing injury rates and increasing physical activity. These are all important in the prevention of chronic illnesses, such as: stroke, osteoporosis, diabetes, heart disease and some forms of cancer.

As a government, Mr. Speaker, we can and we will provide the tools for people to become better equipped to lead healthier lives. We plan to implement a Healthy Foods in Schools program, including new nutrition guidelines for schools and a Healthy Schools Youth Summit in the fall; establish a community grants program to build on existing community wellness projects; enhance school food programs to improve healthy eating; develop a social marketing campaign to promote healthy living, create a Teen Wellness team to engage the participation of youth and strengthen the presence of wellness-dedicated staff in the new health authorities.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to issue a challenge to everyone to infuse a healthy culture in all areas of community life, in our families, in our schools, and in our workplaces. We all have the power to take real action to improve our health. I encourage people to look for opportunities each and every day to make an improvement in their own lives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

If you want to look at nutrition and exercise, we do not have to go any further than my good colleague and friend, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, how it can change a person's life.

In this statement, I say to the minister, it looks like there are a lot of good initiatives. Anything that you can do to help wellness in our youth, and in our population in general, is a great start. I know that diabetes and obesity are major problems.

Again, I see what you are going to do in the future, but I just look back; this government says one thing and does another. Here we are there talking about youth, and nutrition for youth, and they just took out $250,000 from the Kids Eat Smart Program. Two hundred and fifty-thousand dollars. Over the last two years there were 400 teaching positions eliminated. One of the major programs that has been eliminated in the school system: physical education. Here we are, saying we are going to promote healthiness and promote exercise, and here we are taking it away from those programs.

I say to the minister, milk is major nutrition for any youth, for osteoporosis, mainly in women, and we need to do something with the high cost of milk. If you cannot bring the cost down, try to help in some way with a subsidy for people who cannot afford milk, because milk is a major staple, for osteoporosis in women, and for youth, in the development of their bones.

I say to the minister, I wish you the best of luck in this, but please, please, if you say you are going to do it, do it. Put the money back in the Kids Eat Smart Program. That would be a good start. Put the physical education teachers back in the school system, and then we can see some real good progress for our youth in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, in the NDP, welcome a concentration on nutrition and the promotion of wellness. It is interesting to note, from studies done, for example, in Nova Scotia ,while attitudes may change, there are actually almost no results in school children where you have a nutrition program only, but if you have a comprehensive healthy living program which combines a healthy eating curriculum, daily gym classes, healthy and inexpensive food, and accessible after-school programs, they actually show that the rate of childhood obesity was reduced by 60 per cent and the number of overweight children in schools reduced by at least 50 per cent.

Attitudes are fine, but the actual comprehensive program is what is needed to work. We need a full universal school meal program so every child in this Province - not such 15 per cent - can take advantage of it. We need to have daily gym classes. We need to have the nutrition side, that the minister talks about, but we need a comprehensive program if we are really going to tackle this problem and give our young kids a decent chance for the future and also give them a better life.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, in answer to questions about the cancer treatment clinic in Central Newfoundland, the Premier answered and these are his words "...I can only look you straight in the face and I can only tell you time and time again that cancer is something that is very dear to my heart personally.... If we can do something, we are going to do something."

The Premier knows that the former Minister of Health toured that facility in Central Newfoundland and got a first-hand look at the need. He knows that the health care boards have recommended the facility as a priority.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: If he truly cares so much, will he agree to accompany his minister to Central Newfoundland next week and personally tour the cancer clinic and show some real leadership with respect to this issue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition is perhaps aware - or my guess is that he does, in fact, know - that the Premier will not be in the Province, actually, on Tuesday of next week, which is the date, I say, Mr. Speaker, that I will be travelling to Grand Falls-Windsor. I look forward to the tour. It is important to us, as a government, it is important to me, as the Minister of Health and Community Services, and I look forward to spending time at the facility so that I can gather the information which is required and report back to my colleagues in due course.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week, in discussing the crab fishery, the Premier said in this House, and again I quote his exact words: Reports are absolutely useless if we do not act on them, so we are being decisive. We are trying new solutions on a pilot basis.

Those are the Premier's words, Mr. Speaker. The Dunne report recommended a pilot project for production quotas, resource material sharing, but with these words - this is the Dunne report - only if the FFAW agree.

I ask the Premier: Why is he insisting on being decisive - because we know the Premier is making this decision - why is he insisting on being decisive and doing the exact opposite of what was recommended to the government in this matter?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Dunne Report was provided to government on December 14, 2003, after over fifteen meetings throughout Newfoundland and Labrador by Commissioner Eric Dunne with people who were involved in the fishing industry, after a shutdown in 2003 in the crab fishery and a number of shutdowns in the shrimp fishery over previous years. Mr. Speaker, there were recommendations that government should deal with from a policy perspective, including a Licensing Board, a Quality Assurance Program, and Raw Material Sharing.

Mr. Speaker, we indicated last year, on February 4, that we supported Mr. Dunne's report in principle and that we would move forward on it. Over the course of the winter we developed an approach to Raw Material Sharing. Mr. Dunne never did say that it should not proceed without the support of any particular group. He said that substantive and reasonable objection should be dealt with. Mr. Speaker, that is what we intend to do if we can get people to the table to try and work on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer even though it is not from the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, again I appreciate the fact that the minister indicated that the Dunne Report was received in December of 2003 and they said they would follow the recommendations in February of 2004. Mr. Speaker, the minister, in a letter to the FFAW, after that, on April 21, 2004, stated he would commence a public debate on this issue. His exact quote - and again I will read it to him - from his own letter: I must and will ensure that all stakeholders have an opportunity to participate freely in the debate over this very important issue. His own words, with his own name signed to it, in April, after everything else.

I ask the minister, in the absence of the Premier: Why is it that your government is now breaking this promise to consult fully and openly, and has not consulted with fish harvesters at all, including those in the gallery today, before moving forward with this system? Don't they believe, after all, that a promise is a promise and should be kept?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely right, those were my words. We have said, when I met with the Inshore Council of the Union on Thursday, three weeks ago yesterday, I guess it was, and when I met with the industrial council of the union probably a week ago or two weeks ago - I cannot remember exactly when it was now. Anyway, on both occasions, Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the leadership of the FFAW, as I have in this House, that we are prepared to sit down with those people to try and address their concerns in moving forward with this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, we have put a lot of consideration into this matter. We had very extensive Cabinet discussions on this matter. This is a government decision to move forward with this proposal and this model. But, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, and I will say it here again today, we have no problem sitting down with the leadership of the FFAW to try and address their concerns as we move forward with this proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to advise visitors in the gallery that we certainly appreciate your attendance in the public galleries. However, we do wish to advise them that they are not to participate in any way or to demonstrate approval for or against anything that is said or occurs on the floor of the House. I ask them to respect the long standing parliamentary traditions of their right to be here and their right to listen to what is being said but not to interfere in any direct way.

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate the consultation that the minister even talked about in his own annual report that he would develop in consultation with the industry, that he decided to consult with the processors before he made his announcement and now he is willing to maybe talk to the other key stakeholders after.

Mr. Speaker, this final question. This is the time of the year when negotiations for the price of crab would normally be starting or ongoing. Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier and the minister, acting as negotiators on behalf of the processors, so it seems, are trying to create lower price expectations for harvesters by eliminating competition with this system that they are going to try and force down people's throats and talking publicly about issues without substantiation, like poor quality reported at the Boston Seafood Show?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just because the Leader of the Opposition says so, does not mean that it is true. There were no meetings with processors in the development of this approach for Raw Material Sharing. There was one meeting back in the middle of January where processors said that they would like to see Raw Material Sharing but if they did not have it, let them know, and they would do whatever they had to do.

Mr. Speaker, we decided that we were going to go forward with Raw Material Sharing. We told them at that time that we would not give them an answer until some time later in the winter. We said that we would consider the matters. I developed, and our department developed, a very comprehensive background paper for Cabinet, brought it to Cabinet and laid out the options for this season and for going forward. And, no, Mr. Speaker, we did not meet with either side prior to the announcement on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, as for the Leader of the Opposition talking about quality problems at the Boston Seafood Show, yes, there were quality problems identified at the Boston Seafood Show and there were pictures that were provided to me by people in the market late last fall. If people want to look at them (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I say to people who are in the gallery, that we certainly appreciate you being here, it is your right to be here, this is the people's House. However, again I have to remind you that we ask you for your co-operation. You are not to participate, show approval or disapproval. If the disturbances continue you will leave the Speaker with no alternative but to do what many other Speakers have had to do in the past. In other words, I will have to ask people to leave the galleries, and I do not want to do that. So, please, I ask you again for your co-operation so that Question Period can continue.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions, too, are for the Minister of Fisheries. We just heard the minister say that the only people he consulted with on this very important issue was the Premier and his Cabinet and nobody else.

Mr. Speaker, last week in an attempt to present a case for giving processors production quotas in this Province, the minister told the House that two major buyers in the United States were threatening not to purchase crab from this Province because of its inferior quality. The minister should realize that the quality of crab being exported from this Province is the responsibility of the processors and the government of this Province and not to be blamed on the harvesters. As processors of this Province purchase, process, package and stamp their names on each box of crab that is exported into the United States, it is not difficult to ascertain who is shipping out the inferior quality crab.

I ask the minister, what has he done with the company or companies that are jeopardizing this very lucrative crab fishery?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The specific company that was identify to us last fall has been dealt with, Mr. Speaker. We dealt with the people who the allegations were made against. We wrote the company that was involved. We laid the allegation in front of them, and we dealt with it. It was done by a very major retailer in the United States who provided us with pictures and a letter and concerns about the quality of some crab going out of the Province. I never said once that there was a problem with all of the crab that was going out of this Province. Mr. Speaker, there are problems.

As for the harvesters, in rolling out the raw material sharing piece, we have proposed to try and address the fundamental problems that have been in the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. We will make it a requirement of processors to disclose sales invoices so that people actually know what our crab is fetching in the marketplace, not like we have seen in the past when people do not know what our crab is actually getting in the marketplace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I never asked you what you said to the processors last fall. I asked you what you said to them since you came back from Boston.

When asked in the House of Assembly why he would not force FPI to process part of its fish quotas in Harbour Breton, the minister indicated he could not because quotas were given by the federal government. In fact - and I quote from Hansard - this what he said: The matter of quota allocations and the movement of quotas is a federal responsibility.

Under the new production quota scheme the minister is legislating, independent harvesters who have been given their quotas by the federal government will not have any control over where they can sell it. In other words, they have no control over the movement.

I ask the minister: Why is he protecting the rights of large fish processors like FPI by taking away the rights of independent fish harvesters like those in the gallery today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like for the Member for Twillingate & Fogo to stop talking out of both sides of his mouth. Which does he want? Does he want the government to try and impose some kind of an arrangement where fish stays in Harbour Breton? Does he want us to impose some kind of an arrangement where fish stays in Fogo? What does he want?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, FPI owns the quotas as it relates to their South Coast operations. If they want to go and haul that to Nova Scotia, there is little that we can do to stop it, because he did not do a very good job when he was in government in trying to get an undertaking from FPI to keep the fish here in Newfoundland and Labrador, something that we are aggressively pursuing. If we can get something like that, then maybe we can do something with it.

As we said to the people of Harbour Breton, we would support their endeavours to try and get a quota for their community, but the member cannot stand one day and say we should try and put fish in Harbour Breton and another day stand up and say that we should not have raw material sharing in other communities in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the minister, they did not close Harbour Breton under my watch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, my final question is for the Minister of Justice, because I cannot get an answer out of the Minister of Fisheries.

I assume that the Minister of Fisheries consulted with you and your department about the legalities of production quotas. Both you and the Minister of Fisheries know that the processing of fish falls under provincial jurisdiction, but the allocation and the movement of fish falls under federal jurisdiction.

I ask the minister: What advice have you and your department given the Minister of Fisheries about imposing what looks to be an illegal system on the harvesters of this Province, and would you also table that advice?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, in the course of putting this proposal, this approach, together, we consulted extensively with the Department of Justice, and I expect we got the same advice that he received when his Premier ordered my deputy to sign an order for raw material shares of shrimp in the fall of 2001 with no consultation with the industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Last February 4, the minister stated - and I have his speaking notes here - in relation to the raw material shares, that any proposal must demonstrate that there are no substantial or reasonable objections for plant workers and harvesters, and I will not consider any proposal that fails to deal with this issue.

He repeated his promise in April and May, in letters to the fishermen's union, to consult.

Why, Mr. Speaker, did this minister break his promise and unilaterally, without consultation, do exactly what the processors wanted, giving them production quotas, for what he calls the interest of stability?

Does he think that stability will be achieved by giving the processors what they illegally shut down the fishery last year to get, and why has he chosen to pass over power to the processors without any consultation and over the objections of fish harvesters?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we did say that we would not entertain any proposal that did not deal with reasonable and substantive objections of fish harvesters and fish plant workers. That is why we have not received, that is why we have not taken, a proposal from the processing sector, because we know their proposal would not meet that test.

What we have developed is an approach that deals with the reasonable concerns of harvesters as it relates to price, which is why we propose to amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, which is why we propose to make it a condition of licences that sales invoices be disclosed, which is why we have said, on the plant workers' side, that there be no permanent transfers allowed in the pilot project stage, which is why we have allocated, why we proposed, to share the fish amongst plants and not amongst companies.

Mr. Speaker, those are the issues that we are trying to address. To do otherwise, to leave it to the hands of the processors, is not something that we were prepared to do, but the old system was not working. That is why, under their watch, over 50 per cent of the crab industry is controlled by four processors in this Province, and we think that is unacceptable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I appeal once more to all members of the House, and particularly to visitors in the gallery, to respect the long-standing parliamentary traditions of this House and all other Houses in the British parliamentary system. Members who are visitors in the galleries are not to participate, show approval or disapproval.

This is my third warning, and I say to you that if we are going to have these interruptions continue the Speaker will, at the next interruption, cause the galleries to be cleared.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Price is not the only issue. We all know where this is going to lead, Mr. Speaker, when processors start selling their shares and their quotas.

They say that Mussolini had a lot of stability in Italy before the Second World War. He ran the trains on time. Will this minister acknowledge that the only that he can have his way -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - and the processors' way is to force it down the throats of the fish harvesters? Doesn't he realize, Mr. Speaker, that his approach -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - will lead to greater instability in the crab industry than there has ever been before, and this time it will be caused by him and his government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to inform hon. members that, in view of the difficulties that have been experienced in the galleries, I will now suspend this sitting until the security people and our Sergeant-at-Arms can advise me that this session can continue.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

I wish to advise all hon. members we have about twelve minutes remaining in Question Period. When we suspending the House, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi had posed a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and I would give that minister the opportunity, or any member of the executive, to reply at this time.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, after twenty-five minutes - I have a good memory but it is short - I sort of forget the question.

Anyway, let me say this, Mr. Speaker. There are legitimate concerns about moving forward with a Raw Material Sharing system, and we understand that and we share some of those concerns, but we have to move forward and do some of the things that we are trying to do with restructuring the industry, to put caps in place on corporate concentration, to deal with the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, to make it harder for processors to close down operations whenever they want to.

Mr. Speaker, that is the system that we had in the past, and we saw communities before that were held at ransom, like the Community of Twillingate, Mr. Speaker. We have seen this and we want to stop that type of approach. That is what we are trying to do here.

I hear members opposite shouting today about all the injustice that is being done. Well, where were they over the past ten years? Why don't they go out and talk to some of the men on the decks of boats who have never seen a bonus payment? Why don't they go out and talk to some of the men and women in thirty-five footers who have never seen a bonus payment? Why don't they go out and talk to some of the plant workers who receive less than $10,000 a year in earned income? Then come back and tell us what the solution is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This Budget has been characterized as the budget of lost opportunities. Just as this government had an opportunity to build the cancer clinic, improve health and education, they also had an opportunity to do something significant about poverty.

Mr. Speaker, this government is developing a reputation for dealing with real crises as if they were merely public relation issues. They are in the second year of their mandate and now they are going to study poverty. I ask the minister, why doesn't she read some of the many studies and reports that have already been done on poverty by volunteer groups and use the $200,000 to address some of the serious problems that exist today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, to address the issues of poverty is a priority for this government. We have put some money aside this year, $200,000, to develop a strategy, not to study poverty. Mr. Speaker, we plan to work with the government departments that have to deal with poverty, that would be: Health and Community Services, HRLE, INTRD, and Education. Mr. Speaker, we also plan to collaborate with our community stakeholders as well.

This government has made a commitment that we want to reduce poverty from being the highest rate of poverty in ten years to being the lowest rate. Mr. Speaker, in order to move forward we need an integrated approach. We need baseline data, we need targets, we need measurable outcomes and, Mr. Speaker, to think that we can do that without a comprehensive strategy flies in the face of social policy and social policy analysis.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Minister, whether it is a study or a strategy, I say it is all fluff and no stuff, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, this government cut funding to the Kids Eat Smart Program by 50 per cent and refuse to deal with the high milk prices. Yet, they want us to believe the spin that they are concerned about poverty.

When is this government going to use the opportunity they have, because of the improved fiscal situation, to address this real issue around poverty in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member understands, there is a difference between a study and a strategy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I also want to provide some further information and some comment to the hon. member. He indicated that we gave $250,000 to Kids Eat Smart. Mr. Speaker, last year we gave that organization $500,000. This year when we dealt with Kids Eat Smart Foundation, we found out that they had a budget of $899,000. They also have approximately three hundred thousand dollars in corporate sponsors. They also provided information that at the end of their fiscal year, on July 1, they will be running a surplus of $483,000. Mr. Speaker, with their corporate sponsors, with their surplus and with our money, they can continue the program.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be perfectly clear, when we reduced it by $250,000 we took that other $250,000 and ‘reprofiled' it into a program that will be developed to address social inclusion so that children in poverty can take -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, you should explain that to the Member for Port de Grave in the elevator some time or when all twelve of us are there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: The President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities said in a news release, and I quote: "The Speech from the Throne identified the amount of debt facing municipalities as "one of my government's greatest concerns." Yet this budget eliminates the municipal debt relief program and communities can no longer access the Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Finance Corporation, making it more difficult, if not impossible, for rural..." communities to make "...critical infrastructure at reasonable rates." That is not mine, that is from the President of the Federation, Herb Brett.

Minister, why have you dashed the expectations you raised in the Throne Speech? What is the real future for rural municipalities in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I had a discussion yesterday. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is not in today for absolutely a good reason, a health reason. I think he has some kidney stones, to be honest with you, that hit him last night. But, I had a chat with him on this matter a couple of days ago. His feeling of the conversation that occurred or the statement that was made, that it is absolutely incorrect. But, what I will do and what I will say to the member, in view of the fact that the minister who is responsible for the file, who has all of the intimate detail, I will have an undertaking to have that assessed immediately and I will get it back to the member.

I do want to assure municipalities of the fact that, based upon the conservation and the knowledge that I have of the issue, we believe that the statement made is incorrect and we believe that municipalities, rural municipalities, in particular, will not be negatively impacted by this Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last year the minister reduced the Municipal Operating Grants for selected municipalities in the Province. In the pre-Budget consultation process these mayors in municipalities around the Province asked the government not to cancel these cuts. Now we are finding out that the government did not listen to their concerns and are again following through on further reduction in these MOGs without giving them new revenue options.

Minister, why does this government continue to impose its will on municipalities, who are experiencing financial difficulties, without their consent or output?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is very clear, I mean municipalities and municipal leaders and the Federation of Municipalities in last year's Budget - not this years but last years - that government announced what a three-year plan would be in terms of the Municipal Operating Grants. That was laid out there last year. There has been no change to that. If the member has -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I say to the members opposite, we sat and listened to the questions that you asked, and did it today in this particular question because they are important. If you want to interrupt, then that is your right to interrupt, I suppose. But I do want to have the luxury to answer the question, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, that was asked by his colleague, which is an important issue to municipalities. Once the answer is given, whether you like it or not, that is up to yourself, but it will be as forthright and as truthful as it can be, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

The fact of the matter is, to the Member for Fortune-Cape la Hune, that the announcement that was made in last year's Budget, with respect to Municipal Operating Grants, was announced. It was, certainly, told to everybody in the Province. All the information was given to municipal leaders. It was discussed with the Federation of Municipalities. It was discussed, and I understand certainly brought up at the Federation of Municipalities provincial meeting. So other than to say that, which I think is the most direct and forthright answer to your question, that is what we laid out and at this point there has been no change in that policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard a lot this week about the conditions at the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. Mr. Speaker, I wrote the Minister of Health and Community Services on February 16, to plead with him to reinstate twenty-four hour home care for Mildred and Clovia Baker of Carbonear. They are in wheelchairs, they are fed through feeding tubes, that require assistance breathing and cannot perform most of the things that we take for granted.

Mr. Speaker, we have received calls and letters from family, friends and church leaders who are gravely concerned for the well-being of these two very special ladies due to government cuts.

Is saving money, Minister, more important than the health needs of these two individuals? When will the minister show some compassion and reinstate their twenty-four-hour home care? How many others are in the same situation, Minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has obviously described a personal set of circumstances. From the description that he has referenced, obviously it is a serious set of circumstances. In most cases, I will say that these guidelines and the standards that are set are put in place by well-established principles, by well-established guidelines that are often enforced by the local boards and the local authorities.

If there is new information that the hon. member has in his possession, new information that I am not aware of, I would be more than prepared to meet with him to review the situation with officials and to find out whatever information may be necessary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, a final supplementary.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that I have shared all of this information with him, with his officials and so on. I have been asked by the family of those two ladies in particular to bring this issue to the House. This is desperation, Minister, pure desperation.

A neighbour had to go over the other night and turn up the heat for them; the ladies were cold. They could not do it themselves. A delivery package could not be delivered with medical supplies; the pastor of their church had to go and let them in.

I say, Minister, that is what this is all about. I have been handed from you to the department, to the Department of Health and Community Services.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, time for a brief reply.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, obviously this is a personal issue, clearly a sensitive issue. I would be more than prepared to have my officials discuss the details, as referenced by the hon. member. As I say, if there is information that we are not privy to, or if there is information that may assist in further addressing this issue, as the minister, I will be happy to ask my officials to delve into this and to hopefully seek some solutions, or at least some explanations. That commitment I can only give to the hon. member in response to his question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time assigned for Question Period has expired.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, a point of order I raise from commentary in Question Period, from an answer given by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I believe that we are here on an honour system, where we are supposed to tell the truth. I can say, unequivocally, that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, in suggesting that I, when I was Premier, gave a direct order to a deputy minister to do something, has to be false; because he may be operating in a Cabinet where their deputies and ministers get phone calls from the Premier's office, I never did it in my life. My ministers ran their departments and, if there was a decision or an action taken in a department, it was done by the minister, out of respect. So, I would ask him either to verify that happened, with some kind of proof other than him spreading those kinds of false statements, or withdraw the statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further speakers to the point of order?

The Chair has to rule that there is no point of order. There may be a disagreement between hon. members as to the facts; however, there cannot be a point of order in the procedural sense.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, this afternoon, in response to a question from the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, made reference to certain photographs, and he held them up and showed them to the audience. I wonder if the minister would be so kind as to table, for all of us here, what he referenced.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no problem providing the photos that were sent to us by a very large firm in the United States who are responsible for marketing a substantial portion of the crab processed in Newfoundland and Labrador, over a complaint they had about a quality issue related to crab that was produced by a certain processor. I will note that the allegations were made and -

MR. GRIMES: Over a year ago.

MR. TAYLOR: It was not over a year ago, I say to the Leader of the Opposition; it was in September or October.

Anyway, the photos are there and the photos speak for themselves. They certainly confirm what I have said and what many have said in the industry about some of the producers in this Province, about some of the crab that goes out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again I remind members, as I did a few days ago with another honorable member, about using displays in the House. Even in Question Period, and in the matter that we had today, again, we do not bring displays to the House, however interesting that might be.

I would caution all hon. members and ask for their co-operation, that we not bring displays in; however, the Chair will facilitate the tabling of the document to which reference has been made.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order, but it may be a point of clarification.

Surely if a minister comes into the House with pictures in his hand and says that he has them, that is not a display in the sense that someone is trying to show that they send a message. He is saying: I have photographs, and here they are. The Opposition House Leader is merely asking, as we all do when someone refers to a document, that it be tabled, and the minister has readily complied. I just wonder if you would clarify that.

To me, there is a big distinction between a document, whether the document is in pictorial form or not, and a display, which may be a message - sometimes people have been objected to for having badges that cast aspersions on government policy or whatever - that constitutes a display. It is perfectly legitimate, in my view, for the minister to come here and say, there are complaints about quality and I have pictures of them here, and then be asked to table them in the perfectly orderly way in which he did.

I wonder was Your Honour using the opportunity to remind people that displays themselves are not permitted, rather than indicate that this particular matter was a display. Perhaps Your Honour could clarify that for us.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for his inquiry.

The issue of displays has been dealt with a number of times in this House and particularly in Ottawa where they have had quite a history. I can only tell you that when an hon. member in the Ottawa House brought in a picture of a fish, and one day brought in an actual fish, then it was held to be a display. When we had, in this House, a member on this side who came up with the display of a book, the Speaker here ruled that was a display.

To be consistent, and the Speaker tried to be consistent, today when the member held up the particular picture and started showing it across the House, the Speaker would have ruled that to be a display at that point. Acknowledging you had it is one thing, holding it up and showing it makes it a display.

MR. E. BYRNE: To that point, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where we are left after that explanation. All I am going to ask - and I am certainly not challenging the Chair, but just for some clarification, not right away but when we do get back from the Easter break. I do want to make it clear, from my understanding, that the member was referring to a document. When ministers refer to a document in the House, they are obligated to table it, if it is used to influence debate or reference in debate. The Opposition House Leader asked could he table it, the member said yes, and if that is a display of comradery in the House, then that is the only display we really should be concerned about.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Government House Leader.

We will prepare a commentary on that and have it distributed to all members for their benefit. I will also include some of the literature from other jurisdictions as well.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

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

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and pursuant to section 26.(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one Order-in-Council relating to a funding pre-commitment for the 2005-2006 fiscal year.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Rule 64.(3) of the Standing Orders provide that a member cannot have any more than one private member's motion on the Order Paper at any given time.

The Member for Grand Bank currently has one there. She would like to seek leave of the House to withdraw the one she has on the Standing Order paper so that she might substitute it with another. I spoke to the Government House Leader in this regard and he indicated that we would have consent from the government in that regard.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Grand Bank have leave to withdraw the resolution of a private member's motion for which notice has been given?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I can speak for the government side; I cannot speak for anybody else. Yes, that is fine, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HARRIS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear the Member for Signal Hill has consented, so therefore the House has granted leave.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank, under Notices of Motion.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I formally withdraw my earlier private member's motion and substitute the following:

WHEREAS there is a need on the Burin Peninsula for improved health care services, in particular a CT scanner; and

WHEREAS current medical needs are not being met because of the lack of adequate facilities and medical equipment; and

WHEREAS these needs were identified and brought forward to government by medical professionals; and

WHEREAS government committed during the election to complete the health facility in Grand Bank and address the health care needs of residents of the Burin Peninsula; and

WHEREAS government had an opportunity in the Budget with a projected cash surplus to address these needs, but chose not to fund any improvements to health care services on the Burin Peninsula;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on government to place a CT scanner on the Burin Peninsula and recommit to construction of the health facility in Grand Bank in this fiscal year.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, in relation to the raw material sharing system.

This petition, Mr. Speaker, comes from people involved in the industry from within my District of Port de Grave, Coley's Point and Bay Roberts, also from Admiral's Beach area, Conception Harbour and Harbour Main.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, after attending several meetings with the fisherpeople, I have to say to the hon. House that harvesters have stated very clearly that they have not been consulted with. Plant workers have stated the same. If that has been the case, and I take them at their word, then I believe that this process is not following what was in the Dunne report, because the Dunne report stated very clearly that raw material sharing should be considered if agreed to by harvesters and plant workers. Again, as mentioned here earlier today, the minister agreed that he would attend meetings and see that this was done.

The report also stated, Mr. Speaker, that the processors - what the Dunne report found - saw no reason why this plan should not be implemented; however, the plant workers and the harvesters expressed skepticism and distrust about the matter.

If we go to the Dunne report, under the section Difficulties with Raw Material Shares, there were two headings there: Economic Efficiency Problems, and Industry Structure Problems. I will just quote. It states, "These include such matters as: changed regional concentrations of processing, processing employment losses if consolidation occurs, increased pressure for selective harvesting and misreporting, limiting the competition of raw material, placing another layer of regulation on the industry and discontent with sharing formulas and transfer provisions."

However, Mr. Speaker, we hear, through the people at the rallies and at the meetings, that plant production quotas is not an option. I think we heard that loud and clear here today. I believe, and I agree with them, that those people have rights, and they believe in a free enterprise. The minister has stated on several occasions that this process will bring certainty and stability to harvesters and plant workers and also to the industry at large.

 

I say to the minister, there is nothing to be ashamed of, to bend under pressure, because no doubt people think that this should be taken care of in another manner. There should be consultation between all stakeholders. I believe, Mr. Speaker, if this goes through, the fishers, the harvesters, are going to be told when to fish, and even probably fishing in very difficult times of the year, so it is going to make it very difficult for them, and more dangerous, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, I want to call upon the Minister of Fisheries to do the honorable thing, to return to the table with all of the stakeholders and bring stability to the industry before he brings the industry to a total standstill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo,

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Tuesday, I presented a petition from harvesters and plant workers in Harbour Main, in the Districts of Harbour Main-Whitbourne and Placentia & St. Mary's, and today I am presenting a similar petition from my own constituents in the District of Twillingate & Fogo.

Mr. Speaker, what the petition is about, the residents of that area are asking that the government not implement production quotas until it is agreed upon by the FFAW and the processors. Mr. Speaker, they are adamantly opposed - both plant workers and harvesters in my district are opposed - to production quotas for different reasons. I will get into those after, but they both agree that the minister who had promised to consult with them, in a letter that was sent to the president of this association or their union last spring around this time, that he would consult with them before he implemented these, to go and implement it without even discussing it with them, Mr. Speaker, they found very disgusting.

They are certainly opposed to having something rammed down their throats without ever being able to discuss it with the minister. The minister even admitted here in the House of Assembly today that he did indeed write Mr. McCurdy, the President of the FFAW, last year and told him that he would discuss this with the plant workers and the fishermen around the Province, and that he did not, in fact, have these discussions, and that the only people he did have discussions with, Mr. Speaker, were the Premier of the Province and the Cabinet.

I would assume from that, that the people who are the back bench of that government across the floor, obviously they were not aware of what the minister was about to do, or they certainly were not consulted themselves, because I know for a fact, Mr. Speaker, that there are those who are sitting opposite who are opposed to production quotas. They always were opposed to production quotas.

I also know that some of them have met with fishermen and were told by these members opposite that they would bring their concerns back to the House of Assembly. I have not heard these members discuss their concerns in this House of Assembly, and obviously they are not at all pleased that their members are not representing them here in the House of Assembly.

Like so many other decisions that this government makes, they do it in the secrecy between the Premier and the minister involved. Regardless of what anybody else thinks, he pushes ahead. We saw that happen just last fall with regard to the VON strike in Corner Brook, where the Premier decided, unilaterally, that he was going to do something, even in opposition to what his own minister was recommending, and as a result that minister was replaced.

Mr. Speaker, I am getting off the topic. I will give you the reasons why the harvesters and the plant workers are opposed to this. The harvesters are opposed to production quotas because they are firmly convinced that it will eliminate competition among processors and have the effect of driving down prices that they will receive for crab.

I challenge anyone in this House of Assembly, and I challenge any economist in the Province, or in the country for that matter, to explain to the people in the fishing industry how the elimination of competition will increase the prices that are paid to fishermen. I challenge anyone here to get up and prove that I am wrong in that, and prove to the people in this industry that is indeed the case.

Mr. Speaker, I realize my time is up. I only have three minutes. I wish I had thirty minutes, but I will rise again when the House resumes next week and present many more of these petitions.

Thank you very much.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the employees who work at the FPI fish plant in Fortune. I want to read the prayer of the petition because I think it will put it in context. It says:

WHEREAS we, the undersigned, do not support the recent proposal for Fishery Products International concerning the fish processing facility in Fortune; and

WHEREAS we, the workers, recently voted 92 per cent to return to work in hope of continued employment; and

WHEREAS Fishery Products International is turning its back on the social responsibility it has to rural Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS this provincial government has allowed Fishery Products International to run the fishery without regard to the economic well-being of rural Newfoundlanders and Labradorians;

WHEREUPON we feel the provincial government of today should take a strong look at stopping all raw materials from leaving our Province and have it processed in plants in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by the employees who work at the FPI plant in Fortune. These employees, in fact, live in nine different communities in my district. I can tell you that the petition came about out of fear, fear for the future of those nine communities, because we all know that, no matter where you work, you return to your hometown and hopefully that is where you spend your hard-earned money.

What we are finding today is that these employees really do not know what the future holds. They really fear that if the government allows FPI to move forward with its plan to sell off 40 per cent of its marketing division, that will end up having a most devastating impact not only on the plant in Fortune but, as well, on other FPI plants in the Province where they do producing, because they are concerned that it is FPI's agenda to get out of processing any fish in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I concur with them, Mr. Speaker.

I do know that there has been a concerned citizens committee formed. I met with the executive of that committee last Friday in Fortune. They now have a request in for a meeting with the Premier. They really want to hear from the Premier and from the Minister of Fisheries what it is that they talked to FPI about when it comes to allowing them the possibility of selling off that 40 per cent of that marketing division. They want to know what the government is asking for in return. What kind of commitments are you getting from FPI? If you agree to allow FPI to do that, than what kind of commitments are you getting from FPI for the plants and the people who work in them today? What does it mean for the future of Fortune? What does it mean for the future of Marystown? We know where Harbour Breton is and we are hoping, of course, that there will be a quota for Harbour Breton because we see that is really the only future for that community and that plant.

Fortune is still open. Open, I say, Mr. Speaker, in terms of having a limited amount of work for the time being. Having said that, they really do not know what the future holds. This petition, again, as I say, comes out of fear, comes out of concern of not knowing what is going to happen to them, not knowing what FPI's plans are, but wanting to know and looking for a meeting with the Premier to find out in the meetings that he has had with the executive of FPI, what exactly they have discussed about Fortune, about the future of the plant.

I know my time is cut short. I am asking, Mr. Speaker, just for one minute maybe to clue up, if that is possible?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for Grand Bank have leave to make some concluding statements?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave had been granted.

MS FOOTE: Thank you for that, because this is an issue of vital importance to people who work in that fish plant from those nine communities.

I would, at this point in time, ask the Premier and ask the Minister of Fisheries to seriously consider (inaudible) for a meeting so that the people of Fortune, or the people who make up the executive of the concerned citizens committee, can meet with the Premier and get some comfort in knowing that their concerns will be addressed, that they are being looked out for and, at the end of the day, they matter more than a corporation like FPI.

Thank you so much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to consider matters related to Interim Supply. I believe that is motion 1, Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 2 and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 2, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have not had an opportunity to speak on this Interim Supply bill yet. Yesterday we were debating Bill 3, which is Supplementary Supply, having to do with the paying off of loans. I was speaking then, but I understand that the Government House Leader has called the Interim Supply bill. I would be happy to speak on that, Mr. Chairman. I know other members in the Official Opposition have had an opportunity to do that, so I would like to take a few moments to offer some comments on Interim Supply. I will proceed to do that.

Mr. Chairman, Interim Supply, of course, gives government the power to spend money immediately upon March 31, because the Budget has not been passed. Therefore, there is no authority to spend without special warrants, and these are only intended to be for extraordinary emergencies. So, the legal situation, Mr. Chairman, is that without an Interim Supply bill, as of March 31 the government is not allowed to write any cheques, not allowed to spend any money and needs the authority of this House. We will be giving authority for the government to spend up to a quarter of the Budget between now and the end of June, which is the traditional amount for each department.

Traditionally, in Interim Supply, people talk about the budgets and have an opportunity to raise particular concerns about any issues that are obvious from the Budget and from the decisions that are being made by government that are announced in the Budget. Our take on the Budget, Mr. Chairman, was one that seems to have been taken up by the Official Opposition in the last day or so, that this was a Budget of missed opportunities. That was what I called it on Budget Day in a release we sent out, because what we recognize, while there were a number of positives in the Budget - and some of them have been expounded on by the Member for St. John's Centre in a very good speech yesterday. He talked about some of the positives in the Budget, and we recognize that there a number of positives in this Budget.

The Member for Labrador West has clearly indicated to the government that some of the spending choices that were made, particularly affecting the people of Labrador who have been crying out, particularly members of Labrador West, through the Member for Labrador West, for the last number of years for equality in treatment with respect to medical expenses; travelling to Happy Valley-Goose Bay to get medical services, or from all over Labrador travelling to the Island, normally to St. John's, sometimes to Corner Brook, that they now have a much more favourable medical expense program available to them as a result of new monies that were received from the Health Care Accord and spent this way by the provincial government. And we are certainly happy to see that some of our concerns have been responded to.

When I say it is a Budget of missed opportunities, Mr. Chairman, what I see is a very drastic difference from last year to this year. What I see is an underestimation of the reality in terms of what the revenues are, perhaps an underestimation by as much as $100 million to $150 million, some say $180 million, when you look at the actual value of oil resources in this Province and the kind of money that is going to come forward. We had been off the mark pretty early this year in the pre-Budget discussions when we were still hearing a government say: Well, we got $2 billion from Ottawa but, you know, we owe $12 billion and that is really not very much. We are going to have to make sure we pay off the debt, and those kinds of comments.

I was very concerned that this government was preparing for another bad-news budget like they did last year, adding all sorts of new fees and charges, increasing the cost to ordinary people and still continuing on the downward spiral that they set in motion last January when they announced the significant restraint. I did not want to see that happen, so what I did was basically start talking about the fact that we were in a much more improved financial position, that not only did we have, over the next eight years, the $2 billion in additional monies that was coming, that would be coming from the offshore oil resources as a result of the revised Atlantic Accord, but we were also going to have oil revenues ramping up in a very steep manner over the next several years to the extent that we would have, over the next five years alone, an average of $800 million of new revenue that would be available to look after some of the significant problems that we have but also to initiate new programs.

The missed opportunity was to look after some very straightforward problems that had been identified for years by me and my party and by others in a certain few areas: The missed opportunity to solve the issue of school fees that end up putting a significant burden on struggling families; the issue of textbook costs that we in this Province pay for, but Margaret Wente and her friends in the land of plenty in Ontario do not pay and have not paid for some time.

We have the means to do that, and we should end that kind of discrimination against poor people who cannot afford to pay for those textbook costs. We have the scandal of collection agencies out after individuals, after families, to try and collect that money. I have heard it said that they are out there reminding people. I do not know if anybody in this House has had any dealings with collection agencies, but I have not seen one yet - and I have had some dealings with them over my twenty-five years in the legal profession, on behalf of clients - I have not seen a collection agency yet that is out there sending reminders out to people, a gentle reminder: Oh, by the way, you did not pay this bill.

What I have seen is a lot of things often disguised as if they were legal documents, threatening people with court, telling people about garnishees, suggesting to them that if they do not pay up that there could be court action pretty soon, and frightening and intimidating people who come to me, as their lawyer, and others in this House who would have dealings with it. I am sure MHAs, in their work, see the consequences of that.

I am not suggesting that every work of every collection agency is not legitimate, but I think it is a scandal that we have schools and school boards resort to this type of collection for something that should not even be there in the first place. That could have been fixed. We could have fixed the issue of school fees. We could have fixed the issue of textbook costs. We could have fixed the issue of a full universal school meal program for each student in the Province. All of that could be done for a reasonably modest expenditure, but it would take some substantial political will on the part of this government.

I have some encouragement. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I heard the Minister of Human Resources and Employment today, in answer to a question from the Member of Port de Grave, when she talked about a poverty strategy - I have to acknowledge this - I have a hint, and I am going to ask her some more about this and maybe she can answer if she wants to speak today, if what this government is suggesting is that the poverty strategy that she is talking about is going to set targets and goals for the elimination of poverty. If that is what she is suggesting, and she gave a hint of that today, Mr. Chairman, in her answer, if that is what this government is prepared to do, I would be very interested in seeing them do that, Mr. Chairman, and make that kind of commitment; because what we do need, if we are going to eliminate poverty in this Province, we do need the same kind of commitment, targets, timetables and goals that governments tend to get involved in when they are talking about reducing deficit.

When the Minister of Finance said to the people of this Province, and the government said to the people of this Province when they were running for election, that we were going to eliminate the cash deficit in our first term of office in four years, that was a target, that was a goal. I want to hear this government say that we are prepared to eliminate child poverty in this Province by a specific date, and have just as vigorous a program to do that as the minister and his government seem to bring down here in this Province on the issue of the cash deficit.

We have seen, Mr. Chairman, that, in fact, in year one the cash deficit has been eliminated. How was that done, not in four years but in year one? It was done by last year telling people how desperate things were, how terrible they were, how we had to increase enormous numbers of fees that ordinary people pay for motor registration. Fees for everything from a dog tag to a hunting licence all added up to increase the cost to ordinary people, regardless of their ability to pay or their wealth, increasing those fees on ordinary people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We saw all of that, Mr. Chairman, because this government was committed to reducing the cash deficit, which they have done in one year. In one year the cash deficit, which last year they projected at $362 million, turned out to be zero. In fact, there turned out to be a surplus of $103 million that they felt able to pay down on a minor part of our $6.5 billion direct government debt. That is the kind of hardship that was imposed on people, Mr. Chairman.

We now have a situation where the cash deficit has been eliminated. The projection of $62 million for next year is not going to be there, Mr. Chairman. That is my prediction. That is easily verifiable if one examines the price of oil that is used by this minister for his calculations, and the actual price of oil that we are going to see over the next number of months.

That $62 million -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time has lapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, on a point of order, I would like to ask the House Leader: This is the Interim Supply Bill, which is basically the one that gives the government permission and consent to continue paying the bills next week, to continue running the government, and we have spoken on this side. We are in full agreement, I can say. I cannot speak for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, but for this caucus we will vote for it and we are willing to vote for it right now without further debate.

There is another money bill that is also going to be voted on before the end of the day and, to facilitate business, we are agreeable to end debate on this right now, vote for it, unanimous on this side, for our caucus, I can tell you, and then let the House Leader call the other money bill, debate it until time runs out, when His Honour comes, and we will have the vote at that time. If that is agreeable with the House Leader, we are glad to end this debate and vote for this bill right now.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, with every offer like that from the Leader of the Opposition, any past Government House Leader would advise me today: Now be very, very careful in what you are about to say here right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I have been around twelve years in the House and I have seen some offers like that before. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chair, I have made a couple when I was over there.

Look, fair enough, we will move on to the next bill; but one of the things with any Finance bill, whether it is Interim Supply or Supplementary Supply or any Finance bill, it allows you to talk about whatever you want to talk about. It is very much latitude. Knowing why the offer was made - and I think that will become very clear in due course - I accept the Leader of the Opposition's offer to pass this bill immediately, and then we will move on to have a discussion about The Rooms, I suppose, and a few other matters.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To that point of order, I am certainly prepared to acknowledge that I am satisfied to have this bill voted on, but I will say I will not be voting in favour of it. The Leader of the Opposition may be, but I will not be voting in favour of it. I am satisfied to have the vote come to the floor, Mr. Chairman, but, given the Budget that this government has brought down, and the things that they failed to take advantage of, I am not prepared to vote in favour of it.

CHAIR: There is certainly no point of order, but it is the enabling of the House to proceed in looking after its business, so I call the passage of the bill.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2006 a sum of $1,446,010,500."

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 and 2 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

 

Clause 3 is carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK: The schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The schedule is carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: WHEREAS it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2006 and for other purposes relating to the public service.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The preamble is carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall I report the title carried?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 2, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 2 is carried.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 2)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I would like to be in a position to announce right now that I do not need Bill 3 and I could say call in the Lieutenant Governor, but I am not in that position, unfortunately. Let me tell you, from a parliamentary point of view, it did cross my mind.

Mr. Chair, with that, I move motion 2, that we begin debate on granting Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 3.

CHAIR: Bill 3.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Just on a point of order before we recommence the debate.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just would point out again for the Government House Leader that, in fact, if that is his wish, that can be done because all we would have to do is agree to an amendment to this Bill 3, to add a clause when we come back after Easter to say it is retroactive to March 31. I understand the government does not particularly like to do, or want to do, retroactive legislation but there is nothing in the rules, as I understand it, Mr. Chair, that would make that any less binding than if we pass it today. I know that is not their desire. They want to pass it today and they will use their majority to make that happen today but, technically, and I am sure we could ask the Chair to look at it, that if they wanted to leave this debate right now, come back on April 11, resume the debate on the particular bill and put in another clause, clause 3, saying this bill will be effective as of March 31, 2005, it would have the exact same legal binding effect as if we debated it and passed it today.

So, I make that suggestion and offer again, if he is anxious to get his Lieutenant Governor in so he can commence Easter festivities a bit earlier.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

We are not anxious to get out of the House, as such. I mean, we are anxious to get the legislation that we have before us passed. The fact of the matter is, while I appreciate the offer from the Leader of the Opposition, we have been advised, based on our own officials, that this is a piece of legislation that we should not pass retroactively, that we have no intentions of passing retroactively. The form and content of this particular piece of legislation, and the money and the issues that are at hand with the legislation, must be dealt with between now and March 31. While I appreciate the offer from the Leader of the Opposition, it is one I am not in a position to take because, if I were to do so, the bill itself would become null and void.

CHAIR: Order, please!

To this point of order, I say to the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi-Vidi?

MR. HARRIS: No, I have a new point of order.

CHAIR: There is certainly no point of order in the last point raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Chair.

I see the Minister of Finance standing in his place. My point of order is that I adjourned debate on this matter yesterday and I understand that would permit me to continue debating this matter in the first instance.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chair, that the member did adjourn debate. No, the Minister of Finance wants to speak to this. He has some other obligation he needs to get to. So, we have the rest of the afternoon. If that is okay with the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi -

MR. HARRIS: Sure.

MR. E. BYRNE: - to allow the Minister of Finance to speak to his bill, he can move on and continue to do his duty on behalf of the Province and then we will have an opportunity, like yourself, you can speak shortly thereafter if that is amenable to yourself?

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is my understanding, in conferring with the Table, that in Committee stage the speech is not carried over from one day to the next day. Every member has an opportunity to stand as often as they want in order to speak to the bill, ten minutes at a time. The first two speakers have fifteen minutes. When the debate is over, there is no carry forward of time to begin the debate on another day.

MR. HARRIS: To the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate what the Chair has said in relation to the rules. I was on my feet, actually, to indicate, in response to the Government House Leader's comments, that I would be quite happy to accommodate the Minister of Finance who has another appointment. Even if I did have the authority to carry on, I am quite willing to allow the minister to tend to government business and make his speech and presentation.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased with their willingness and cooperation in allowing me to speak. Even if it is not a part of legislative right in this instance, I do appreciate the intent.

I just want to speak very briefly on this issue. In particular, just to inform the House that there is a certain procedure followed at the end of a fiscal year. This issue has been raised and I have commented on it before, and have been asked in Question Period. When a fiscal year ends, whether you have a surplus or a deficit - if you have a surplus of $103 million when the year ends, or $110 million or $130 million or $50 million, whatever it is, when the fiscal year ends that surplus automatically gets applied to the debt of our Province. You can't say, in March, take that $117 million and pay it for, whether it is for health care, for education, or for anything, unless you can expend it by the end of March. Otherwise, we would be violating the Financial Administration Act.

We cannot flow money through to departments at the end of March, even if there is a surplus, for them to spend, unless they can spend it by the end of March. If it is over and above the appropriation in the Budget for that purpose, we would have to bring a bill to this House to add that as an expenditure too, and it would have to be able to be expended.

That is why this bill is here, so the money would flow to those corporations, retire the debt for all school construction out there in the Province, and for The Rooms which is under the Heritage Corporation. Even if we could flow it out to the Department of Health to spend, they would have to be able to spend it by the end of March. How are they going to spend $117 million in a week or two?

We have to struggle to find ways to spend the Health Accord money. The Health Accord money came from Ottawa. In fact, we have to carry over that and spend it into 2005-2006 because there was a provision to allow medical equipment orders to be spread over more than one year. We looked at a plan over the six years to flow all of the Health Accord money through and spend that money that we are getting from Ottawa. We could not spend medical equipment. We did not even get the money. Up until last week we did not have that Health Accord money that was approved last September. We did not have it last week. We spent money in the Budget because we had anticipated getting it by the end of March, which we are getting, but it is within the envelope of expenditures that we had allowed, and within the Budget. We knew we were getting it, and therefore the provision to be able to do that. That was a special fund to allow it.

The new monies we carried, even though we probably have it today, maybe we do not, but before the end of March we will have it, if we did not get it in the last couple of days, that money that was announced last September.

Some provinces that might have had surpluses in their departments, you could spend money that is appropriated and approved within your departments. If you have a budget in your department for $200 million, and you have slack within that $200 million, $190 million, and you might save $10 million on an idea, you can spend that other $10 million for an area by changing from one subhead to another, but you cannot take money from one Department of Education and put it over in Health if you are coming in under budget in one department and over in another. You have to come back to this House if you are going to over-expend your appropriations that were approved, and get approval from this House in a Supplementary Supply Bill; or, you can go out, if you think it is urgent, and a minister of the department who is responsible feels it is urgent, and have a special warrant if the House is not sitting.

We have avoided doing that, Mr. Chair. The only special warrant we brought to this session of this House was, we were told that by March 10, if they did not have the money, the doctors and them could not get paid, and associated money for physicians' salaries. The House was not open. That is the only special warrant that we brought, and we followed that up with a Supplementary Supply Bill. We gave notice to get proper approval in the House.

We took over government back in the fall of 2003, and in the spring session in 2004 we had to deal with Supplementary Supply Bills back to 2002-2003. I am not sure if there was one from 2001-2002, but certainly 2002-2003. In fact, in 2001-2002 there were Supplementary Supply Bills submitted that were not passed in the year 2001-2002, and we had to deal with all of these.

We are following the proper procedures and complying with the Financial Administration Act. Even if we did not spend the money on those two initiatives, it would collapse, it would go as a surplus, it would go into that and it would have retired debt in the Province. We choose to retire these two debts for the simple reason, because the Province had an extra set of books; they had books under municipal financing, they had books under the EIC and the Heritage Corporation that moved money off balance, off the balance sheets into a corporation that distorted the cash balance of the Province.

We said, over a year ago, we said before we took office, we said after we took office, we are going to eliminate three sets of books and we are getting rid of that. All money in our Budget this year for school construction goes out of the Department of Education. All money for health facilities will go out of the health care budget. Money for municipal financing this year, instead of going out of the Municipal Financing Corporation, a separate entity last year, $30 million, is going out of the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. That is where the expenditure is going. We have eliminated that layer in the bureaucracy there. We have pulled it out because we have said we do not want - and it was used before - to put money, flow it out and keep it and show you have a different cash balance than you really have. We could have said a surplus of - and I have never denied it - $103 million; then it would go to debt in our Province.

We have debt not coming due now. We have no debt coming due. We have $494 million in Treasury bills, that the debt, where it is costing us about 2.5 per cent, this is more. If you retire Treasury bills, it was cheaper to retire this than Treasury bills.

Longer-term debt, we just got $378 million from the federal government, interest-free for ten years. We have a cash flow - and a lot of our borrowings are not coming up next year. Look at the Budget on the back, how much new borrowings are coming up next year. Only $100 million, and it is not coming up until some time next fall. We do not have any debt that is coming due. By eliminating this, we were saving money between the interest on Treasury bills and retiring this debt as opposed to waiting several months. If we deposited it and sat on it, we would not get the interest rate on it. Therefore, we saved money in the process. That gives the fiscal freedom, a little bit of flexibility there, to manage it. We are managing our debt and looking at it in the best manner possible to maximize return and allow this money. That is why that happened.

It was a good question that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi asked. It was a good question he asked, because we did have - the debt in those areas was not high. It was the floating rate, and it was a fairly low rate, but the T-bills were lower. If we had to do a big borrowing program coming up now, it would be advisable to do that, but we did our borrowing back last year, and for the previous year. We did $600 million worth of borrowing by September and into last June - $600 million - so that borrowing, with the improved financial position on oil royalties, our deal with Ottawa, our extra $130 million that we got in increased royalties, put us in a cash position where we had flexibility, we do not have to go to the market.

We are proud we do not have to go to the market, and we are proud to reduce that. That was the best and most fiscally responsible decision we could make. Had we been able to do it in some other way to be able to do that, we would have done that. That is why that happened. I think anybody looking at it prudently, and the bottom line of this Province, would make exactly the same decision. If you let it collapse, you would end up doing that anyway, so why wouldn't we do what we said we were going to do? We said it up front. We said it before we took over government, and I said it from day one. I am on the public record on this on numerous occasions.

I was on the West Coast of the Province yesterday and I did hear the Leader of the Opposition make a statement, I think it was in Question Period, or I heard him speak in the House, on an issue of out-migration. He said: 2,000 people less in this Province since this government took over.

Well, I would like to put it in perspective. There are about 66,000 less people in this Province from the time the Leader of the Opposition came here until he went out of power, and for the last quarter of this year, right up until now - I have the figures - the quarter from October to January, from the period October 1, 2004 up to January, we have gained 111 people more in our Province in the last quarter than there were. We had a gain of population in the last quarter. That came from migration.

Even though there was a reduction in natural population, the net was still 111, which meant that more people have come into this Province in the last quarter than have gone out, by more than 111. I did not get the specific breakdown on births versus deaths, on that figure, but that is positive. It is nothing to get excited about, 100-and-some people change in a quarter, but it is better than losing population.

We hope more will come back, because our unemployment rate this last year was at the lowest in fifteen years. It went from 16.4 per cent to 15.6 per cent, the lowest unemployment in fifteen years. We are projecting that the unemployment rate is going to go down to 15.1 per cent, and that is even lower again next year. While this is happening, our workforce is going up. The labour force is going up and our rate is coming down, which is a good news story for our Province.

They are very important figures, when you look at it. It is important to see the whole picture, not to take a segment of it and put it out there and give people the wrong impression.

This bill is put in for a simple reason: It is the most efficient way to deal with it. It is the most cost-effective, that puts the most money in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and it fulfills the commitment of getting rid of three sets of books in our Province, being open, transparent and accountable, and these Budget documents reflect that openness, transparency and accountability. We said it from day one. I was asked in a media scrum. We put it into the Budget Speech. We did not hide it. We answered the questions truthfully and they are there in this.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that his time has lapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: If I could have just one minute to finish, if I could.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. SULLIVAN: If I could just have one minute to finish before -

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) a question and (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure. If I could have just one minute to finish and then I will take a break -

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: - the member before -

CHAIR: The hon. minister, by leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I just wanted to add one other statement overall on the fiscal situation here. In this upcoming year, and you look back at our predictions on our revenues, there is one area of revenue in this Budget that I feel there could be a positive upside, and I have said it, that is on the price of oil.

Our experts told the Natural Resources Department, the independent people out there, that we should factor in $37.l3 a barrel. We have looked at numerous other institutions of long term in their figures, was on the same range. We said we feel it should go higher. We put in $38. When people look at the price of oil at $56, that is West Texas intermediate. Now, Brent is close to that now. Brent oil is within a dollar of that now. There is often a discrepancy of $3 and $4 in those prices.

Thirdly, the price we get is close to Brent but below Brent. There is often a variation from West Texas intermediate to our oil from $5 to $6 a barrel. At the current rate, that could possibly move us significantly below. So our revenues, on the downside - we are optimistic. It could stay up. There are negative impacts in the economy when it does stay up, on business wise and extra costs, but it is an area that we feel there is an upside to. We will say it up-front if possible, but we were not going to put the farm on the bet that oil would stay up because last year it went up from $30 a barrel, the low $30s there, right up to $50-something a barrel in a matter of months and we did not want to hang the farm on it staying up there because we do not know if it will go down. Experts are giving us long-term things. We did not do it on our own initiative. We went beyond what consultants and experts have told us on this issue and that is the reason for it. I just hope we do have another $100 million or $150 million next year over and above what we expect. I think it would be a good news story, nothing to be ashamed of.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister of Finance acknowledged that he would entertain a question before he leaves. I listened to his explanation as to why they did this amount and his talk about one set of books. I wonder if he could tell us - I am looking at Exhibit V to the Budget, to the estimates document, which does set out the Public Sector Debt there and has a couple of categories, one of which is the Provincial Direct Debt where Treasury Board bills and various debentures are shown. Then there is another category called Crown Corporation and Other Debt, which has Utility, Housing, Municipal, Student Loans and Other categories there.

I wonder, could the minister indicate whether any of these categories will be reduced by $117 million as a result of the payment of this $117 million of what appears to be Crown corporation debt, or is the figure that is shown here inclusive of this reduction of $117 million?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The $117 million would reflect the net of that amount. That amount is plugged into the Budget, the $117 million. So, any final amount, that is considered in our bottom line.

If you look at whether we have it on a cash basis or whether we pay it off, it is still there. Cash is an asset, if you pay it off it is a reduction of debt. The same net effect would be - I am not sure if that is the question he is asking.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, because Crown corporations, many of them out there have debt. We only record on the books of our Province the net income from those government corporations. Hydro, for example, the Liquor Corporation, would just show their net basic business income on the lines of the books of our Province. We do not carry on our cash flows all their revenues and assets on a consolidated statement. We would just carry the net amount.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is correct.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps, for the Minister of Finance, if I could rephrase it. I guess my question is, given the fact that both of these entities are Crown corporations, the Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Corporation capital and the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation capital, that these are Crown corporations, would have they been included, for example, in 2004 as a part of what is listed here as Crown corporation and other debt in the Budget exhibits which deal with the public sector debt? The categories are direct debt, Crown corporation and other debt, and then they have Sinking Funds and it is netted out to give us the bottom line here.

I am looking at Exhibit V of the Estimates, attached to the Estimates. The question I guess is, would that be included in one of those numbers there, the $117 million that is being paid off, would that be included as part of the $2,751,000,000 that is listed as the total for the five years ending March 31 in 2004, would that $117 million appear there? Is that reducing the Crown corporation and other debt by $117 million?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the answer to that, my understanding, I will make sure, but I feel it is a separate entity that is flowed out. That is a Crown corporation that reflects here, the same as we set up the Student Loan Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador, that is reflected. So, that would end up having the reduction of that amount on that line, yes, as opposed to showing on a cash side. I think that is where he is coming from.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the minister for his answers. I was certainly interested in hearing what he had to say because it was also my understanding that this money, this $117 million that is being paid off as a result of this bill or being proposed to be paid off before March 31 is, in fact, part of the Public Sector Debt that the public is notified of, the members of the House, in our Budget documents which shows, as of the end of 2005, the projections of the Public Sector Debt in terms of total Crown Corporation and Other Debt to be $2.65 million, approximately $100 million less than this time last year. That certainly seems to indicate that the current debt, as of March 31 of this year, will be about $100 million less on the Crown corporation side, presumably - partially, at least - as a result of this payment here.

Part of the reason I asked that question is, it seems to fly in the face of the argument that the minister has been giving about one set of books, or two sets of books, or three sets of books. It seems that no matter whether the debt is incurred by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, or by a municipality and guaranteed by the government, or by the government directly, it is included on the set of the books that the government has and it is listed as part of the public debt of the Province, which the direct debt listed here and the Crown corporation debt is estimated to be $8.5 billion. Eight point five billion dollars, that is the number that is listed here as the Public Sector Debt that includes the government's debt and Crown corporations. Now, we often hear numbers like $12 billion, $11 billion, sometimes we hear $13 billion and $14 billion, but if you look Exhibit V of the Public Sector Debt, we have $8.5 billion.

What I want to talk to you about in my few minutes, at least this first few minutes, is about the nature of that debt and the fact that we were given last year, starting last January 4 or 5, all kinds of information about the dire straits we are in, and how terrible life was going to be for Newfoundland and Labrador if superhuman effort was not undertaken by this government to resolve some of these problems. So, I took the opportunity to have a look at one of the things that was talked about in the early part of last year. I heard the Minister of Finance and the Premier talk about how we had to put $1 billion a year towards our debt, how terrible it was, $1 billion a year towards the interest alone, before we could do anything.

Mr. Chairman, I kind of had a look. I thought that was a preposterous figure, and I also thought that we did not really seem to be going way overboard automatically or quickly with the public debt, and in fact my analysis seemed to think that the public debt was not really rising higher than the rate of inflation over the last ten years. My analysis and my research bore that out.

I went another step and said: Well, one of the things when you are trying to figure out how bad is your debt, how bad is your personal debt, how bad is your personal credit, how bad is the government's credit, you kind of find out how much am I paying on this debt. What is my interest payment? What is my mortgage payment?

Well, if you look at the history of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador over the last ten or fifteen years, you will see that every year the government puts out a document that is attached to the Budget, that is part of the Budget documents, it is in the back of the Budget Speech, in the back of this document here. I do not know if I am allowed to display the Budget or not, but here it is. Every word of it was read out the other day, so I guess I am not really doing anything bad. I can table it. I do not have a problem tabling it, but it is an exhibit. It is called Exhibit VII, and it is kind of a summary of where the money goes. Where the money goes - that is what it is called. There is even a pie chart so anybody - I could show you that, too, but I am not allowed. There is a pie chart there in the document, and the pie chart divides it all up. There is also a table underneath it, so it spells it out in detail as well. Anybody who wants to look at this on the government Web site, they can click on Budget documents and find this chart. It tells you want percentage of government expenditures are spent on various things. So, if you wanted to know how much are we paying - I see the very avid interest of the former Auditor General here - how much are we paying in interest and debt charges? What percentage of our money? How much of every dollar do we have to spend to support the public debt? Anyone want to guess?

AN HON. MEMBER: Eighteen cents.

MR. HARRIS: The member says eighteen cents. Well, maybe it used to be eighteen cents one time, but it has not been eighteen cents since before 1989. My research only goes back that far. What it actually is, according to Budget 2005, 11.6 cents of every dollar in expenditure goes toward the public debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what it was when we took over from the Tories.

MR. HARRIS: No, it was more than that. It was more than that when the Liberals took over from the Tories in 1989and I can take you back each and every year. I have them all here, Mr. Chair. You know something about these Budgets? They seem to be all consistent, there is a consistency here. Every single Budget going back at least to 1989, Mr. Chairman, had an Exhibit VII, and each and every Budget told the public what percentage of government expenditures was going to pay debt and other charges, each and every year, Mr. Chairman.

My figures go back to 1989. This was when the Tories were defeated in 1989 and the Liberals of the day, under then Premier Clyde Wells, took over. They talked about what they inherited in debt, and all that.

Actually, in 1989, the actual figures for the percent of expenditures that went on the public debt, for each dollar spent,16.2 cents. That continued throughout most of the 1990s, Mr. Chairman. It was16.2 cents,16.3 cents,15.5 cents in 1992, a good year, I guess, I do not know. In 1993 it was16 cents. It remained 16 cents up until 1998 when we got to15.9 cents; in 1999,15.9 cents; in 2000,15.9 cents; in 2001 it was down to15.1 cents; in 2002, 14.4 cents; in 2003, the last year that the Liberals were in power, 14.4 cents.

What has happened, actually, Mr. Chairman, for the period 1989 to 2003 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Hold on.

From 1989 to 2003, the average was 15.7 cents, going back for the entire regime of the Liberal Party. After that, Mr. Chairman, for 2004, and now projected to 2005 - because I do not think we can give 2003, we cannot blame that on them, that was part of their debt - the year ending 2004 and the year ending 2005, 11.7 cents and 11.6 cents.

My point is this, Mr. Chairman: Are things getting worse? Are we, as the Premier said, wallowing in debt down here - wherever down here is. That is what the Premier has said to the national media, that we are wallowing in debt down here, and yet we are spending 11.6 cents on our debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) cash basis.

MR. HARRIS: Cash basis, whatever - interest cost is what we are talking about. Debt services and other charges, debt charges and other financial expenses, 11.6 cents. The actual cost, money put out - we will get to accrual later. I am sure the Member for Topsail will get up and give us a lecture on accounting in a few minutes, and she will tell us that when you hire a teacher today, Mr. Chairman, aged twenty-three, you have to add to your public debt because that teacher is going to rehire in thirty years and the pension fund is underfunded. She will tell us that.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the severance.

MR. HARRIS: And her severance and everything else. You have to pay that. If this teacher decides to continue with drugs, you have to add the cost of the government's contribution and pay interest on it, because you haven't put it in, pay interest on it for the next fifteen, twenty or thirty years. She will tell us all that.

If you want to know how much you have left in your pocket and pay on the public debt, I will tell you that it has gone down from 16.2 cents in 1989 to 11.6 cents today. If you go on the averages, it has gone down from 15.7 cents to 11.6 cents.

I don't know, Mr. Chairman, and I am not looking for whose fault that is or whether that is good or bad or indifferent. What I am saying is that we have a bit of a boogeyman out loose. There is a boogeyman out loose, the boogeyman of how we are wallowing in debt down here. I am not sure where up is. Whenever I look at a globe, Mr. Chairman, we are neither down nor up, we are kind of in the middle there. Up is the North Pole somewhere.

Mr. Chairman, we are not wallowing in debt. We have some long-term problems - and I see the former Auditor General, the Member for Topsail, nodding - and these are significant problems. There is no question about that, Mr. Chairman. I hope that this government is going to take some measures that will address these long-term problems because unfunded pension liability is such a problem, Mr. Chairman, and it has to be addressed. It was addressed very well, not quite perfectly but very well, in the last round. Not the one with the big long strike where people were ordered back to work, the one before that with a big short strike in 2001. The Public Service pension plan was just about fixed. One little thing needs to be done to fix it and that will be on track, Mr. Chairman. It will be fully funded and fully self-sufficient and nobody need worry about it, because it will be fixed.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, for just one minute?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, we do have other pension funds that need to be fixed, primarily the teachers' pension fund. I think anybody who has studied government finance and looks at the state of our pension funds will recognize that we have a significant unfunded liability in the Teachers' Pension Fund, and that needs to be fixed. There is some debate about how to fix it, some debate about whose fault it is, some debate about who has to come up with all the money and all that needs to be sorted out but it needs to be fixed for the long term, not all at once. We do not have to find $2 billion to throw into the pot. We have to have a long-term commitment of finding a way of putting extra money in so that it will be funded and that teachers will not be wondering whether they are going to get their pension and governments will not be wondering whether they are going to have their bond ratings lowered.

We do not have, Mr. Chairman, excruciating problems that should cause us all to wring our hands on a daily basis and say we cannot afford to do anything. The reality is that the Province's finances are in fairly reasonable shape, otherwise we would not have been maintaining the highest credit rating that we have had in the Province's history. It would be going down, down, down. Now, members opposite might want to take credit for that. They can if they wish, but we are not in a desperate financial situation. We have some long-term problems that need long-term solutions. It doesn't really matter to me whether this particular debt is paid off or some other debt is paid off. The reality is that this Province - last year the Minister of Finance came to this House and said he was going to have a $362 million cash deficit. In fact, as of March 31, he is in a position of having had, without this expenditure on the public debt, a $103 million surplus; a difference of $475 million. I project that this time next year, the so-called $62 million projected cash deficit is going to also turn into another significant surplus and we expect that this government should be doing much better in terms of programs than the offerings that were put on the Table in the House of Assembly when the Budget was brought down this week.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to stand today for a few minutes on Bill 3 and to make some commentary with respect to An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, certainly spoke in an introductory way to give, I guess, meaning and background as to why it is critical - and as my colleague, the Government House Leader - that this particular piece of legislation be passed prior to the end of this month. As we all know, being a financial bill, it gives all members some breath, I guess, and some flexibility in terms of the few comments that he or she may wish to make.

I would like to speak briefly, and it relates in a way, I guess, to a question that was raised in the House yesterday by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi on the FMM funding and the Accord funding that First Ministers signed back in September of 2004 when all First Ministers, along with the Prime Minister of this country, on a two or three day summit in Ottawa, entered into an accord with respect to the future of health in this country and what that means for each provincial jurisdiction.

You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that earlier today in the Speaker's gallery we had with us, as an observer, the Minister of Health for the Province of Ontario, Mr. Smitherman. I spoke with him before he left and felt comforted that he enjoyed the legislative experience here in the Province during Question Period. In fact, he had to leave.

MR. REID: We always try to put on our best show.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: He could not stay for the entire day, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. He had to leave for a flight back to Ontario. During a meeting with him this morning it was interesting to note that the very first issue that was raised by the Minister of Health for the largest province in this country, was the issue of FMM funding and what it means in terms of wait times and wait lists. It is interesting to note, as well, Mr. Chairman, that here is the Minister of Health, in what is the largest provincial jurisdiction in this country, talking about wait times and wait lists in his own particular jurisdiction.

I remember attending a federal-provincial territorial meeting of health ministers shortly after I became Minister of Health in our Province, and even in wealthy Alberta, Mr. Chairman, the issue that was front and center to the provincial Minister of Health in the Province of Alberta was the issue of wait times and wait lists. So, what we see and what we learn and what we easily glean from inter-jurisdictional discussions and consultations, is the fact that across this entire country what is first and foremost to all Canadians, regardless of the provincial jurisdiction where a particular person may live, what is first and foremost is the issue of wait times and wait lists. That was clearly identified and recognized by all provincial ministers, or all provincial premiers. Our Premier, having signed that particular Accord, joined with his provincial counterparts and the Prime Minister of this country in recognizing and identifying wait times as priority number one.

Mr. Chairman, the fact that this is recognized by all provincial Ministers of Health and was indeed recognized in this Province in the Budget a few days ago, is an acknowledgment of the fact that the people indeed in our own Province want to reduce the amount of time that he or she must wait for diagnostic testing. I feel quite confident in saying, Mr. Chairman, that in what was announced a few days ago, this government was successful in doing that. It invested millions upon millions of public funds to ensure that the people of this Province would have a reduction in the amount of time that he or she must wait for a diagnostic test that may be required and requested by an individual's physician.

I would like to give you just a few examples of what we were able to accomplish. For example, the Health Sciences Centre, an MRI unit. That will allow an additional 2,500 examinations and will reduce - it is expected - the wait time from twelve months to eight months. Also at the Health Sciences, two CT scanners, additional services resulting in some 4,000 examinations and will reduce the wait time from five weeks to less than two weeks.

Mr. Chairman, also at the Health Sciences Centre, three nuclear medicine gamma cameras. A further 1,000 examinations will be made available because of that particular investment and would reduce the wait time from three to six months, to less than three to four months.

Further, in Carbonear, Carbonear General Hospital, one ultrasound unit. A further 2,600 examinations and again, will reduce the wait time from six weeks to less than three weeks.

Again, at the Health Sciences, two ultrasound units. A further 12,000 examinations and a reduction again in wait time from twenty-one weeks to seven weeks. Again, at the Health Sciences Centre in St. John's, Mr. Chairman, two mammography units, a further additional 3,000 examinations, and again reducing wait times from six months to less than four months. These are just a few of the examples and a few of the investments, Mr. Chairman, that we see within the eastern region of the Province.

One particular announcement - and this, of course, will affect many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - is with respect to vision restoration. Those individuals who suffer from a condition known as macular degeneration will now have a Visudyne treatment, additional services of between 150 and 200 patients. Again, it would obviously be of benefit to those individuals suffering from that particular disorder.

Also, Mr. Chairman, there were advances made in areas of joint replacement, cancer and cardiac surgery; again, investments made to ensure that there was a reduction in wait times for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who need to - or who, obviously, for severe medical reasons - be the recipient of that particular medical service.

Mr. Chairman, the central area, the new Central Regional Health Authority, we see investments in the James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander, cardiac profusion testing and bone scans, resulting in an additional 300 examinations; again, a significant reduction in wait time.

Again, at the hospital in Gander, a mammography unit resulting in between 4,000 and 5,000 additional examinations, reducing the wait time from four months to two months. Again, in Gander, an endoscopy unit, 1,000 examinations, reducing the wait time from three months to less than six weeks.

We have mammography investment in Grand Falls-Windsor, endoscopy investment in Grand Falls-Windsor, again a reduction in wait time in allowing these additional services. That is in the central region of the Province.

We have similar examples in the western region, I say to the hon. Member from Bay of Islands. This is his area, and I say to the hon. Member from the Bay of Islands he should listen to this for a moment because it is significant to the very people he represents. We have a further endoscopy unit, we have a nuclear medicine gamma camera, an ultrasound unit, a laparoscopic system. Again, these are investments into the health care needs of those individuals who live in the western region of our Province.

The Labrador-Grenfell Regional Integrated Health Care Authority, an ultrasound unit in Labrador City. Mr. Chairman, again, these are examples of the nature of investments that this government is prepared to reflect, I guess, what has been identified as a number one priority not only in this Province but, as I mentioned earlier, a number one priority as identified by all First Ministers across this entire country.

Mr. Chairman, in the identification of these priorities, it is incumbent on governments, regardless of where they may be, to reflect this identification -

MADAM CHAIR (S. Osborne): Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - to ensure that the interests of Canadians, in this case the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services that his time has expired.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will conclude.

Again, what we have here is evidence of the fact that, along with other Canadian jurisdictions, we too have recognized the need to improve wait times, to improve wait lists. This has been done by identifying the number one priority, as was identified by the Premier and his counterparts during the September Health Accord.

Madam Chair, I will have an opportunity to speak further with respect to other advances and to other identified priorities as we continue in this debate.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to have a few words on the bill that we are talking about today. I guess in any situation, any group of people that get elected and form government and form a Cabinet, when you bring down a Budget it is all about choices. The choices that any government will bring down will determine, really, the government's priority, where they stand in terms of economic development, where they stand on social programs, and the whole gamut, I guess, whether to the left or to the right, the far right or far left. or the happy medium just to the left or to the right.

Madam Chair, what I see here, the choices that the government made, I am not saying they are good or bad. I will let the people of the Province decide that. No doubt, as the Minister of Health just said, there are some things in the Budget that will benefit different areas of the Province, and anybody who has gone through that will recognize that, but I think, though, when you sit back and really analyze and really look at it, you will see that a lot of the funding for the Department of Health is skewed in two regions. Make no wonder that when the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board went to Corner Brook yesterday he got a standing ovation even before he started, and one after. It is quite obvious. I mean, a lot of the things in the Budget are for the West Coast city. It is the same thing for the City of St. John's and the eastern region. I realize that the largest portion of the Newfoundland population is on the Avalon. Everybody realizes that. That is a fact of life, and nothing can change that, but there are other areas of the Province where people live and they are not in large numbers, but they live there. They have decided to call it their home and, while they live there, there have to be facilities that have to be provided to them. I am telling you, from all indications, and you listen to Open Line, you listen to the media and so on, people on the Burin Peninsula are not jumping up and down at some of the things that are in the Budget. People in Grand Falls-Windsor are not doing that. People in Labrador are not doing that.

I saw a press release, and it would be good for people to see the press release that the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay released yesterday. It was not a good release as far as the government is concerned.

I talked about choices, and I want to deal with a couple of choices, because one of the situations we heard a lot about this week is the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. I could not believe, Madam Chair, when I saw the pictures from Grand Falls-Windsor a few days ago, and some of the people who were there. One of the guys I saw in that particular picture was a guy, a good personal friend of mine, and I did not know he was at the hospital. I had taught at Point Leamington for twenty years, and the guy who was there taking treatment was one of the guys who was a close friend of mine. He worked in health care, and here he was in the Grand Falls cancer clinic, getting treatment. Another guy that I recognized there was a guy who owns the Badger training school in Badger. During the situation that we had in Badger, I knew him very well because we stayed at his facility. He did have problems then with his health, and I know that they are compounded even more now.

It is about choices. When you look at the people of the Grand Falls-Windsor area - and, you know, it is not just the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor. It is all the areas. It is the area that I represent, it is the area of Baie Verte, it is Springdale and it is Lewisporte. It is the whole central area, and that whole catchment area is probably close to 100,000 people. They were looking for and anticipating having a cancer clinic for that particular area.

Now, I said it is about choices. Let me give you one choice that the government decided. Government - I say Cabinet, because I have been elected for I think it is sixteen years but I only served as a Cabinet minister for six. In the back bench you have some particular say in what happens, but it is really when you get into Cabinet that you make decisions. Then, in the Budget, it is not the whole of Cabinet. In some instances it is very few of Cabinet, so people who have been there understand that.

One of the choices that they made was a $1.3 million sports facility that the government has agreed to put up for the City of St. John's on the eastern part of the Province - $1.3 million. One of the groups of people who will benefit most from that decision, by the way, is a rugby group. I would venture to say that if you left the City of St. John's, went into the rural parts of the Province and talked about it, not half of the people, not 60 per cent or probably 70 per cent would have any idea about rugby. Now, I am not saying it is not needed for these people, but it is for a small select group. I am not saying that they should not have it, but it was a matter of priorities. This government decided that they were going to put that $1.3 million toward that facility rather than putting it for the cancer unit in Grand Falls-Windsor. To me, personally, I think that is wrong, but I never made the decision. The decision that I would make is quite different from what somebody else would make, but for me, personally, I think there is something wrong with that.

Also, in the Budget there was another situation where $400,000 was allocated in Corner Brook for a new courthouse. Now probably the minister never said it, but it was in the paper. I read it, and he said there is $400,000 but that particular facility might not be built for the next ten to twenty years. Now, if you are going to put $400,000 into planning for a project that is not going to be done for the next ten or twenty years, tell me, wouldn't that have been better, for example, in the area that I represent in St. Alban's, Bay d'Espoir where we have a clinic? Robert Thompson, when he was the Deputy Minister of Health, went with me to Bay d'Espoir to see it. I am telling you, it is not a pretty picture. It is dilapidated. It is small. It is antiquated. There is no privacy, and the people in Bay d'Espoir are not going to move out.

The ironical thing about it is that we would have had that clinic done today, but as I said in the House a couple of times before, the architect and engineer, a young man, had an aneurism and passed away. By the time we had somebody else to take it, there was over a month that had elapsed. As a result, tenders were called but they were never awarded. For me, it was not a political project. It was a project that was badly needed.

Those of you who have been here over the years, like I have in the Legislature, you know how contentious things were in Bay d'Espoir over the school system where one community was against the other. Really, they had no time for each other because each one of them wanted an educational facility, and there is still a bit of a problem with that. Everybody, from Conne River to Morrisville to St. Alban's and everywhere in between, agreed that they needed that particular facility in Bay d'Espoir. We were hoping and praying that this year we would have gotten it, but we did not. We did not get that. That is another decision that the government made, a choice that they made, and obviously they have to live with that.

There are other choices. When you talk about, for example, the bill that we have in front of us here now, the $117 million to pay for The Rooms and to pay for educational facilities, new schools, new roofs and so on that had been there.

There was another thing that the government could have done with that particular amount of money and could have achieved the same in the long-run if they wanted to. They could have paid off every health care board debt in the Province. They could have done that. They could have left the health care boards debt free and could have given them a new start. They would not have to have the Hay report and where they were gong to cut services and so on. It would give the new boards coming into place an opportunity to start afresh and they would not have to go back and cut services and minimize services, which is happening in the Province because they have to pay back that $120 million over the next number of years. That is where a government would have shown compassion for people who are in the health care. There is no doubt about it, health care is number one, not only in this Province but also in every other province of Canada.

I just heard the minister talk about the wait list. For the six years that I had an opportunity to be a part of government, the health care budget in this Province went from $890 million to $1.5 billion. We increased it over $500 million over six years. We never had the money to be able to do that, but because we had concerns about - that were out there, for people who live in areas and you in bring services. There are two philosophies, Madam Chair, that are in government, and obviously all of us understand: We either bring services to people or we bring people to services.

I think about a situation that happened last year with the social services or HRE office in Burgeo. That particular office served the people of the area that I represent, Grey River and François, two isolated communities on the South Coast, and Ramea. What happened? The office closed. Where do the people of François and Grey River have to go now? A three-hour boat ride to Burgeo and then a three-hour taxi ride into Stephenville to get the service. That is what happened. This is a different philosophy, where you bring people to the services or services to people.

I remember, going back last year when they were talking about it, the insensitivity of it. The words, I think, said were: These people in the small communities, they all have the Internet. They all have telephones, and if they don't have that then they can go into a phone booth and complete the application. There was not much to it. Well, that is the insensitivity. People live in those communities and people are there, and until such time as they decide that they do not want the services anymore, they are going to be there. That is the type of thing that we talk about, making choices.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I heard yesterday - talking about choices - about giving the new board a chance in the Central region so that they can probably come with a new plan. Do you know what? The guy who headed up the Central West Health Foundation in Central Newfoundland was probably unequal among his peers in the Province, Don Keats. Don would have easily - and the government would have probably offered, and did offer, him the job. I have not talked to the man. He ran the board in a great way. They were dedicated people. The Member for Windsor-Springdale would have known what type of people they were.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. LANGDON: I know people from my own area. I think of the people who were on the board -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune that his speaking time has expired.

MR. LANGDON: I will just have one minute to clue it up and I will come back, Madam Chair.

I think of the guy from my area, Albert Loveless, who served on the board for years, a dedicated person. He is not there on the board now. I think of Shirley Ingram who works in the seniors' home in St. Alban's. I think of Marie Ingram who was a teacher there. They have all been replaced by a lady out of St. Alban's, Liz Barrow. She is a good person too but she won't do a better job than these other people did. She won't find any different needs in St. Alban's. She won't find any different needs in Grand Falls-Windsor for a cancer clinic than what are there now. The need is there.

That is the type of thing - when I think, in this particular case, of the choices that were made, I am sure if the government had its time back they would have reconsidered. I am telling you, it is not only Grand Falls-Windsor it has galvanized the whole Province, just as it has galvanized in Labrador, the thing for the Mealy Mountains auditorium. I am telling you, that is a question for them. We talk about why Labrador feels alienated, when they have been told they can only have one rather than two particular things, like the long-term seniors' care home or the Mealy Mountains auditorium. I could go on and talk about other choices, but I won't. I can talk about one more choice, and I probably haven't had an opportunity to do that.

I got a fax where this person said: I qualify for a $100 a month government grant, because the amount I pay in the personal care home leaves me only $65. Got a letter back from the Department of Health which says: Yes, you do qualify, you are on the list, but we have no money. It is a choice. Probably it would have been $100 million here that would have been able to fix a lot of other things that didn't occur. It is a matter of choice, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the people on the other side for giving me leave for a moment or so to clue it up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is a pleasure for me, it is an honour for me, as the Member of the House of Assembly for the wonderful District of Humber East, to stand here today and to speak in this debate involving the Budget and the Budget policy of the government.

I think, from the point of view of the people of the City of Corner Brook and the people of Humber East, they recognize that this Budget was a Budget that righted a lot of wrongs.

Under previous governments, the people of Western Newfoundland have, in fact, been neglected. They have, in fact, been forgotten, and they, in fact, have not been cared for; and this government under the leadership of Premier Williams, under the leadership of the Minister of Finance, this government has righted a lot of wrongs dealing with Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Madam Chair, no fair-minded person would have any objections to the fact that the government would put additional funding into the long-term care facility for Corner Brook. Anybody who has viewed those facilities will know they are in deplorable condition, and no one on either side of the House would say anything against any government for putting money into the long-term care needs of the City of Corner Brook.

I am delighted that this government sees - does the planning and sees - the need for long-term care facilities not just in Corner Brook but also in Clarenville and also in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and the government should be congratulated for that.

The hospital in Corner Brook, the Western Regional Hospital, is a regional hospital centre and provides secondary services - well, primary services, of course, but secondary services - to people throughout Western Newfoundland and Central Newfoundland, so there was a great need for new hospital equipment.

The doctors in the City of Corner Brook, the doctors in Western Newfoundland, have asked this government on numerous occasions, and asked the previous government on numerous occasions, to provide additional health equipment, additional diagnostic tools, in order to provide better health care for the people, not just for the people of Corner Brook but the people of all of Western Newfoundland. I am delighted that the government, that this government, recognizing the needs of Western Newfoundland, provided an MRI machine to serve all people in this Province, especially the people in Western and Central Newfoundland, and to reduce wait times, and they are to be congratulated for that.

There is new ultrasound equipment. There will be a new nuclear medicine gamma camera in Corner Brook, as the Minister of Health previously mentioned. There will be a new endoscopy unit, which was requested by Dr. Tavenor and a team of doctors. There will be new laparoscopic equipment, and I know the Member for Bay of Islands wants to stand in his chair in this House here today and cheer this government for what this government is doing to help the health care needs of the people of the West Coast of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Education is also important. No fair-minded person in this Province would object to $1 going into the redevelopment of Herdman Collegiate in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: This high school was identified by the Department of Education for many years as the high school in the worst shape of any high school in Newfoundland. Finally, after talk, after years of talk, after years of neglect, after years of doing nothing, this government has come through and will finally provide the funding to allow the redevelopment of Herdman Collegiate which is certainly needed to proceed.

There will be a new gym built. The current gym will be developed into a music room, a large music room, because the band at Herdman is probably the largest band in Newfoundland and Labrador, and when the two schools are combined, when the band from Regina comes up as well, this will provide a wonderful facility for the students. It will the high school for the next fifty years for the people of Western Newfoundland, for the students of Western Newfoundland. It is well overdue and I am delighted that this government decided to do that.

Even more exciting, Madam Chair, is the fact that once again, after years of talk, this government has provided funding to establish, finally, the Centre of Excellence in Applied Environmental Research and Development for Western Newfoundland. When people talk about the Centre of Excellence, what we are really talking about is an economic development policy for the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that will be centered in Corner Brook. This is about jobs. This is about bringing activity outside of the Northeast Avalon and spreading it around to the rest of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This policy consists of a number of pillars, most of which have been addressed in this particular Budget. There is the attraction of research and development. There are additional funds for the Sir Wilfred Grenfell College, or the Corner Brook Campus of Memorial University of Newfoundland as it should be known, to enable that campus, the College of the North Atlantic, the Corner Brook Campus of the North Atlantic, to lead this modern initiative to establish Western Newfoundland as a world leader, an international leader, in applied environmental research and development.

We talk about research and development because, if we have the students and if we have the professors in Corner Brook doing the research and development, if we have also the students who are trained in business programs - I understand the Grenfell College wants to offer a new business degree programs, new programs in sustainable tourism, new programs in natural resource management, so that, if through the research and development we have the scientists doing the research and development, new technologies will be developed. Then, if our students can take those new technologies and create new businesses, if they can commercialize the R&D as it is known, then that means jobs, and it means jobs based on the knowledge of the economy. It means jobs for our many students, whom we raise and who go into debt because they have to pay a lot of money to get their education; and they have to go away to Alberta and to Ontario. We will now provide jobs so they can obtain employment here at home and they can return, which we know they want to do.

The biodiversity unit at Grenfell College has finally be funded. That was an initiative announced by the previous government. They announced it but they did not fund it, and they did not provide the human resources. I am delighted that this government has seen the importance of that institute, two whole centers of excellence concept, and agreed to fund it. Budget 2005 provided $300,000 for the Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Science in Corner Brook. Government is committed to this initiative. It would be instrumental to help us build on our research efforts to ensure the wise use and conservation of our natural resources and heritage. Funding is a demonstration of leadership in ensuring and enhancing the natural resources and research programs in our Province. The institute will work cooperatively with the academic community of the College of the North Atlantic and at Memorial University on various research initiatives.

Activities at the institute, through the partnerships with MUN, with students and other academic researchers, will help broaden our knowledge and research capacity to ensure prudent wildlife and natural heritage management decisions.

In addition, Madam Chair, there are additional pillars planned to help enhance what is known as the Centre of Excellence. There will be Gateway West opened recently. Hopefully Genesis will be there to help mentor these new students, these researchers who are creating new business ideas, and measure them with other Newfoundlanders who happen to be working in industry and in business throughout the world. That is very important, because it is very important to provide incubation facilities to enable these new businesses, which will create new jobs, to nurture and grow. That is very important for all of us.

Madam Chair, in addition, it should be noted that a number of radiologists in the Corner Brook area for years have appealed for the PAC System. I am pleased that in the Budget this year funding was provided so that Labrador and Western Newfoundland would receive a total of $4 million to expand this system. It is called the Picture Archiving Communication System, known as PACS. This will provide rural remote areas greater access to radiology services. It will allow health authorities in Labrador and in Western Newfoundland to install the PAC System so the entire Province will share similar diagnostic imaging technology. It will also enhance several current installations in other regions.

I heard from parents at the Pasadena Elementary School in Pasadena who had concerns about teaching positions coming out of the system, so I was pleased that the Budget provided that an additional seventy-five teachers would be employed throughout the system. This will certainly help smaller class sizes. There is money for new school buses in addition.

Madam Chair, also there will be funding for the Film Development Corporation. There will be tax credits provided to that body. Of course, it is in the City of Corner Brook that the studio, the film studio-

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Madam Chair, I know I am running out of time.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: I will just clue up.

There is money in the Budget for courthouse planning. One of the hon. members opposite talked about the fact that it was a shame that there was $400,000 in the Budget for planning for a courthouse for Corner Brook. I think the hon. Member for Burin also indicated that should have gone into health care. Well, I just want to say that the new Supreme Court in Happy Valley-Goose Bay was planned by this government and it was constructed by this government. They put $2 million into that facility. That was last year. If it was incorrect to put money into Corner Brook it was equally incorrect to put money into Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

The courts are needed. Courts provide a very important role in our society. We ask our judges to play an extremely important role in our society. The courts of the future are needed and we have to look at that as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few comments on this debate today concerning Supplementary Supply.

First of all, a point of clarification for the Member for Humber East, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. It is always important that one get his facts straight. I noticed that he ended off his comments here about $400,000 being committed to studying, doing a plan for a combined Supreme Court, Provincial Court in Corner Brook. He made a comment that his government did the courthouse in Goose Bay. Fact, wrong. That is not true. The former Administration committed to going ahead with the courthouse in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I say to the minister-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: If the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile is going to quote me, please do it correctly.

I did, in fact, say that it was the former government that planned and started the construction of the courthouse in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and that was exactly my point. If there is money needed for health care in Grand Falls right now, or in Burin right now, it was needed last year and it was needed the year before. That government spent money on a courthouse because courthouses are needed, and one is needed in Western Newfoundland as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the minister taking my time to correct his statement, but there is a difference between what happened in Goose Bay and what is happening in Corner Brook. In Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the plan was done, the plan came in, and the place was built. This minister who is used to telling us over here to stay tuned, there is a big difference in what he announced. He announced in this Budget, $400,000 to do a plan, in one breath, and in the second breath he turned around and said, but we probably will not get it for ten or twenty years.

That is a big difference between what happened in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. There is usually a connection between the plan and the implementation. I say to this minister, get your facts straight. Do not waste the money.

This Budget, Madam Chair, is supposed to be, according to the government, about balance, balancing their fiscal possibilities with their social responsibilities. I say to the Minister of Justice, I have no problem with the good things that he pointed out that are going to be done in Corner Brook and for Western Newfoundland, particularly from a health care point of view, but you have to tell it like it is. You just cannot sugar-coat the whole thing.

I say to the minister, you ought to be ashamed. Get your priorities right. If you are going to sit around a Cabinet table and agree to spend $400,000 to plan a building that you know will not be built for ten years, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: We have a need in this Province. What about the Alzheimer patients who did not get their drug coverage? I say to the minister, you sat around the Cabinet table. You should have exercised a bit more common sense and said, we will do the plan when we are in a position to build, and give consideration to those other needs that we have in this Province, I say to the Minister of Justice. That is where priorities ought to come in.

I also asked the question, Madam Chair - the Budget. The Minister of Finance got up here today and said: We couldn't say last fall what we were going to do about some of the health care monies because we did not have them back last year, but we did know some of the things. We knew the money was coming, so we could put it in the envelope and, even though we do not have all of the money now, we could put it in the envelope and deal with it in the Budget. That is what he told us here today.

I notice in the Budget document that was tabled here this Monday past, on page XIV, it is noted as, it talks about money coming from the Atlantic Accord. It talks about money coming from the arrangement on offshore resources totalling $188 million. I notice it also talks in the Budget document about interest income, $45 million coming from the Atlantic Accord. So we have over $200 million that the Minister of Finance has put into the envelope in this Budget that we could spend this year, 2005-2006. Nowhere in this Budget document do we see anything about the $2 billion that we were supposed to get. We had a big celebration on January 28 - $2 billion. Now, where is the money? There used to be an old saying: Where is the beef? I say: Where is the money?

I would think that you would feel pretty confident about the deal that you signed on January 28, to put it in the envelope. There is no indication in here. I have not heard anybody asking in this Province. We know there are lots of expectations. Cancer treatment centres for Central, CAT scan facilities and machinery for the Burin Peninsula - cannot do it, did not have enough money, do not know where the money is going to come from, cannot pay for all of the demands that are there.

I invite the government members, particularly the backbenchers who probably did not sit around the Cabinet table and have this explained to them about what is in here, and have been left to their own devices and minds to find what is in here - ask yourself, I say to the Member for Windsor-Springdale, the money that is needed for the cancer clinic in your area, where is the $2 billion that we are getting from Ottawa this year? How come there is not enough money from that put in here to say you are going to do the cancer treatment facility?

We talk about balance. We hear the Minister of Finance up here two or three days in a row talking about two or three or four sets of books, hiding - openness and transparency. I say to the minister: Why don't you be open? Why don't you be transparent? Why don't you come clean with the people of this Province, and tell us where the $2 billion is in this document that you delivered here on Monday?

AN HON. MEMBER: Haven't got it yet.

MR. PARSONS: Haven't got it, so we can't talk about it.

He can find it convenient to put interest in here. He can find it convenient to put the other monies in here coming from offshore oil because of the January 28 arrangements, but can't say what is going to happen to the cheque. We will deal with that later.

This is a cushy, cushy plan. I call it the four t's. The first year we trash you, like they did last year. We trashed you last year. This year we will tickle you. We will give you a little sprinkling of what we would like to see done in this Province. We will tickle you this year. That is the four t's. Then probably they will do a little bit more tickling in year three, but, I will guarantee you, the people of this Province are going to get treated in the year 2007. We will trash you first, we will treat you a little bit, tickle you this year, do the tickling again in year three, but then in year four we will really treat you because that is an election year, 2007.

I ask the question: Is it fair of this government, or any government, to hold the $2 billion when there are so many needs and expectations of the people of this Province, to hold it because you want to give a treat in an election year, three years out, rather than do what is right and honourable now?

Talk about openness and transparency again. We did not increase any fees or taxes in this Province, only did one. We put a cent on cigarettes and so much on tobacco. It is the only one we did. The Minister of Finance says, we only did one, one tax.

Well, I ask the minister again, I see we had tabled here in this House that we are going to be asked to vote on, this session, it says: We are looking for a pre-commitment of funds - everybody just listen for a second - we are looking for a pre-commitment, to pre-commit funds of $844,000 in 2005-2006 and $2 million-plus in 2006-2007 to enhance the Companies and Deeds Online system - a great, great goal because it helps a lot of people - but then it goes on to say: to be offset by an increased service charge for the registration of deeds and the introduction of a new Internet searching fee.

Now, that is really open and that is really accountable, to say we did not up anybody's taxes but we are going to ask you to give us $2 million to improve the Registry of Companies and Deeds Online; but, tickle, tickle, we did not tell you that we are going to increase the registration cost for you people.

Now, I do not know what you call that. It is certainly not openness and accountability in my books, not by a long shot. There is balance alright, but if you expect people to believe what you are doing, and trust what you are doing, you have to apply a little bit of common sense, and I would suggest your priorities are out of whack.

Yes, there are some good things in the Budget. Give credit where credit is due. Anything that reduces wait times in this Province, great stuff, but the problem that people in this Province are having is with your other priorities. Culture is a great thing, recreation is a great thing, no doubt, but two of the biggest pieces missing here are, 145 teachers that are gone -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to clue up. In summary, and I think I have made it quite clear in my commentary here, this government - albeit, the Budget did a few good things and that is to be commended. The priorities are wrong. The priorities were screwed up. When you put planning - like I said in the case of Corner Brook - for things that are going to happen ten years out versus the health, security, safety and education of our people today, somebody has missed the boat.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am delighted to rise today to have a couple of words on Bill 3 and on the general budgetary policies and some specific measures that will be outlined, or have been outlined, by this government.

Madam Chair, despite the protestations from the other side of the House, I was proud, on Budget Day, to hear the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board say that last year's deficit of $840 million has been reduced to some $473 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Had we carried on the path that we were on - it is frightening to think, Madam Chair, this Province was on a path whereby almost $1 billion would have been added annually to an already accumulated debt of $11 billion.

Madam Chair, you might say that we were like people with a credit card, we were spending and spending and spending without any realization that at the end of the month, at the end of the duration, the credit card statement would arrive and that we would have, in fact, to pay up on what we had spent. We were spending money we did not have. Almost 20 per cent, or 25 per cent of our expenditures would have been allotted to pay just the interest that would have accumulated on our credit card statement. Who in their right mind, Madam Chair, what household, assuming that you are taking in, perhaps, $20,000 coming into your household -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the member.

MR. RIDGLEY: - what household would want to know that about $4,000 to $5,000 of your household income would have to be spent simply to pay Mr. Visa or Mr. MasterCard, just to pay the interest on your credit card bill, Madam Chair? This would be painful, indeed, but when you realize that having spent almost 20 per cent to 25 per cent of your household income, you are making actually no progress in terms of getting rid of the bill that you have. As a matter of fact, the pain would have been worse because not only were you not reducing it, but, in fact, your credit card statement was increasing because, of course, you had to continue to spend and upwards your accumulated debt would go.

MR. BARRETT: Can you table that speech so that we could all read it?

MR. RIDGLEY: I would, indeed, table it for the Member for Bellevue, assuming that he was able to read it and that he could understand it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: From there on in, Madam Chair, the picture gets a little bit more depressing because, of course, we all know that interest charges would become overwhelming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the member speak. I wonder if you could keep quiet.

MR. RIDGLEY: Madam Chair, what we have demonstrated in this Budget is that in the first seventeen months of our office this government has not only been able to halt the downward spiral, we have actually put the Province on a path towards recovery. We have turned the corner and we have started our way back to a position of strength, a position of independence, and a position of stability. This is a marvelous achievement in such a short time and it is due, in no small measure, to the efforts of the Premier and the Minister of Finance who made the people of the Province believe that we did, in fact, deserve a greater place at the table of Confederation. They made us believe that we deserved more than crumbs, that we deserved to be at the table having a full meal.

Then, with the people of the Province solidly behind them, the Premier went to Ottawa and, I will say, extracted a new Atlantic Accord deal. There are those who, for political motives or otherwise, would see this in a different light. I refer, in particular, to the hon. Leader of the Opposition who I heard the other evening say that all these good things happened because of, and let me quote here: forces external to this government. It had nothing to do with this crew; and this crew being our government. Forces external to this government, Madam Chair, caused all the goods things that are happening.

Just yesterday in a speech in this hon. House of Assembly, the hon. the Government House Leader stated that it was, in fact, the Liberal government who promised it and the Liberal government who delivered it. Indeed that is the truth, but that is a blind denial of everything that went on in the previous six or eight months, where this government, under a strong leadership, and again I say the Premier and the Minister of Finance, went and extracted - this was not willingly given, this was fought for and backed up by the people of this Province.

To add to that fact, Madam Chair, and the difference of opinion in this Province, just recently about 84 per cent of the people in the Province said that they believe otherwise. They believe in this government. They recognize and endorse the efforts that have been made. That was 84 per cent, just in case some did not hear it.

Madam Chair, even though we have turned the corner as a government we have a responsibility to spend the people's money wisely. There are many problems that exist and these did not happen in a year or two. They happened over time.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible), boy. You are up that far, the oxygen is gone out of your brain.

MR. RIDGLEY: I say again to the Member of Bellevue, at least I do have one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDGLEY: Madam Chair, the position that we are in is the consequence of poor decision-making. When I was in my former profession of educating there were always troublemakers and rabble-rousers in the class, and I see that perhaps in an earlier life the hon. the Member for Bellevue may very well have been one of those.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: He is following along with, I believe it is called the Peter Principle. He has reached the level of his own incompetence.

Madam Chair, all these problems will not be fixed overnight. They will not even be fixed in one year. I think that this Budget is a good step forward. It is a budget that strikes a good balance between fiscal responsibility and social responsibility.

It is true, indeed, that in Bill 3 we are, in fact, going to pay down some $117 million towards the provincial debt, and some of the hon. colleagues across the House will disagree with that. They will say, why didn't we put aside from that $117 million some $3 million or $4 million for this? Why didn't we put aside another $4 or $5 million for that? The fact is that this Budget allows for expenditures of approximately $5.5 billion, a substantial increase over last year. Madam Chair, obviously it is impossible to satisfy every need however legitimate that need might be.

This is just our second Budget and we have, in fact, made a great stride forward. It will take time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: I can think, Madam Chair, in my own district - and I thank the hon. Member for Bellevue for reminding me of this, of the Leary's Brook School. It was not included as a line item in the Budget but it is under, I am pleased to say, active consideration. With the cooperation of the Premier and the hon. Minister of Education, I look forward to a successful conclusion on that matter.

Madam Chair, in my district where there is a lot of social housing we have a great need for affordable housing. Back a couple of years ago, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation reported that they needed some $80 million to do repairs, maintenance and to modernize their units. This is another great need.

If we were to listen to some of the words of some of the members on the other side of the House, Madam Chair, we might believe that we over here are the Scrooges, we are the grinches, and that they are the saviours and the providers for the people of this Province.

This seemed to be, Madam Chair, a common theme throughout the last sitting of the House of Assembly. I went back and just plucked out one of the Hansards from December 16 of last year, and the common theme was that this government was focused very much on only one thing and that is the bottom line. I quote from a speech by the hon. Leader of the Opposition where he led the charge that day by saying that it is "...money first, people second". He was followed then by the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, who pontificated, and I quote from Hansard -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. RIDGLEY: By leave, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: Leave has been denied.

MR. RIDGLEY: I thank them for their leave, Madam Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MADAM CHAIR: No, leave has not been granted.

MR. RIDGLEY: Leave has not been granted.

I will get another occasion, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

As always, I appreciate hearing from members opposite who speak infrequently in this House. It is always very telling, as we found out yesterday, when they do make some comments, that they finally put on the public record some of the things they feel are important, some of the things they really believe in. It is great to know that the Member for St. John's North thinks the greatest contribution he can make in the Legislature is to make fun of the educational abilities of members in the House, who might be from rural areas, and that members opposite share great glee in that. A very sad commentary, Madam Chair, a very sad commentary, that they would laugh raucously over that, when people stand up in the Legislature and try to insult the members who were sent here by their constituents who happen to think these members are pretty decent people.

Madam Chair, let me get back to the bill that is before us. We have the circumstance of a government, and the Minister of Finance trying to talk about different sets of books and all kinds of really non-consequential issues that he brings into the debate. The fundamental issue is this: The government members, in the next little while, in the next ten or fifteen minutes or so, will vote, to a person, I will predict, Madam Chair, including the Member for Windsor-Springdale, including the Member for Burin-Placentia West, including the Member for Lake Melville, they will vote to a person - and we will have a divided vote to find out who does what, so it is on the record. People won't be able to weasel out and suggest, as I have heard about some other things that: Oh, no, they really support something else, they were not really for that. We will find out because we will stand up and have our names recorded.

Madam Chair, we are going to vote against a bill, and I think I can speak for all of this Liberal Caucus, we are going to vote against a bill that fabricates a cash deficit of $14 million, instead of acknowledging and admitting that because of circumstances that largely, as I said before - I agree, and I am glad to hear the Member for St. John's North listened to what I said - had very little if anything at all to do with the plan of this government, which saw retail sales decline and 2,600 people leave the Province. That is what happened because of actions they took. Because of high oil prices and a new equalization agreement and a new Health Accord and additional monies that largely came from the federal treasury, we have a surplus in cash of $103 million. This group will vote in a few minutes to try to make the people of Newfoundland and Labrador believe that surplus is not a surplus at all, that the cash doesn't exist. They are going to make it disappear.

The Minister of Finance says, oh, no, but you can't have three or four sets of books. Well, the members opposite don't even know this, because they listen blindly to the couple of people who speak for them. They just listen and carry on as if it is true. The money for The Rooms, the debt associated with The Rooms, the debt associated with building the schools, which is what they want to pay off here today and create a deficit of $14 million - they want to take the cash and pay off the debt - it is on the same page in the same book as the debt associated with Hydro, as the debt associated with the hospital boards, as the debt associated with the school boards. There is no hiding it. If they take the time to look in their own documents, it is all on the same page in the same book. It does not matter, everybody in the Province can look at the same page in the Budget and see what the debt of the Province is totally, in its entirety. That is the advantage of an accrual system. So you have this charade, I have been calling it, a charade going on that we are not going to participate in.

To make the fact even clearer, Madam Chair, I would like to move an amendment that I will present to the Chair now. We have had it checked with the Table and I understand it is in order, but you will give us the final word on that. The amendment basically says this - and we know that the government will vote against the amendment, but it says - that we should amend this particular schedule that says pay off The Rooms, pay off the school boards, pay $117 million in debt, create a deficit of $14 million in cash, and we are saying amend it to say, by all means pay off $103 million in debt, absolutely. Pay off $103 million in debt, but take the other $14 million that they are going to create a false deficit with and use it by this amendment, which I will present to the Table, Madam Chair, to fund, under Health and Community Services, the Grand Falls-Windsor cancer clinic; to fund, under Health and Community Services, the next phase of the Grand Bank health care facility; to fund, under Health and Community Services, a CT scanner and diagnostic unit for the Burin Peninsula; to fund, under Education, the money needed, along with the federal money that is already there, to finish the Mealy Mountain auditorium in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; and spend $103 million on the debt, which is going to happen anyway.

I present that to the Chair, moved by myself, Madam Chair, and seconded by the Member for Bellevue. I would ask for your ruling - I understand it is in order - so we can debate that amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The House will now recess while we consider the amendment.

Recess

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

We have received an amendment to the Supplementary Supply Bill, (Bill 3). It reads as follows:

I move that the schedule to Bill 3, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, be amended by including the following projects:

Health and Community Services: the Grand Falls-Windsor Cancer Clinic, the Grand Bank Health Care Facility, a CT Scanner diagnostic unit for the Burin Peninsula;

Education: the Mealy Mountain Auditorium in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and the amount in the schedule be adjusted to cover the costs of the above expenditures and also that the total be reduced by $14.1 million to a total of $103 million.

The amendment has been ruled in order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Could I just check with the Table - now that we are going to begin the debate on the amendment - as the first speaker, does that mean I have a ten-minute allocation?

MADAM CHAIR: Yes.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment, Madam Chair, is presented in a very serious vein. It is presented to provide an opportunity for members on all sides of the House to decide whether or not they are committed only to debt reduction and the scam and the charade of trying to make the people of the Province believe that there is a cash deficit when, in fact, there is a $103 million surplus, or whether they want to stand up and talk about a balanced approach; a balanced approach which says that the $103 million extra cash which came into the Province this year through a series of equalization arrangements, the Health Accord, high oil prices and revenues, that is good. That was unexpected, to some degree, certain parts of it. Certainly the high oil prices, no one could predict. The balanced approach, we say, is that you should not go out then and take the $103 million, because we do have debt in the Province. Relate it to your own circumstance in your home. If I had an extra windfall of money this year, I would like to pay off some or all of my mortgage, but, in the meantime, I do not want to leave my roof leaking and I do not want to leave my family members without the necessities of everyday life, so I will make sure that those things are taken care of and then what is legitimately left over we can pay on the debt. Maybe it will pay off half my mortgage. It might pay it all off.

What we are suggesting, through this amendment, the effect of it, Madam Chair, is this: Acknowledge that there is $103 million over and above what the government needs for any and all of its commitments for the year that ends at the end of March, and pay it on the debt. The two parts of the debt that the government has highlighted are: The Rooms - and you can certainly pay off all The Rooms, because I do not believe I have heard a single member on the other side suggest that the investment in The Rooms was a mistake or a waste of money. I do not believe I have heard that. I have heard them talk about wasting money, and I have heard them talk about correcting mistakes, but I do not believe I have heard a single soul suggest that the building of The Rooms was a mistake in Newfoundland and Labrador. I haven't heard it yet. If there is somebody over there brave enough to stand up today and say that I personally believe, and on behalf of my constituents I believe, that it was a mistake to build The Rooms, I will sit right now and concede the floor to them, and let them stand up and say it.

Madam Chair, I am waiting. I see no takers, so I assume they all agree it was a good investment, a good thing to do. I know the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation certainly thinks it was a good thing to do. I am invited to the opening in June, where he and the government are going to celebrate. I bet you the Premier will be there. I bet you any money the Premier of the Province will be there, because it is a good thing for tourism and culture and for the Province to have the archives and the gallery and the rest all into the one facility. It is quite a thing, but the government of the day, because they did not have the kind of cash that this government has, did not happen to have $103 million left over one year. It never happened. As a matter of fact, it has not happened in fifty-six years since Confederation, but it happened this year. So, sure enough, take $43 million and pay off The Rooms, that leaves you with another $60 million. What we are saying, instead of taking that - even take that and pay it on the debt, but what you are proposing here without this amendment is you take the other $60 million and pay it on the debt but take another $14 million too and create a deficit for no reason; for no understandable reason. Pay off even more debt than you have money. Now there is nobody in their own home circumstance who understands that concept, that you would pay off the mortgage because you had some extra money but you are even going to pay more than the extra money you have. Where did you get it? Guess where they got it? They are planning on borrowing it. Fourteen million dollars and saying to the people, we are going to have a deficit. It makes no sense to an ordinary person in an ordinary circumstance in Newfoundland and Labrador because it makes no sense, period.

So, we are providing an opportunity for the balanced approach instead of the one-sided approach. The Premier always says we deal with two prongs. Well, there are two prongs here. Let's pay off some debt and let's take care of some current needs. I bet you the Member for Windsor-Springdale will stand up and support our amendment because it allows him to say to the people in Central Newfoundland that I agree with the government's agenda, I agree with paying off the debt but I agree that there is enough cash around here to do the cancer clinic. Now he is shaking his head saying he is not going to vote for it. Then he is going to go back to Grand Falls-Windsor and that area and pretend he supported it. He is going to pretend that he supported it. I would suggest, you cannot have it both ways.

It would be interesting to see how the Member for Lake Melville would vote. An opportunity here to take cash and have the auditorium done, no more fighting, no more waiting for plans or studies. Let's do it! We have the cash and you are still going to be able to pay off $103 million worth of debt, a remarkable feat in one year, and have the auditorium built; not waiting again. Not wondering again, and the Premier saying to the people in Central Newfoundland: the funds just were not available. Well, there are so much funds available that you can pay off $103 million worth of long-term debt and still do the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor, I say to members opposite.

The same thing for the people on the Burin Peninsula, where I think they were absolutely astounded and ashamed to hear their own Member for Burin-Placentia West suggest, along with the Minister of Health and Community Services, that if you live on the Burin Peninsula and you need health care services there are not very long wait times in Clarenville. You don't have to wait very long in Clarenville. So, I say to the Minister of Human Resources and Labour, the plan and the strategy that she talks about for this government for health care on the Burin Peninsula is: Get yourself a good car with four good tires and get ready to head for Clarenville or St. John's. That is the plan. That is the strategy.

Here is a chance to do something about it. Here is a chance for them because they are Conservatives, because they are right-wing Tories, because they believe there is too much service provided to too many people in too many places in Newfoundland and Labrador. They think we have too big a public service. Here is their chance to commit to paying off $103 million worth of debt and letting a person actually think that they might get a CAT scan done on the Burin Peninsula, instead of having to go to Clarenville and line up or come on to St. John's and get in the queue, but no, they do not want that.

The Member for Burin Placentia West said: That's okay, let's go to Clarenville. Sure, why don't they just put a barricade up across the road now next to the tourist chalet when you turn down, saying: Don't bother to go down there. You might go down and have a look around as a tourist, but make sure you can get back on the same day and do not get sick when you are down there. Don't dare get sick when you are down there, because if you want any service you had better come back and get in the queue and get in the line up in Clarenville. So, here is a balanced approach.

The Member for Lake Melville who said: I have presented petitions. As a matter of fact, he presented a petition last Thursday. He presented a petition last Thursday about the auditorium. He said on the news: I have lobbied hard for this. As a matter of fact, he described it as the number one priority. The Premier put the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay in the very untenable, ridiculous position of saying: Which finger do you want me to cut off? Pick health care or pick the auditorium. The member for the area said the auditorium was the number one priority. Here is a chance to build the auditorium, have it done and still pay $103 million on the Province's debt.

I bet you he will not be in his seat today to vote for this amendment. I bet you he will not be here today. I bet you the Member for Burin-Placentia West will not be recorded in the Legislature today in the Hansard as voting for a CAT scan and a continuation of the next phase of the Grand Bank health facility on the Burin Peninsula. I bet you, because he has already said it, that the Member for Windsor-Springdale will not stand in his place and support the money. No more questions asked. Do not have to send the minister out. Do not have to get on with any more studies. Do not have to get on with any more scam and pretense. The money is right here today, here is a chance to vote for it. Get the cancer clinic done. Get the CAT scan done. Get the next phase of the Grand Bank hospital done. Build the auditorium. Stop toying with people. Stop pretending to want to do things when the ability is here right now, this very minute, to do all of it in its entirety and still pay down $103 million in debt. Oh, to be so lucky in your own home to be able to do these things and pay off just about all your mortgage. So, you will not pay off every bit of your mortgage today, but instead of having ten or fifteen years left, you might only have one year left on your mortgage. That would be a celebration in most homes in Newfoundland and Labrador. That would be cause for celebration.

This crowd opposite, I would predict, will vote against this amendment and say to the people in Grand Falls-Windsor: Wait longer for your clinic. Say to the people on the Burin peninsula: No CAT scan for you. Say to the people down in Grand Bank: You are not getting that hospital, the steel is going to rust out. We are not going to continue that project. Say to the people on the Burin Peninsula: No dialysis. Say to the people in Fogo: Forget the other ten beds. Say to the people in Happy Valley-Goose Bay: Wait again for your auditorium because we want to pay off some more debt and you people can wait, and waiting is good enough for you. That is what they are going to stand up and vote for, I will predict, in just a few minutes.

So, I wanted to make those few comments about the amendment. We are not going to belabour the debate here, Mr. Chair, other than to say that we would encourage and urge the members to vote for this amendment, pay off the $103 million debt, and do some good immediately in Newfoundland and Labrador instead of having people wait longer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased today to be able to stand here and say a few words on this money bill and the amendment that the Leader of the Opposition just brought forward.

I have to say, Mr. Chair, that for us, on this side of the House, to have to take a lesson in financial management from the former Premier of the Province, I mean it is something that I would never be able to stand for. When you see that, from the year 2000 up until March, 2004, this Premier and his government drove our Province's deficit 400 per cent higher than what it was back in 2000. They increased it by over 400 per cent, Mr. Chair, from something over $200 million to somewhere around $900 million. Now he is expecting us to take advice from him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Chairman, I have to say that this Budget must be one of the best that has ever been presented in the Province, one of the best that has ever been presented, Mr. Chair, because up until today the only thing we have heard from the members opposite is the couple of things that were omitted from the Budget. That is all! They made some reference as well to paying down the deficit.

Mr. Chair, I would like to mention a few of the positive things in this Budget, rather than concentrate on the two or three negatives that the Opposition has been talking about. I would like to make reference to the amount of money that has gone into road construction for this year, roads upgrading and paving, $33.5 million, Mr. Chair. I am going to be pleased in three or four weeks time to announce a portion of that for my district, for Bonavista North.

In addition, Mr. Chair, there is over $100 million in municipal capital infrastructure this year. I am also looking forward to announcing four or five projects in my district that I hope will receive funding from municipal infrastructure.

With respect to health care, Mr. Chair, the list is endless of the benefits, the positives, that we have in this Budget. Government will invest $23.2 million to deliver 43,000 additional MRIs, CT scanners, cardiac and other key diagnostic procedures, surgeries as well as cancer treatments; $2.6 million towards a second MRI in St. John's delivering 2,500 new exams a year and waiting times reduced by four months; $2 million towards replacing existing CAT scans with new multi-slice CT scanners at the Health Science Centre and St. Clare's Hospital.

In my area, Mr. Chairman, there is $2.5 million for four new mammography units that are going to be in St. John's, Gander, and Grand Falls-Windsor, delivering 10,700 more exams a year. Also, in the Gander area there are going to be monies in the Budget to enhance the endoscopy unit in Gander, shortening the wait times approximately 40 per cent.

I could go on with that, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to focus on another section of the Budget that is really important to my district, and that is in terms of tourism. Over the past few years tourism has become one of the major industries in my area. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I made reference to one of the tourism sites in my area where people have really come to see and want to stay there for years now. That is the Winsor House Heritage Inn, Mr. Chair, that was renewed a few years ago. We have the Resettlers Museum in Centreville, w have the Greenspond Courthouse, and this year we have the Harding Heritage Inn in Greenspond, a place where I was born and grew up, a house that we had for 120 years in our name. It was sold a couple of years ago to a lady in St. John's. She is going to open that up now this summer for a bed and breakfast. I welcome all of the members opposite to come to Greenspond this summer and stay in that heritage house.

We also have the Bonavista North Regional Museum in Wesleyville, the Banting historic site in Musgrave Harbour, Norton's Cove Studio in Brookfield, and the anchor of all of it, Mr. Chair, is what the Cape Freels Heritage Trust has been doing. They are a non-profit organization and they have put an excellent facility in Newtown, Bonavista Bay. In 2004, just to give you some indication of what it means to our area, this site attracted 22,000 visitors and employed, in peak season, seventy people of which fifty-five qualified for EI benefits. That is a major contributor, Mr. Chair, to our region.

That site, as well, the Barbour Heritage Site, to show how good a place it is, they have won the Southcott Award, they have won the Manning Award and they won the tourism, culture award, Mr. Chair. That says everything, I think, about the quality of the services with respect to tourism in our area.

Mr. Chair, last year alone that site generated $200,000 in local revenue.

MR. REID: What site?

MR. HARDING: The Barbour Heritage Site in Newtown.

Two hundred thousand dollars of local revenue generated at that one site.

MR. REID: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo, on a point of order.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The hon. Member for Bonavista North, in starting his speech today, criticized the Liberal government, when we were there, for wasting money and driving up the debt, and now he is bragging about what a wonderful job this Barbour premises is doing for that area. Well, I say to the member opposite, that if he were to check the record that there was a fair dollar from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, from this government that went into the Barbour premises.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to beg the differ with the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: There is hardly a dollar of provincial money gone into that place in Newtown. It is practically all federal government money. Hardly anything from the provincial government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Talking about The Rooms, which the Leader of the Opposition made reference to a few moments ago, as far as I can recollect, I believe that place was supposed to cost somewhere around $40 million, and I think it escalated to around $60 million before it was completed. That is an idea of the financial management of that government when they were in power.

The hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune and the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile made references, while they were speaking, about choices.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. HARDING: Choices, making choices, what this government was doing. Let me tell you about a choice that you people made two or three years ago. This really bothers me when I hear everyone over there talking about the cancer clinic being omitted from this year's Budget. I would assume back in 2002, that the same circumstances that existed last week that were shown on television, with people throwing up in buckets and confined space to work and that, I would say that existed back in 2002 and 2003. What did they say? Why didn't they put the cancer clinic there then? They did not have the money at the time. That is the answer that I heard, Mr. Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: They got it now.

MR. HARDING: They got it now, yes. But let me finish the point that I want to make.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct the statement that was just made by the Member for Bonavista North.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: He said -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the member if she is standing on a point of order or a point of correction of a statement?

MS THISTLE: I am standing on a point of order. Sorry! I am standing on a point or order.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: What I want to tell this hon. House, is that the first time the Central West Health Care Board came to us, as a previous government, to present to us a request to approve a cancer clinic for Grand Falls-Windsor was 2002.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: It was approved and announced in 2003.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the member to get to her point of order.

MS THISTLE: That is a clear point of order for this House.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I was saying, Mr. Chairman, I am referring now to the Auditor General's Report for the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation in 2003. Mr. Chairman, they couldn't find money to put the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor, but they could find $3.14 million to upgrade the liquor store here on Kenmount Rd. in St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Chairman, that is what I am talking about, choices. That is the choice that you made back in the year 2002.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Bonavista North that his time has expired.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I won't prolong the debate, because I think it is pretty clear that members opposite are going to vote against the amendment, and they will vote to do exactly what I described.

As I said before, Mr. Chair, it is always very enlightening and very instructive to see a few members starting to speak more openly in the House. The member opposite, basically, just demonstrated that he knows very little about what transpired. He might have listened to a few fairy tales that he has been told.

Let me give a couple of examples. He talked about the deficit increasing so much. The cash deficit in the last year that we were government was actually less than the cash deficit the government predicted in this year. If we had had an increased equalization program, a Health Accord, and oil prices at $50 a barrel, instead of $27 a barrel -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chair, those things were in the works. If those equalization payments were at this year's level, which had nothing to do with that crowd, nothing to do with the government - it was done by the Government of Canada for all of Canada - if there was a Health Accord in place which they didn't do, which was done by the Government of Canada for all Canadians, giving governments extra money for health care, if oil prices, which they didn't cause to go to $50 a barrel, had gone to $50 a barrel, we would have had a surplus as well.

Now, they are in a circumstance where because of good fortune, they have a surplus this year. The member opposite is there suggesting - he didn't even know the cost of The Rooms, for example. He didn't say he was against it, by the way. He didn't say he was against The Rooms. Not one of them has said that. He talked about the escalating price. He did not even know that in the bill that we are now debating, which we have just suggested an amendment to, the price is right here. It did not escalate to $60 million or $70 million; it is right on the piece of paper. He has not even looked at his own bill, I say, Mr. Chairman. It says the Heritage Corporation for The Rooms, $43.5 million. He was standing up a few minutes ago suggesting things got out of control; that was the kind of government you had. It was going to be $60 million or $70 million. It was budgeted at $40 million and it came in at $43.5 million because it took three years to build - construction costs, a little bit of change and so on. The bill right here says there is $43.5 million owed on The Rooms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chair, they can say what they like. When you have a member jumping up because someone told him somewhere - it could have been anywhere - Oh, that price was at $40 million and went to $60 million or $70 million. That did not happen, Mr. Chair, but does he believe it happened? Yes, he believes it happened because someone told him. He did not check it out. He did not bother to find out. He believes that.

Talking about the clinic, as the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans pointed out, the clinic was brought to the government as a request in 2002, and in the next Budget we approved it. We approved it, and who cancelled it? The government opposite. We believed so much that they deserved the treatment that we were willing to build it even if the deficit was another $3 million. We were willing to have a deficit so that those people did not have to throw up in buckets and pails. That is because we are Liberals and we believe in (inaudible) treatment for people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - not to let them sit out there in squalor because you could not find another $3 million. Here we are with $103 million in surplus.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The same member is going to stand and vote now in a couple of minutes to say: No, Sir, that crowd can throw up in the pail again next week, and they can throw up in the pail again the week after, and they can throw up again in the pail the week after that, because I am going to stand up and vote for a government that says: Let's pay off the debt. Let's pay off The Rooms. Let's pay off that $43.5 million and let them throw up in the bucket.

We are not going to vote for that. We will not vote for that, I say to the Member for Bonavista North and everybody else, but they are going to vote for it.

Remember, the Member for Bonavista North was lobbying this government, and guess what his priority was? He was lobbying this government for a golf course. Does anybody remember that? He stands up today, trying to criticize us because we are asking for a bit of compassion and we are saying: Listen, let's all accept the good fortune that has come to Newfoundland and Labrador in the improved circumstance. Let's pay $103 million on the debt, but let's take care of the cancer treatment clinic, less than $3 million. Let's take care of the auditorium in Labrador. Let's put a CAT scan on the Burin Peninsula. Let's do the next phase of the hospital.

Think about dialysis for the Burin Peninsula. Think about the extra beds on Fogo Island. Where are they going to go? Move, I guess. They cannot drive to Clarenville too easily, like the crowd on the Burin Peninsula can. That is the circumstance we are in, and all we are asking for consideration for, Mr. Chair - and I will stop here - is this: Let's take a balanced approach. Let's amend this particular bill which says spend $43.5 million to pay off The Rooms completely, spend $73.6 million to pay off some schools completely - not all of the schools, by the way, only the ones that were financed through this corporation - and that will change $103 million surplus into a $14 million deficit, so the members opposite, like the Member for Bonavista North, can go around all summer, and go around all next year, saying to people: Oh, we could not do that for you because we have a deficit. Well, nobody believes that. The member opposite knows it is not true. All of the members opposite know it is not true. You do not have a cash deficit.

Do we have some obligations long term to the pension plans? Yes, we do. Are there plans in place to pay them off? Yes, there are, because they started in 1989 with a pension report and commitments made by the Wells government that puts extra money in the pension plans every year above and beyond what the contributions are, to make sure that they do not go bankrupt. Unless and until you are going to pay all the pension plans completely and totally with the $2 billion that is mysteriously not even in the Budget, there will be an accrual deficit year after year after year. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Mr. Chair, I say, if members like the Member for Bonavista North want to listen to that side of the story, that kind of a fairytale, and it is going to put his credibility on the line with his own constituents and the people of the Province, to stand up wherever he meets his friends in the Lions Club - good involvement, has lots of good recognition for it, and I applaud him for it. I was with the Kinsmen out in Central Newfoundland over the years. The volunteer sector does really good work - his friends in the church community, his friends in the community and his friends elsewhere, he is now in a position, he has sort of been half talked into going around and saying to people: Don't ask us for that because we still have a $14 million deficit.

It is not true. You cannot make it true. It is not possible, Mr. Chair, to make that into a true statement. I do not know how they are going to be able to look at themselves in the mirror, how are they going to be able to sleep at night, sitting there knowing that they had $103 million of extra cash that they could have used for a cancer clinic - $3 million of it - and still have $100 million left over. He is going to go around and tell people a story. He is going to tell people a story that says: Oh, no, you cannot have the cancer clinic because we do not have the money.

That is what his Premier tried to say. That is what his leader tried to say on Open Line a couple of days ago: We cannot build that clinic in Grand Falls because there was not enough cash to go around, Linda. There just were not enough funds.

Well, we are just going to vote away the funds right here. Not us, I can guarantee you. We are not going to make them disappear, but the group opposite will stand up and make them disappear, and they will not be able to do it without us, from every treetop that we can stand on, every hilltop that we can climb, letting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know that this group participated in one of the biggest charades ever foisted on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we will not participate in it.

I am sad to see good, decent, honest members like the Member for Bonavista North buying it hook, line and sinker, and putting his own credibility on the line to go out and spin that fable, to talk about that tale, instead of telling the people the truth.

So, let's have the vote, Mr. Chair. Let's have the vote, because we are going to vote for the balanced approach. We are going to vote for the cancer clinic. We are going to vote for a CAT scanner. We are going to vote for the hospital in Burin. We are going to vote for the auditorium, and we are going to pay down $103 million in debt at the same time.

This group is going to vote for no cancer clinic, no auditorium, no CAT scanner, no more work on the hospital in Burin, and pay down $117 million in debt instead, and create a false impression that there is a deficit of $14 million.

Well, let them do it and let them pay the price, and let them go and spin that big yarn to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians if they want to. Shame on them, is all I can say, Mr. Chair!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Chairman

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to the Supplementary Supply Bill as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The Chair declares the motion -

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

CHAIR: Division.

Call in the members.

Division

CHAIR: Are you ready for the count?

I would ask the Clerk if he would count the House, please?

All those in favour of the amendment as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris.

CHAIR: Order, please!

All those against the amendment as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Tom Marshall; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Shelley; Ms Sheila Osborne; Mr. French; Ms Burke; Ms Whalen; Mr. Manning; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Denine; Mr. O'Brien; Mr. Harding; Mr. Hunter; Ms Johnson; Mr. Jim Hodder; Ms Goudie; Mr. Skinner; Ms Elizabeth Marshall; Mr.Ridgley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Chair, 11 ayes and 23 nays.

CHAIR: The Chair declares the amendment as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition defeated.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I wonder if we could agree to stop the clock. In the absence of agreeing to stop that, we would have to adjourn and come back at 7:00. So, I am asking for agreement to stop the clock. The Lieutenant Governor is out waiting. Do I have that?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Agreement is made to stop the clock.

CLERK: Resolution: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2005, the sum of $117,100,000.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2005, the sum of $117,100,000.

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

CHAIR: Division. Call in the members.

Division

CHAIR: Is the House ready for the vote?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, we are ready.

CHAIR: All those in favour of carrying clauses 1 and 2, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Tom Marshall; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Shelley; Ms Sheila Osborne; Mr. French; Ms Burke; Ms Whalen; Mr. Manning; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Denine; Mr. O'Brien; Mr. Harding; Mr. Hunter; Ms Johnson; Mr. Jim Hodder; Ms Goudie; Mr. Skinner; Ms Elizabeth Marshall; Mr. Ridgley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

All those against, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Chair, 23 ayes and 11 nays.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 and 2 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Schedule is carried.

MR. GRIMES: Division.

CHAIR: Division.

Call in the members.

Division

CHAIR: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the schedule carrying, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Shelley, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Ms Whalen, Mr. Manning, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Harding, Mr. Hunter, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Ridgley.

CHAIR: All those against, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Chair, 23 ayes and 11 nays.

CHAIR: The Schedule is carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The enacting clause is carried.

CLERK: WHEREAS it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain additional expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2005, and for other purposes relating to the public service:

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The preamble is carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Bill 3, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Shall I report Bill 3 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 3 is carried.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating to The Public Service." (Bill 3)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted certain resolutions and recommend that bills be introduced to give effect to the same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of Supply for the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report the Committee have adopted certain resolutions and recommend that bills be introduced to give effect to the same.

Is it the wish of the House that we will deal with the Interim Supply first?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution which applies to Interim Supply be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2006 the sum of $1,446,010,500."

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: The second reading of the Finance Resolution.

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

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

I move that the Interim Supply Bill be introduced and read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce Bill 2, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce the bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 2)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: Bill 2, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

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

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

I move that the Interim Supply Bill, Bill 2, be now read a second time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 2)

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

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

I move that the Interim Supply Bill, Bill 2, be now read for a third and final time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 2)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 2)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 3, be introduced and read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of Supply reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, have directed him to report that the Committee have adopted certain resolutions and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

We are discussing the Supply motion.

It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

Carried.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2005, the sum of $117,100,000."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just as the Clerk began to read the title of the bill, the Chair noticed that three members on the Opposition side were standing and wished to have Division on the resolution being read a first time, so we will go to Division.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are ready, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Ready for Division?

Division

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the reading of the resolution for the first time, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Ms Whalen, Mr. Manning, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Harding, Mr. Hunter, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Ridgley.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Thistle, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Speaker, 24 ayes and 10 nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the first reading of the resolution to be carried.

I would ask the Clerk if the Clerk could read the Supplementary Supply resolution again.

CLERK: Resolution: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2005, the sum of $117,100,000.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

]

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the resolution.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

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

I move that the Supplementary Supply bill, Bill 3, be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 3)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 3)

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 3)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 3, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill, Bill 3, be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 3)

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

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

I move that the Supplementary Supply Bill, Bill 3, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill, Bill 3, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 3)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 3)

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has arrived.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: All rise.

Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor takes the Chair.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: It is the wish of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor that all present please be seated.

MR. SPEAKER: Your Honour, it is my agreeable duty, on behalf of Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, Her Faithful Commons in Newfoundland and Labrador, to present to Your Honour bills for the appropriation of Interim and Supplementary Supply granted in the present session.

CLERK: A bill, An For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 2)

A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 3)

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Edward Roberts, ONL, QC): Mr. Speaker, I assent to these bills in the name of Her Majesty, and I thank Her Loyal Subjects for their benevolence.

Mr. Speaker, I gather the debate has been vigorous in the last couple of days. We are about to adjourn for a break over the holiday I wish all members a restful holiday and presumably a resumption of vigorous and spirited debate when you return. Happy Easter.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor leaves the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.

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

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

The clock has stopped at 5:30 in a parliamentary sense and our business being done before Easter, I just want to take the opportunity to wish all members a joyful Easter and time with families, wherever they may be and wherever they may be going for a few days.

With that, I do not move that the House adjourn and will return at 1:30 on Monday, April 11.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House on its adjournment today will adjourn until Monday, April 11 at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Monday, April 11, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until Monday, April 11, at 1:30 p.m.