May 1, 2012                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                    Vol. XLVII No. 24


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from the Member for the District of Conception Bay East – Bell Island, the Member for the District of Bay of Islands, the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis, the Member for the District of Bellevue, the Member for the District of Baie Verte – Springdale, and the Member for the District of St. John's Centre.

The hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of attending a function yesterday in my district that celebrated a man's life, a man larger than life with an even bigger heart. I talk of the funeral of Tom Fitzgerald, affectionately known as Big Tom. With over 700 in attendance, which included some of the Province's most successful business, media, music, and comedy people, along with hundreds of average citizens, who all came for the same reason: to give a fitting send-off to someone who had done so much for so many.

Our community and this Province have lost a true ambassador. His parents, Tom and Judy, both lifelong civil servants, have lost their little boy. His daughter, Sophie, has lost the love of her life. All of us in this Province have lost a friend. I am proud to say Tom Fitzgerald was my friend and he will be missed.

As the last words of his eulogy read: Big Tom Forever.

I ask all members in this House to join me in celebrating the life of Tom Fitzgerald.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the wonderful contributions of Lorraine Humber of Lark Harbour in the Bay of Islands. On March 23, 2012, Lorraine retired after over thirty-four years of dedicated service as a nurse serving the towns of Lark Harbour and York Harbour.

Lorraine started working as a casual nurse with the VON, taking up the challenge of providing community nursing. She did mostly home business for the first few years and her home became a drop-in centre. It was quite common for her to be called upon when emergencies arose, such as car or boating accidents, or heart or stroke victims needed assistance. She never hesitated to assist.

Mr. Speaker, Lorraine was instrumental in spearheading a campaign to obtain funding to build a medical clinic in Lark Harbour. She lobbied both provincial and federal governments and was successful in getting the monies, something which Lorraine considers one of her best nursing achievements.

Lorraine's dedication, commitment, and strong sense of duty to others are for what she will always be remembered. She provided assistance to seniors, the disabled, and the sick in their homes and communities, a service which will never be replaced.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending congratulations to Lorraine Humber for her years of service to the residents of Lark Harbour and York Harbour and wish her all the best in her retirement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Holy Trinity Elementary School in Torbay and its Grade 6 students for successful participating and completion of the DARE program.

This program is presently being offered to all Grade 6 students that attend school in the RNC jurisdictions. It covers the health, legal, and social problems encountered when involved with drugs. It gives students the skills and tools required to take a strong stand against illegal drugs and the ability to make healthy and wise choices.

Mr. Speaker, the RNC should be very proud of the work that its member, Constable Kevin Foley, is doing, presenting assistance to all of the students.

I was able to attend the DARE program graduation exercise and it was very visible how excited the students were about this program and the knowledge and power it had given them to make a strong stand against illegal drugs and the association with it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating the Holy Trinity Elementary School, the RNC for making this available to our students, and to Holy Trinity Grade 6 class for being eager participants and graduating the DARE program, a tool they will carry with them for the rest of their lives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Friday, April 27, I had the great privilege of attending the graduation ceremony of the graduating class of 2012 at the Fortune Bay East Academy in St. Bernard's. It was a pleasure to see those young men and women dressed in their tux and gowns and to contest a great job that they did in presenting themselves in their last moments as graduates as they addressed their parents, teachers, and guests.

The future is theirs, it is in their hands, and as they go out in a world of uncertainty I suggest they choose a profession that they will enjoy.

Good luck in the future that lies ahead of them, and remember, if you can dream it you can achieve it.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the graduates of 2012 from Fortune Bay East Academy in St. Bernard's.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure to rise in this hon. House to congratulate the senior boys' ball hockey team from MSB Regional Academy, Middle Arm, for capturing the gold medal at the provincial SSNL tournament, hosted by the Cannon Richards Memorial Academy, Flowers Cove. The eight team tournament took place from March 29 to 31, engaging numerous volunteers from around the region, whose help and dedication contributed to a very successful event.

Members of the victorious team include: Jasper Dicks, Zackery Goudie, Alex Rowe, Miguel Saunders, Jordon Robinson, Zackery Penney, Grant Foster, and Avery Austin. Coaches Zackery Lane, Lyndon Austin and Danny Dicks are to be applauded for guiding the team to victory.

MSB Regional Academy Wildcats narrowly defeated the Cannon Richards Memorial Academy Wildcats in the championship game with an eight to seven overtime victory. Zackery Penney of MSB took home the prestigious sportsmanship award.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all colleagues in this hon. House to join me in relaying congratulations to the senior boys' ball hockey team hailing from MSB Regional Academy upon their outstanding achievement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Bishops College on a very important award that will be officially presented tomorrow.

Inclusive education is about how we develop and design our schools, classrooms, programs and activities so that all students can learn and participate together. Each year the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community Living awards two inclusive education awards; one to a school and one to an individual. This year, Bishops College in my District of St. John's Centre is the winner of the 2012 award.

In a time when we hear so much about bullying and exclusion, I am so proud of Bishops for the hard work they have put in over the last decade to earn this award. The administration, staff and student body are so obviously committed to the philosophy of inclusion. They embrace the importance of belonging, acceptance, and community.

I am looking forward to telling them so in person tomorrow, when the award will officially be presented, but for today I am asking all hon. members to join me in congratulating everyone at Bishops College on Pennywell Road in St. John's for being named the winner of the 2012 school inclusive education award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, a primary mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture is to support and promote the development of sustainable and viable fishing and aquaculture industries, which produce high quality and high value products. This is achieved by providing programs and services in fisheries and aquaculture development, quality assurance, processing and aquaculture capacity management, and information services.

Despite the groundfish moratorium, Newfoundland and Labrador has many fish species available to aid in the development and the diversification of our fishing industry. The worldwide decline in fish stocks, combined with the increasing demand for fish protein, suggest that the market outlook for seafood products will continue to be very strong.

Through Budget 2012: People and Prosperity, we continue to invest in a suite of programs intended to revitalize and enhance the fishing industry. The annual budget of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture has expanded by approximately 400 per cent since Budget 2005-2006, to support valuable programs and services and new initiatives. In particular, Mr. Speaker, the budget includes new and ongoing initiatives totalling over $30 million, with an overall budget for the department in excess of $50 million.

The funding, Mr. Speaker, will support our work in many areas, such as: infrastructure, fisheries research and most importantly, innovation. Some examples include: an investment of $6.5 million for the Aquaculture Capital Equity Investment Program; $6.2 million for construction of aquaculture wharves in the Coast of Bays region; $300,000 for the Coastal and Oceans Management Program; $3.8 million for the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research and the Fisheries and Marine Institute; $2.2 million for the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program; $1 million to extend support for the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation; and $300,000 to the Fisheries Innovation and Development and Sustainable Fisheries Resources and Oceans Policy.

Our suite of programs, Mr. Speaker, supported through Budget 2012 are intended to aid the provincial fishing industry in becoming more innovative and competitive, while building a safer and more stable foundation. Our work will help ensure the Newfoundland and Labrador seafood industry continues to be a major economic contributor to the provincial economy. Mr. Speaker, our government's commitment to ensure a maximum possible benefit for this resource will continue.

Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador represented approximately one-third of the landed value of the Atlantic fishery in recent years; however, as a Province, we spend more on the fishery in this Province than all other Atlantic Provinces combined.

The funding provided through Budget 2012, Mr. Speaker, demonstrates our government's commitment and our resolve to foster a fishery of the future for Newfoundland and Labrador. We are indeed committed to working with all fishing and aquaculture industry participants to ensure our collaborative and collective success.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his advance copy. I have checked his budget numbers and he is absolutely correct; but, what can you say about a department that in 2006-2007 budgeted $13 million and spent only $9 million, leaving $4 million on the table; in 2007-2008, budgeted $28 million and only used $19 million; in 2008-2009, budgeted $25 million and only used $15 million, leaving $10 million unused; in 2009-2010, budgeted $27 million and only used $21 million; in year 2010-2011, budgeted $44 million and only used $38 million; and last year, Mr. Speaker, budgeted $44 million and only used $31 million.

Mr. Speaker, I know what you can say about a department like that. I think the department should change its name to the department of smoke and mirrors, because it is going to do something and it does not do it. This department is underperforming; it is not delivering. Budgeting is nice, but we need to see performance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Government should be doing more. It is a $1 billion industry, but it can be much bigger. Indeed, the global demand for seafood will remain strong. What I see missing from all of this today is a core marketing strategy. It is not enough to simply produce it; the world needs to know about it. Like tourism, marketing creates awareness for the demand. Also, I see a lot has been invested in aquaculture, which is good, but we must not ignore the traditional fishery.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, with almost $200 million allocated for business and economic development in Budget 2012: People and Prosperity, this Administration has articulated its unwavering commitment to the growth and expansion of small and medium-sized businesses.

A key element of our business and economic development agenda is engaging youth. We view the value of increasing the volume of youth participation in the Province's business community as being vital to the long-term success of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Getting the Message Out program, which is one of several initiatives underway to achieve that objective creates awareness of successful entrepreneurs and career opportunities. Through the program, university work-term students deliver presentations to high school students. This peer-to-peer model has proven effective, as it links students with presenters they can relate to, making information-sharing interactive and memorable.

Additionally, the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, as part of the program, recently concluded its fourth case study competition. Through this competition, students were invited to submit profiles from entrepreneurs whose achievements inspire them.

The winner of this year's competition is Anika Eddison of Bayview Regional Collegiate in St. Lunaire-Griquet.

Ms Eddison profiled Marie MacDonald who is an accomplished entrepreneur and co-owner of Northern Delight in Gunner's Cove, a restaurant that has also been featured in MacLean's magazine. For earning this year's top prize, Ms Eddison will receive an iPad, her classroom will receive a laptop, and her school will receive a computer.

I would also like to acknowledge the runners-up: Emily Bland of Exploits Valley High School in Grand Falls-Windsor and Jessica Ryan of Menihek High School in Labrador City – as well as all those who made submissions.

Mr. Speaker, the future of youth is filled with optimism. They envision a future of exciting and progressive careers. Initiatives such as the case study competition allow us to engage youth and connect them to vibrant businesses. By preparing them for a future here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we are securing our future success as a Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for an advance copy first of all. This is indeed good news from this department and from this minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT: No ifs, ands, or buts, and no qualifications, this is good news; this is a good program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I handle it much better when they are mean to me than when they are nice to me. When they are nice to me, I do not know what to say but (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT: This is great news, and I want to go on to congratulate the winner Anika Eddison of Bayview Regional Collegiate in St. Lunaire-Griquet and also the other runners-up: Emily Bland and Jessica Ryan. This is a great program and it encourages young people. Any money invested in young people and, even more, invested in young people so they would go into business has to be money well-spent in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I can attest to the value of this program, as a former intern myself of the Getting the Message Out program. It certainly does provide entrepreneurs, businesses, and career opportunities for people across the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: I commend Anika Eddison who is a constituent in my district and for profiling the owners of Northern Delight restaurant and all the other students who participated. Another great initiative of this department is the Young Entrepreneurs and Innovators Program, which also helps encourage youth and provides them with avenues to get loans to get into business and partner with other agencies. I encourage, as a past entrepreneur myself, to get youth to participate in the program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Financial reports indicate that the SNC-Lavalin payment scandal drags on and its depressed stock makes it ripe for a takeover. Since 28,000 people work at SNC, these uncertainties can result in problems and slow down production.

I ask the minister: To protect the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in this situation, has Nalcor required SNC-Lavalin to post a performance bond related to the Muskrat Falls Project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I indicated to the member opposite that I would find out yesterday the value of the contract. The value of the contract was $60 million. It was done through a request for proposals process and there were two other bidders, Mr. Speaker.

SNC-Lavalin, Mr. Speaker, is the biggest construction company in Canada. It has headquarters or offices in forty countries. It operates in more than 100 countries and has 28,000 employees.

Mr. Speaker, I have read the internal review that was done up on what happened in this case. There were two instances of the improper transfer of money. There is nothing to indicate, Mr. Speaker, at this point that there is any impact or effect on the Muskrat Falls Project. As I indicated yesterday, Mr. Ed Martin at Nalcor is monitoring the situation as it evolves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will performance bonds protect the purchaser if the contractor is unable to complete the work that is planned? On a $60 million contract these are very important, especially given the situation with SNC-Lavalin. I understand it is a big company, but obviously all we need to do is look back and we can see what has happened to some companies larger than SNC.

So I ask the minister: Given the effect that this situation could have on SNC-Lavalin, are you expecting any more slowdowns or missed deadlines related to the DG3 numbers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, another point I should make is that Nalcor also has an owner team working with SNC-Lavalin on the project. They are monitoring on a daily basis the work.

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any slowdowns or delays as a result of the work of SNC-Lavalin, nor am I aware of any delays at this point in relation to the provision of the Decision Gate 3 numbers. At this point, Mr. Speaker, we expect those numbers to be provided around the middle of July. They will be then reviewed by Manitoba Hydro International. As we indicated, we will provide those numbers to the Opposition and to members of the public so there can be plenty of review prior to a debate in the fall.

From our perspective as a government, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the debate. We welcome the input of the Opposition and members of the public. We look forward to a full debate in the fall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the contract for ambulance services for the Province expired on March 31, 2012. There have been some early meetings, but no official negotiations have yet started. There are a number of outstanding issues that ambulance providers want to resolve, including unregistered dispatchers and standards.

I ask the minister: Why hasn't government started negotiations, given the contract has already expired and there are issues that need to be addressed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly committed to the ambulance review. In fact, we have done the preliminary work to get that review started, and I expect that we will be in a position to move forward with an RFP very, very soon. Very important to us – the standards around ambulances and the operations of ambulances in this Province are of the utmost importance. It is something we keep an eye on, on a regular basis and as I said, we have committed to the review; we will get started very soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Minister, the question was more about the round of negotiations that expired in March, but I will be right back to you now.

All subsidizing training for paramedics in the Province is done through the College of the North Atlantic, so recruitment and retention remains a problem. Ambulances are still shorthanded and the Province is not training enough people to meet the standards.

I ask the minister: What are you going to do to increase the number of paramedics in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the College of the North Atlantic creates an academic plan based on labour markets and skill sets and what may be needed. They have a paramedic program that is based in Stephenville and from that program they are able to graduate people who move into jobs, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated.

Mr. Speaker, the college monitors these programs, monitors the labour market, and then based on that determines the number of seats that they need at any given year, or how they continue programs. Like any program, this is one that they would continue to monitor to ensure that there are a sufficient number of paramedics in the Province. I can certainly bring it to their attention that there are some concerns being expressed but, Mr. Speaker, we do have that program and it is an ongoing program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will remind the minister that even today we are bringing in paramedics from Ontario. I know in my own district we have two that are in from Ontario already.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Parks Canada has estimated that between seventy and 100 jobs will be eliminated or reduced across the Province.

I ask the minister: What can you tell us about the specific impact these cuts will have on tourist operations and what is the department doing to ensure that tourist operators run smoothly in the face of these cuts?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, we too got the information on potential job losses in the national parks from Parks Canada. Any time there is job losses it raises concerns; obviously, we are immediately concerned about job losses. As we get further into the numbers and get a further assessment on the impact and potential impact for our tourism, Mr. Speaker, we will obviously be taking a closer look and refocusing within our own department and to continue the investments that we made in tourism in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, federal cuts are having a disproportionate impact on this Province. Over the past few weeks we have heard a number of announcements, yesterday it was Parks Canada.

I ask the minister: Are you aware of any other federal cuts that will affect the programs and services that we have not heard of yet which will impact Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: No, Mr. Speaker. We have seen the cuts that have been announced in the media. We have not been advised of any further job elimination action by the Government of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, since the Province took over administration of the labour market development funds from the federal government there have been many issues. First, the contracts for organizations that provide counselling services were not renewed in a timely manner. Now we are having issues with JCP.

I ask the minister: Can she explain the delays that have occurred and the lack of explanation being given to organizations that were rejected?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the job creation projects that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador total $13.9 million. We are in the process right now for holding out $6.1 million in JCPs, and this week there will be more applications coming in.

Mr. Speaker, all applications that come in will be reviewed and assessed and due diligence will be done, and we will certainly make the decisions to decide which ones get funded. In saying that, Mr. Speaker, the applications that came in at this time total $17 million. The Budget was $6 million. So, Mr. Speaker, due diligence is necessary so that we look at the applications for quality and ensure that we are able to fund ones that meet the needs of the labour market. Also, in saying that, Mr. Speaker, we approved, in Newfoundland and Labrador, 115 projects under this round of JCPs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The problem I have is that these organizations are not being told why they have been turned down.

Mr. Speaker, the community organizations applying for funding under JCP often provide critical support for many tourism related facilities in this Province.

I ask the minister: Is she concerned that while the Province is spending millions to invite people to our Province, is, at the same time, cutting the legs out from under these local groups that provide a positive experience for these visitors when they arrive?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt for a second that the tourism operators, whether for profit or non profit, offer very valuable experience to people who visit this Province or people within this Province who take the time to visit these sites.

Mr. Speaker, the job creation program is a program that comes under the Labour Market Development Agreement, and the JCP program is all about enabling and ensuring that people in this Province have the ability to have the work experience necessary that will assist them to attach to the labour market. Although I hear the concerns, this program has helped, and will continue to help some tourism operators basically in the non-profit area, but, Mr. Speaker, the program itself is not there fully to fund tourism operations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, again, we are getting reports of problems with JCP from all over the Province.

So, I ask the minister again, as I have asked her staff: Will she provide a list of funding that has been approved and rejected, broken down by provincial district?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the information is certainly available, and we will make it available. What is interesting, though – if the hon. member thinks it is based on a political basis. In this House of Assembly, the Liberal Opposition take 12.5 per cent of the seats, the JCP funding for the Liberal districts was 12.7 per cent, and, in addition to that, the entire JCP budget that we allotted this round, 10 per cent went to the District of Burgeo – La Poile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have asked in the past about increasing the coyote bounty to help contend with the coyote problem. Mr. Speaker, in St. John's alone today, coyotes have been spotted in Bannerman Park and on Pennywell Road.

I ask the Minister of Environment and Conservation: What kind of coyote monitoring program is the department conducting throughout the Province? What is your department prepared to do to prevent coyote-human interactions?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member would know, certainly being from a district familiar with wildlife and so on, Mr. Speaker, there are coyotes, I can assure the hon. member, in every major city in the country. The onus is upon us now; the coyote is here, and we have to live with the coyote. There are a number of things that we have put out advisories on, to allow the general public to be careful of, particularly when it comes to their garbage disposal, keeping their pets on leashes and so on, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member to educate the people in his own district about coyotes, and I ought to remind the hon. member of one thing: never cry wolf, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health, and it is regarding the family caregiver program. In the election this fall, the government committed to making family caregiver allowances available to people in the Province. I have asked the question three times. I have gotten three different answers.

Mr. Speaker, in March when I asked the minister, she said there was a fair bit of planning that was still needed and that there was no model anywhere in Canada or in North America. However, this morning in interviews with CBC Corner Brook, she is leading people to believe that they are just going to make the program a little bit easier to access and the work is already done.

I ask the minister to give some clarification on where they are going with this program.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not intending to mislead or lead anyone in any direction. What we have committed to doing here is developing policy. We have stated quite clearly that policy is nonexistent in jurisdictions where we have scanned. We are trying our best to put in place a policy that is going to meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that is going to respond as well to our Blue Book commitment.

Mr. Speaker, there are challenges around doing that. We are not in a rush to do this to get it done. We are in a rush to do this to get it done properly to best suit the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is our commitment, Mr. Speaker, and we will abide by that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the House of Assembly in March, and I have Hansard in front of me, the minister did not talk about policy. She talked about a new model and she talked about developing a model for Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, people in this Province today are expecting to be paid caregivers for family care because that was the commitment made by the PC government.

I ask the minister today: Is she going to make good on that commitment? Are you going to pay out allowances for family caregivers in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which of the four questions she wants answered first. Let me tell you, we have made a commitment. We are going to see that commitment happen.

In the Blue Book, Mr. Speaker, we committed to doing a review around breast cancer screening and we did that within the ninety days. In the Blue Book, Mr. Speaker, we committed to doing a review around wait times within 120 days and we delivered on that commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: We will continue to deliver on our commitments. This one will be no different. We will deliver.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, recently the managing director of the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation stated that our processors are under-capitalized, with no bargaining power. This forces them to sell huge quantities of seafood at low prices.

I ask the minister: Now that government has established a precedent by lending millions to Carino for seal inventory, is he prepared to establish a fund to help processors finance their inventory to maximize value and prevent distress selling?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, not long ago the member opposite stood in this House and said that we would make $50 million on kippers, too, but I do not take that to be factual. Because a gentleman gave a presentation across the Province and made a statement, I do not take it in this House to mean that it is factual nor that it ought to be the direction that this government or this industry will take for the future.

I can say to the member opposite, in spite of some of rhetoric that he put out a few moments ago around lapse spending – which I am going to talk to him about tomorrow – this government has invested significantly in the fishing industry. We have invested significantly in programs and services to support harvesters and processors across the Province. We are investing in safety in the industry and we are investing in marketing, Mr. Speaker, because we recognize that while the fishing industry is important in Newfoundland, it is a small piece of the world stage and we have to support it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the managing director of the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation, which is funded by this minister, revealed that we dump 100,000 tonnes of landed seafood as waste, adding that there is no place in the world that would do that. The director also suggested if we properly utilized this valuable wastage, we would have $150 million in provincial fisheries revenue.

I ask the minister: What is he doing to develop this potential for our Province, or is he wasting this opportunity?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: For the record, Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: I do not personally fund that particular organization. That organization is funded, as is every other program of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, through a vote of the Budget in this House on behalf of the government – which of course, in last year's Budget, the Opposition party did not support, I remind the member; did not support the investment in technology in the Province to the tune of millions of dollars, nor did they support, Mr. Speaker, nor did they support the investment in moving forward with a marketing initiative that was wanted by industry, was recognized in the MOU as being extremely important to developing further markets for the fishing industry in Newfoundland. I remind the minister opposite that his party did not support that and voted against that here in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, government has eliminated the requirement that income support recipients were forced to apply for and lock in to Canada Pension Plan benefits at a reduced rate at age sixty.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills: When will this new policy come into effect?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as part of our Poverty Reduction Strategy, one of the initiatives that we undertook this year was that up to this point people who are receiving Income Support were required to apply for their CPP at the age of sixty. In this Budget, Mr. Speaker, we have changed that so that people who are receiving Income Support are no longer required to apply for CPP when they turn sixty.

What that would do, Mr. Speaker, from that point on, they would be on a reduced income. Particularly after sixty-five, they would lose 30 per cent of their CPP. We have made an investment of $500,000 to ensure that people, when they turn sixty, if they are receiving Income Support, it would be their decision whether or not they apply for CPP. It will no longer be a requirement in order to receive Income Support. Mr. Speaker, that policy will come into effect (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister will get to tell me when it comes into effect the next time she stands.

Right now, I want to point out that although the elimination of this policy is good, unfortunately, there are people between the ages of sixty and sixty-five whom government have already forced on to CPP at a reduced rate, through no fault of their own. We have received calls from people who are in that situation right now.

I am asking the minister: What can government offer to these people who have just applied for CPP and when can all of them see the change?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That policy will come into effect very shortly. For people who have applied for CPP and would like to rescind that, there is a procedure that they would go through the federal government; because we do not approve the applications for CPP, nor do we pay out that money. If anybody in that category between sixty and sixty-five who are receiving CPP would prefer to stop it and delay the process, they can do that through the federal government. There is a process laid out through the federal government that they would have to go through. That would not be something that they would do through the Income Support Program; that would be something they would do through the federal side.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that program.

I want to ask the minister: If there is a penalty that has to be paid for rescinding, will the provincial government step in and help?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any penalty; however, what I can say is that the Department of Advanced Education and Skills does provide an Income Support Program. We deal with thousands of people in the run of a year and on a daily basis we certainly have caseworkers who deal with many individuals. If there are any financial hardships while they are receiving Income Support, we do due diligence in doing that assessment and we help individuals wherever we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Seniors run into problems and are facing major financial challenges because their eligibility for the 65Plus drug card is tied to the federal Guaranteed Income Supplement. If a senior's income goes a bit higher than $16,000, they are no longer eligible for the GIS and without warning they lose their seniors' drug card.

So, Mr. Speaker: Will the Minister of Health and Community Services immediately stop tying the 65Plus eligibility to a federal program in which the income ceiling is below the poverty line?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of recent work that we did here in this House of Assembly, and as a result of work that we have done around generics, and as a result of the attention that we have paid to seniors in this Province, particularly in terms of our drug plan, I think we have one of the best drug plans that exists anywhere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about looking out to our seniors, one of the primary efforts of our generic drug plan was to ensure that seniors would have to pay no more than $6 on the cost of a dispensing fee. Mr. Speaker, that does not exist anywhere else in this Province. We are very proud of the work that we are doing in regard to provision of care for seniors, in terms of the NLPDP.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in our constituency offices we are hearing from seniors who do not qualify for a 65Plus card because they are just above the threshold and they have many problems paying for medicine.

I ask the minister: When will this government create a universal seniors' drug program out of fairness to all seniors who are living on tight budgets?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we have five different drug programs in this Province. If a senior has bills that are in access of what she or he is able to pay, then we have another program that is able to help them out.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker – and we discussed this last night, as well, in Estimates – when we are talking about pharmacare, which is what I think the member opposite is alluding to, we are ready to come to the table. It is a matter of trying to get the federal government to come to the table. At this point, they have not, but we have certainly stepped up to the tune of $159 million annually.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I am not talking about pharmacare; I am talking about drug cards for all seniors. The minister, herself, last night acknowledged the difficulty of having a threshold.

I am asking her: Will she follow through and see that those thresholds for seniors are ended?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, once again, whenever we deliver programs of this nature there is criticism from the opposite side of the House. Mr. Speaker, our programs are allotted right throughout this country in terms of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program; $159 million annually is spent, Mr. Speaker. We have just made agreements now to reinvest $29 million back into the 65Plus program. We are doing, I think, a very good job at addressing the needs of seniors in this Province and of addressing the needs with regard to prescription drugs in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, approximately two years ago when the Grand Falls-Windsor paper mill was vacated by AbititiBowater, the provincial government paid for around the clock security. The Acting Premier at the time said this was to ensure that the assets are secure and do not become a risk to public safety or the environment. Mr. Speaker, the crumbling Englee fish plant has been closed for nearly eight years and is certainly a public safety risk and a hazard to the environment.

Mr. Speaker, why did the government remove the recently added security on April 6 at the Englee plant, and when will they move to have the property secured again?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the mill closed down and came into our possession we, of course, took responsibility for the security. At that particular time, Mr. Speaker, the electricity was running through the mill. There were all sorts of concerns that we wanted to make sure that we had the site secured. We went back and we hired on some of the previous plant workers to come in and do the security. They have been taking care of that since the last two years, but it has come to a time now where Nalcor certainly is there in presence in the daytime. We have scaled back the security for the most vulnerable times, which is in the nighttime and on the weekends.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a simple pen stroke by the minister to order the now defunct company took nearly eight years. These years of inaction by the PC government has created a major risk to public safety and the environment. Mr. Speaker, government has requested the Town of Englee to pay 10 per cent of the security cost to secure the deteriorating property. No such request was made to the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor when the Province secured the old mill property nearly two years ago.

Mr. Speaker, why is this government asking the town to pay for part of the security costs when the precedent is that the Province pays for this absolutely necessary service? Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, will the government refund the amount already paid by the town?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that we just heard a member in this House complaining about paying 10 per cent for a project in Newfoundland and Labrador. We did provide security to the Englee plant. I sat with you on a couple of occasions and explained the issues surrounding that.

Getting back to the Abitibi issue, there were important assets within that building when we provided that security. There are no assets in that particular building. There was a life and safety issue. We addressed that issue in regard to security. That is now taken care of. We do not need it and then we do not have to pay for it. That is absolutely what this is all about, fiscal responsibility, I say to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, roads in this Province recently came under scrutiny with a ranking amongst the worst roads in Atlantic Canada. Congratulations on the other side. Five provincial roads out of a possible ten made this list. It is not something they should be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: How does he determine what roads need proper maintenance and where is the road strategy for the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I know when we look at the roads in our Province, as a government we have made sure that we have addressed the roads in a manner which gives priority to those that are most travelled, most in need. When you look at the strategy, I am certainly not going to alter the strategy simply because of some online voting about the worst roads in the Province. What I will say is we will look at the roads, the condition of the roads, and make decisions that will move us further along in taking care of the tremendous deficit that was left to us by a previous Administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is okay, I guess, for the minister to blame previous Administrations when they have been there nine years.

Mr. Speaker, again, we have had problems with the provincial park campsite reservation system. Some users are not able to get in online to register or fail to get in on the site, in spite of the use of computers or even via the telephone.

Mr. Speaker, what corrective measures will this government put into place so that the system is going to be fair and equitable for everyone?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the details on how well this system has worked this year, we always have problems, especially in Butter Pot, because of the demand. In the first two minutes that the site opened, at 7:00 a.m. there were sixty applications actively being worked on. In the first ten minutes, Mr. Speaker, there were 324 registrations made and booked for the summer. By 11:00 o'clock that very same morning there was one site left at Butter Pot Provincial Park for the May 24 weekend.

I suggest to the hon. member to take his pup tent – I will give him a Coleman stove, Mr. Speaker – and enjoy his May 24 in that one campsite that is left.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today on the Animal Protection Act. I will read the petition, Mr. Speaker:

WHEREAS the current Animal Protection Act was enacted in 1978 and is woefully inadequate; and

WHEREAS it has been two years since the Animal Protection Act was passed in the House of Assembly –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: – but has not yet been proclaimed; and

WHEREAS the inaccuracy of the current animal protection law is of grave and immediate concern to the SPCA; and

WHEREAS a new Animal Protection Act would ensure much more severe punishment and ultimately reduce instances of these crimes;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately proclaim the new Animal Protection Act.

And in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this has been an ongoing issue for a number of years. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there was a meeting with some groups and the minister. I am not sure what happened out of that, but I just know that this act was not proclaimed yet.

As we hear more and more every day, there is more cruelty to animals in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am sure every member in this House would like to see not one case brought forward, but that is not going to happen. We do need protection and we do need tighter controls; we do need more restrictions and we do need severe punishments to deter people from abusing animals, Mr. Speaker.

This has been ongoing now for about over two years. I am not sure what the delay is. There are a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador wondering why the delay, as it was committed to. I heard the Minister of Health say whatever they commit to they are going to do; two years later, we are still waiting to get this done, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister to help with all this, and I ask the House to urge all members of the House of Assembly to put pressure on the government wherever we can to have this act done. As we know, Mr. Speaker, and we are all aware that the animals cannot speak for themselves, so we need to do it. Us as legislators who create the law, form the law, we must ensure that we are going to enact the law so that we can give the people, the providers of animals in our Province, the proper tools to protect animals.

Mr. Speaker, I once again stand here, and I urge the House to ask the government to proclaim this bill so that the people who are doing their duties to take care of the animals in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador can do it with some teeth, do it with some vigour, and know that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is standing behind them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

WHEREAS the provincial government has not acknowledged that they have a role to play in the removal of the condemned Englee fish plant; and

WHEREAS the Town of Englee has exhausted all avenues over the past seven years, lobbying government for removal; and

WHEREAS inaction has resulted in economic loss for the town, delay of new infrastructure and has become a concern of public safety as large debris has fallen into the major shipping route.

We the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to immediately order full removal and environmental cleanup of this condemned property, a former fish plant, in order to restore public confidence in the system and settle land issues to permit new wharf development providing residents of Englee with a mechanism to revitalize the presently devitalized economy.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

It is quite disappointing to hear the protection of assets verses the important protection of increasing the public safety and in making sure that public life is put as the greatest precedent.

I was in Englee on Friday, April 27, on this very issue. A little girl was bicycling up through the main road, and she said: I am scared.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes, boy.

MR. MITCHELMORE: She certainly did, minister; she said: I am scared, Mr. Speaker – the fact that she lives on the other side and the road is right next to it; the fact that there were parts, there were pieces of the building on the other side of the road. People are greatly concerned. There is no protective barrier. There is a piece of police tape that has been broken there. There has been no wall or a fence. The security has been removed that was there. This is not something that is the town's responsibility and I have no idea why they would be forced to pay 10 per cent.

The provincial government today have released that they are investing $765,000 to remediate old mine sites that have cost hundreds of millions of dollars to this Province, as did the AbitibiBowater mill expropriation; the cleanup has cost not only the provincial government, but it is costing the federal government. This is something where we really need to press for stronger legislation for fish companies and producers there to ensure that they pay and they clean up their mess. This is something right now that is dilapidated, it is endangering public life, and I certainly ask the government here and ask the House to make sure that this matter gets taken care of.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I bring this petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain within the comfort and security of their homes, home care also allows people to be discharged from hospital earlier;

WHEREAS many families find it difficult to recruit and retain home care workers for their loved ones;

WHEREAS the PC Blue Book 2011, as well as the 2012 Speech from the Throne, committed that government would develop a new model of home care and give people the option of receiving that care from family members;

WHEREAS government has given no time commitment for when government plans to implement paying family caregivers;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to implement a new home care model to cover family caregivers.

As duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, home care for family members is something which, if it has not or does not affect everybody in this House, clearly it will at some point, either for ourselves, for parents, or other loved ones. This is an absolutely critical issue.

The importance of petitions in the House was never as clear to me as earlier today when I received a response from individuals in the Province. These individuals in the Province really are our employers, they are our bosses, they are the voters, and they are the people who send us here. Their response was: We saw you with the petition for home care. Can you send out some petitions for us to sign so you can bring a petition for us?

So, this is an absolutely critical issue that affects everybody personally, and everybody at home. So, I bring this petition on behalf of these twelve other people from my district, and I expect many more to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I present a petition on behalf of the people of the Burin Peninsula, and I guess, in fact from Newfoundland and Labrador. The petition asks for highway cameras. I will just read the prayer:

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

WHEREAS the Burin Peninsula Highway is long and desolate, varying in elevation, with highway conditions that are often difficult; and

WHEREAS this stretch of highway does not have adequate cellphone coverage to allow for quick response times for people in distress who need help; and

WHEREAS this highway has innumerable hazards that have led to the death of travellers in this area; and

WHEREAS no highway cameras are currently operating to let travellers know about road conditions and warn of possible hazards;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to install cameras on the Burin Peninsula Highway that will allow travellers to check on the road conditions.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a couple of times now I have presented these names on behalf of this particular issue. This is a very important issue and government will be doing an immense service to the people of not only the Burin Peninsula, but the travelling, motoring public out there who use that Burin Peninsula Highway both for trade, commerce, and in general just travel. Sometimes people are out for a drive and they want to know exactly what the road conditions are like. I think having a camera out there on one of Newfoundland and Labrador's more desolate highways would probably do these people an immense service.

I hope the government will consider this petition and the government will show interest in potentially looking at other areas of the Province to institute such an important safety measure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to present the anti-replacement worker petition.

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

WHEREAS strikes and lockouts are rare, and on average 97 per cent of collective agreements are negotiated without work disruption; and

WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement workers laws have existed in Quebec in since 1978; in British Columbia since 1993; and successive governments in those provinces have never repealed those laws; and

WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement workers legislation has reduced the length and divisiveness of labour disputes; and

WHEREAS the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout is damaging to the social fabric of a community, the local economy, and the well-being of residents, as evident in the recent use of temporary replacement workers by both Ocean Choice International and Vale in Voisey's Bay;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition has been circulated across the Province. I have received thousands of signatures in return to the petition. We had an incident a while back where Vale workers were off work for some eighteen months because of the use of scab labour. Most recently, OCI had its trawlermen from the Newfoundland Lynx out for ten weeks. I believe going forward with increased industrial activity that is proposed for the Province on various projects going forward, I think it would be useful for us to enact this anti-replacement worker legislation so that other workers do not have to endure what it is that other workers have endured as a result of the absence of this legislation in the Province. I urge the House of Assembly to heed the call of these petitioners and enact this legislation as soon as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill 3.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 3 be read for the third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act. (Bill 3)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 3)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 4, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 5)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 5 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 5)

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

On motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 5)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 5, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 and The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. (Bill 9)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 9 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 and The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. (Bill 9)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 and The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000". (Bill 9)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, relating in General the Budgetary Policy of the Government, the Budget Speech. We will pick up where we left off yesterday, with the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise again and continue speaking about this wonderful Budget, a wonderful Budget for all people in the Province when it comes to health care, education, transportation and works, tourism, business and so on. Of course, the focus for me has been on children and in particular, in the Department of CYFS.

I started yesterday on our two major strategies, the first one being the 10-Year Child Care Strategy. I have about twenty minutes left out of my hour, so I ask that people bear with me hopefully because this is really great stuff for not only the children, but for the economy as a whole. Yesterday, I finished up speaking about the sufficiency key component in our ten-year strategy in that we will increase spaces by 70 per cent over ten years. This is with an investment of $457 million over ten years, Mr. Speaker, so quite the significant investment.

Around sufficiency, I also neglected to point out that we will be determining the need for spaces based on needs assessments in different regions and communities throughout the Province. One thing that you often hear from the Third Party is build a universal system. I guess their focus is building it without any real strategic thinking, without realizing that child care is not mandatory, without recognizing that parents have a choice and not all parents want to put their child into a child care centre. Some parents want to put their children into a family child care home, and others rely on family members and friends. Again, that is their choice.

This strategy is very strategic in that we look at a needs assessment in different parts of the Province to see where the need is greatest and to focus our efforts there. The other thing with this strategy where the Third Party fails miserably is in the area of private operators. Our goal is to create more spaces and more quality spaces, and we see a role for private operators in that. We heard loud and clear from the Third Party that they do not. I know at our stakeholders' briefing with the Budget, they were quite pleased to see that this government recognizes the importance of private operators in the system that we have and are willing to work with them on a go-forward basis.

The other thing with the system that the Third Party proposes, the universal system, is that we have a real issue in this Province with attracting, finding, recruiting, and retaining early childhood educators, or ECEs, so their plan of going out tomorrow and building this huge system really would not work anyway. It comes back to that strategic thinking, because you can build all the spaces you want; if you do not have the qualified staff to go in and work in those spaces then you are really throwing your money out the window. This plan has vision, it is strategic, it is comprehensive, and it looks at all of the key components including sufficiency, quality, and affordability.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday around the quality piece. I talked about the various ways that ECEs now could get their Level I either through on-the-job training, prior experience for prior work, and through the new Level I ECE certificate program that will be introduced at the colleges and the private institutions. We have all confidence that will be in place by this September. We have developed the standards.

That is where I ended yesterday. The other key component of our strategy around quality – certainly getting the training is really important and getting the training in a timely manner – the other component is the compensation. This government increased the educational supplement to early childhood educators back in 2006. The early childhood education supplement for a Level I is $3,300 and if you have a Level II, it is $6,600. One of the things that we announced last Tuesday in the Budget is that we would be enhancing that educational supplement. The details of that enhancement will roll out in the very near future; I certainly suspect it will be somewhere around ECE Week, Mr. Speaker, which is the end of May, early June.

The other component – really important, critical component – in our Child Care Strategy is affordability. Going around the Province and hearing the stories from the parents – because when we did our consultations we spoke with early childhood educators, child care operators, parents, AECENL, Family and Child Care Connections, any and every stakeholder that had a role in child care, including businesses, Mr. Speaker, because for the labour market this is certainly a critical component. One of the things that we heard was affordability is an issue. Many people said it is often more expensive to put your child through child care than it is to pay tuition for a person attending university.

As part of our strategy, we looked around the country. Operating grants are something that is used nationally and it is something that we are proposing to do in this strategy. We expect that the operating grant system will come on board in 2014-2015; there will be more details on this rolled out in the future. In the interim, we will continue with our capacity initiative, which we introduced in 2006. It does not mean that there will not be any new spaces; it does not mean that there will not be operating grants in the interim, it is just there is a huge piece of work to do with the 182 centres that we currently have in the system, consulting with them.

We have done a lot of work around looking at the different configurations of child care centres: forty-eight spaces versus sixty spaces, part-time versus full-time – did all kinds of modelling in terms of the costs around that. In fairness to the child care centres, we need to do a more focused consultation piece with the 182 centres to see what that operating grant will look like. It will include costs in terms of compensation for the ECEs and so on.

This system will be voluntary, and I think that is a really important part and comes back to the private operators. After hearing the NDP, the Third Party, continuously talking about a universal child care system run by government, they feared that there was not a role for them to play. Mr. Speaker, we are at a place where we have 10 per cent coverage of all children aged zero to twelve. We do not want to chew off our nose to spite our face; we want to work with the child care centres that are currently there or else we will be going backwards if there is no room for them.

This system is voluntary. We want to recognize and appreciate that some centres may want to choose not to opt in to this system, and that is certainly their right. They will still be regulated by us, they will still be monitored, and they will still have to follow all of the occupational health and safety guidelines and so on and so forth.

Under this system, if they choose to come in and operate, they will receive an operating grant. For that operating grant or for that investment in public funds, we will require that the child care centre, whether it be private or not-for-profit, will have to cap their fees, and they will have to cap their fees at the current subsidy rates. The other thing that we have heard loud and clear, and we have heard it in this House from the Opposition Party and the Third Party, and heard it throughout our consultations, is that while we have one of the best subsidy programs in the country, it often gets eroded. Right now the subsidy rate for a three to five-year-old is $30 a day. When you take that subsidy to a child care centre, if they are charging $36 or $38 a day, then you have to pay the additional $6 or $8 a day.

Just by the sheer nature of the fact that a family or a parent needs a subsidy in the first place means they do not necessarily have the income and cannot afford to pay for child care. Here we are trying to make it better and more affordable for families to put their children in child care, but it is eroded on the other end. A key component of this is the operating grant. It is voluntary, but you will have to cap the fees at the subsidy rates. I am sure many parents listening out there now are going to be very relieved to hear that. We have 2,200 children on our subsidy system now and the majority of them are being charged over the subsidy rates, so again, a huge, key component of the Child Care Strategy.

So that about sums up the 10-Year Child Care Strategy. It will be released in the very near future and more details will follow. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that staff in my department, stakeholders in the industry, parents, and anyone and everyone involved worked very hard on this strategy. We went around in circles many times and wondered: Should we cap fees? Should we not cap fees? We explored every option inside out. We are very, very proud of the product we have produced. The Premier, the Cabinet, and the caucus have been so supportive because this, first and foremost, is critically important for children and families. Also, from an economic perspective, a business perspective, this is certainly a welcome announcement to all involved. We are all touched in one way or another with child care.

Mr. Speaker, in the ten or eleven minutes I have and before I go on to the next strategy, this is just a little bit of proof of the endorsement we received on Budget Day. I mentioned it yesterday, briefly. The lady, Mary Walsh, from AECENL, the Association of Early Childhood Educators Newfoundland and Labrador had talked to the Premier, talked about the list she had that she wanted to see in the Budget, and how government addressed every single thing in that list. I heard her on a CBC show later in the evening. She came out and said that AECENL is very much in support of our investments. She said AECENL, in their recent consultations, have raised many issues; they have been heard, they have been understood, and they have been addressed. Mr. Speaker, that certainly is a wonderful endorsement to have. It just goes to show what can be done when you work together with stakeholders.

On to the next piece, I just want to get into our final strategy, the continuum of care strategy. This is an investment in our foster care system. It is $4.1 million in year one and $14.3 million in year two, Mr. Speaker. I have had many consultations with foster families and this will go a long way in creating a level system, it will go a long way in letting our foster parents do what it is they want to do. There will be a lot more details to come on this in the very near future and certainly at the foster families' Canadian symposium in June. What I will say, again a third party endorsement from the Foster Families Association, they said, This is "an excellent example of what can be achieved when stakeholders work together..." "The need for additional supports and services has long been identified by our foster families and it is so good to see that their voices have been heard and a response has been received."

We have worked really hard on these strategies. I am really pleased that the investments were made into children in the Department of CYFS, and I certainly hope that the Opposition will support this in the Budget.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise and speak to the Budget. There are a number of pieces that we want to speak about. First of all I will speak to the non-confidence motion that was put forward by the Member for Humber Valley. Mr. Speaker, it talked about the responsibility of government to address some of the immediate economic problems of rural areas of the Province, as well as some of the serious social needs which exist in the Province itself. I am going to speak to some of those particular issues today in my comments. I know I do not have a lot of time so I will try to get to as many of those issues as I possibly can. Because I know that there are so many of them out there and so many of them that are important to people in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I am going to start by addressing some of the issues in Labrador. As the critic for Labrador as well as the critic for Natural Resources, a lot of the things that I deal with falls directly within the Labrador jurisdiction. First of all I want to talk about the pressing need that was out there, and still remains today, for an inquiry into the Burton Winters tragedy in Northern Labrador. Mr. Speaker, in Makkovik on January 29, the community was shocked as to what happened. In the days subsequent to that, there was a search. There were flaws that took place with how that particular search was conducted, and therefore the people of that area, along with people throughout Labrador and throughout Newfoundland, and in many parts of the country that had a connection to Northern Labrador, to this Province, called upon both the provincial and federal government, Mr. Speaker, to do an inquiry into the death of Burton Winters and to look at where the system may have failed in their ability to respond effectively to an emergency. Mr. Speaker, the fifth estate did a full exposι or documentary around this particular tragedy, and they themselves looked for answers in which they did not get. They surfaced with even more questions about what was happening.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the government has said that they have undertaken an internal review, and I am sure they have undertaken that internal review; however, I have never seen a copy of what that internal review outlined in terms of what the Province's responsibility was but we know there was a responsibility by the Province through Emergency Measures to respond and to forward for further help and to call for further backup at particular times. It is our understanding, in direct meetings that I had with both the Department of National Defence Chief of Staff and also with the federal Minister MacKay that those particular calls did not come in a timely fashion from Emergency Measures in Newfoundland and Labrador. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have been asking the Province to undertake to do an inquiry into this particular loss in Northern Labrador.

To date, the government has not committed to do the inquiry; however, in this Province we have seen many, many inquiries over the years. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have a complete list of them and if time permitted I could actually read every single one of the inquiries that have been done in Newfoundland and Labrador at a particular time, and those inquiries were triggered because the loss had direct impact upon the Province. That was what triggered the inquiry. This is an inquiry that could be triggered in exactly the same way, and, Mr. Speaker, to date the government has failed to do that. We know that the family will meet with the Premier this week and will be asking the Premier to do this inquiry. We are hoping the government will respond to the direct request of the Winters family, Mr. Speaker, and of the Burton family.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, very briefly, with regard to the closure of the search and rescue centre; while it is not causing a great deal of concern for the government opposite, it is certainly causing a great deal of concern for people in the Province. It is like playing Russian roulette with people's lives when you say that we are going to have the calls directed to another province in Canada, in hopes of responding effectively and timely to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Premier has said time and time again, and Hansard will show, that we are not downsizing equipment or the assets that we have available for deployment but we are changing in terms of how we make the calls, and how response mechanisms are delegated – the same answer we have heard from the federal minister, Peter Penashue. Mr. Speaker, that does not carry any weight with me, because I already know from the Burton Winters case that it was the mechanisms of how calls were made and how help was asked for that resulted in a huge delay in response time. Mr. Speaker, that was combined with the fact that there were assets available that were not working effectively. So, Mr. Speaker, when you look at both of these things, you know that both of them go hand in hand.

Now, that is why I am so concerned about what is happening with the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre in this Province. I know there is going to be a period time when they will look at how the transition is working, and if it can work, and what their response times will be; however, in thirty days we may not get the answers that we need. Those answers may not come for sixty days, ninety days, or even a year and a half out, but when it does come, there will also come a realization that a tragedy could have probably been prevented. You need to remember that when these search and rescue centres in this Province were established, it was done as a response mechanism to another tragedy that occurred in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it was put there for a reason. That reason, Mr. Speaker, was the loss of life, and now today it has been taken out of it.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the first issue that I wanted to address, and I would encourage the government to make movement on those issues, they are very important, and especially to do the inquiry into the Burton Winters case. With regard to the search and rescue centre closure, they failed to act on that particular issue over the last year and a half. They did not launch any kind of a campaign against the federal government with regard to it, and now that office is closed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a number of issues in my own district and throughout Labrador. First of all, it is with regard to the federal cuts that are coming. They are impacting communities right throughout Labrador. We are seeing funding cut for basic programs like Community Access Programs, which are community-based computer labs that are set up where the community has access to that kind of technology. They exist in a lot of small communities around the Province and many of them are in my own district. We are going to see those cut.

We are going to see self-employment offices, or outreach offices, being cut throughout Labrador. These are offices that provide very essential programs to communities, because the main office is in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and therefore their subsidiary offices throughout Labrador have workers which help people with federal government programs like Old Age Security, Canada Pension programs, rebate programs, and things like this. Now, we are seeing those offices cut as well.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we do not know what this means for 5 Wing Goose Bay. We know that there are cuts on the horizon for the Department of National Defence. We know that there has been no new mandate for 5 Wing Goose Bay other than to continue with its operations as they have been. We know that the contract with Serco is up for renewal and renegotiation.

There is always a concern around 5 Wing Goose Bay because there has been no real commitment to the longevity of that particular DND base by the federal government in the last ten years. There has been, Mr. Speaker, no new activity. In fact, they have just been harnessing a workforce. I have no problems with that, but how long can that continue? I think there has to be some real purpose and meaning given to the base in Goose Bay if it is going to continue into the foreseeable future and be able to operate as one of Canada's key national bases.

I think one of the ways that could happen is by establishing an Arctic gateway in Labrador, to be based in Goose Bay. Back about two years ago, or maybe a little longer, the federal government talked about putting an Arctic gateway in New Brunswick to service the Arctic, which makes absolutely no sense. If there is any place in the country that is well positioned and strategically located, with the appropriate infrastructure to be able to operate as an Arctic gateway, it would be Happy Valley-Goose Bay, not just with the Department of National Defence facilities that they have available there, but also with the port facilities that are available there as well. Today, we are running freight still out of Montreal into Northern Nunavut, into all of Nunavut actually, right across the three particular regions, including the Baffin region. All of that, Mr. Speaker, could be done out of Labrador.

We have been asking the government opposite for six years now to carefully look at that as an opportunity, because we see it as an opportunity in Labrador. Government has still not done it and it makes no sense as to why. I think the private sector have already proven to us that it can be done. If you look at the Woodward Group of Companies, who is a strong partner affiliate with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in delivering marine services currently, they are also delivering services to people right across the three Arctic regions of Canada. In particular, Mr. Speaker, they are delivering all the fuel cash right across the northern Arctic region. They are doing it by ship. They are the sole supplier. They not only are delivering, but they are owning and operating in the Nunavut Territory a number of these retail and wholesale outlets for petroleum products. They are doing it all right from Labrador, Mr. Speaker, which is their main base of operation.

They have already shown us the way to do this. There is a way, and I think it needs to be a partnership with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Nunavut to look at how we become that Arctic gateway for shipping to the Arctic region. It has to be a government-to-government partnership if this to going to work.

We have engaged with the Arctic region on a number of fronts, Mr. Speaker; we have partnered with them to do the Northern Lights Conference every two years, which we showcased this year in Ottawa and two years ago in Montreal. We also partnered with them through our Chambers of Commerce in Labrador in doing what we call the Nunavut Trade Show and Expo, along with the Expo Labrador, which will be occurring around the end of June. We have a lot of partnerships already with the Arctic region, and transportation is the next logical one which creates a new economy for Labrador and for the people there.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we would like to see the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador look at doing a feasibility study to have a railway built in Labrador. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because one of the key pieces that is happening across Labrador today is the development of the mining industry. We are seeing a lot of new mines; we are seeing a lot of investment by the mining companies. There are two great barriers that mining companies in Labrador are facing today. One is the availability of electricity, good hydro power –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: – to be able to run their mining operations, because the Government of Newfoundland – despite the fact that it touts Muskrat Falls as the big hydro development project, that power is not being made available to the mining industry in Labrador. That has become a significant challenge in developing new mines. In fact, many of them have reverted to diesel generation, which is what we are seeing today: four mines in particular that I know of right now – there are probably more – that are currently existing and operating today on diesel-generated power in Labrador. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, they are negotiating with the Government of Quebec to look at how they can bring power across the border from Quebec into Labrador to be able to feed their mining operation. One of the biggest mines that are currently looking at that is Alderon resources, of which the current and former Premier is a board member. It is very ironic that the same proponent of Muskrat Falls who left out the mining sector all along is now part of a company that is negotiating, as I understand, with Quebec to bring that power from Quebec into Labrador.

That is the tangle that we are into in Labrador when it comes to power, Mr. Speaker. I think for these mining companies to actually thrive and develop in the way that they need to and bring the real economic returns to the people of the Province – because you need to realize that outside of oil and gas, which we know oil and gas is on a downward swing in terms of the revenues that it will generate and its contribution to GDP in the Province over the next twelve to nineteen years, because of that, we know that it is the mining sector that is going to start picking up the slack and become the next major contributor, next to oil and gas as it is today, in a far greater way. Most of those mines are based in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the accessibility to power is a huge concern for the mining industry today. If I was part of a government today that was looking at developing Muskrat Falls, my primary focus would be to provide power for the mining industry in Labrador, as well as the communities across Labrador. It can be done.

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Natural Resources said to me in a side conversation at one point was: How do we do this and build the transmission capacity? It is a good question – a very good question – because it is not going to be cheap to build the transmission capacity; however, it can be done. The way it can be done is that there has to be a buy in and a partnership with the mining companies. I know every mining company out there is going to say: Listen, we are not going to pay twenty-eight cents a kilowatt for power and invest in a transmission line – and you cannot expect them to. If you are going to expect them to invest in the long-term infrastructure in Labrador to transmit that power, then you need to be able to negotiate with them at a rate that is fair and reasonable so that they are getting the power for a rate that is feasible for their mines to continue to operate, but also feasible for the government to see a return for the people of the Province.

What we are seeing today is Muskrat Falls being developed primarily to bring power to the Island portion of the Province where we have not really established a tremendous demand for that power and to do so at great financial risk to the people of the Province for the next five decades; however, what we are saying, look to where the demand is first and meet that demand first. That exists in Labrador and that is not the direction that the government has been taking.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the other challenge, of course, for the mining companies is the access to railway. Right now, the only port for shipping ore happens to be in Sept-Ξles. Sept-Ξles is right across the border from Labrador on the Quebec side. Right now, all of the iron ore that is coming out of Wabush, coming out of IOC, coming out of New Millennium, coming out of Labrador Iron Mines, all of that ore is currently going across the border to Quebec by railway and being shipped through Sept-Ξles. I know my colleague, the Member for Labrador West, will know this very well. He grew up in the mining industry and the railway tracks are on his doorstep. So, he knows exactly what I am talking about. When the iron ore industry was established in Labrador, there was no transportation mechanism to get that ore out. Sept- Ξles, at the time, was a port that was identified jointly with the companies and, of course, with the mining operations that were ongoing as well on the Quebec border, on the Quebec side.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into all of that part of it, because I do want to examine it a little bit, first, I need to move a sub-amendment. I would like to do that now before my time runs out.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move, seconded by the Member for St. Barbe, that the amendment that was previously presented, the non-confidence motion, be amended by changing the period at the end of thereof to a comma and by adding immediately thereafter the following words: and that this House also commends the government for its failure to present a budget that reflects the possibilities which exist in terms of addressing the needs of the people of this Province.

That is my sub-amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I will table it now.

MR. SPEAKER (Kent): Order, please!

A sub-amendment has been moved by the hon. the Opposition House Leader, seconded by the Member for St. Barbe. I wish to consider the amendment. The House will now take a brief recess to consider the amendment and we will resume shortly.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have had an opportunity to review the sub-amendment, and I have determined that it is indeed in order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate your ruling.

Just to finish my comments with regard to the railway piece in Labrador, and the needs of the mining industry. Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about all of the ore right now that is being mined in Labrador is being shipped out of Sept-Iles in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, we know the current railway that exists today is not able to handle the capacity of ore that is going to come out of Labrador over the next five to ten years. As we see the expansion of IOC to 50 million tons, and then we see the further expansion of the other mines, the new mines that are coming on stream, some of which today we are only seeing at 2 million tons, that over the next few years will continue to grow and grow up to 6 to 7 million tons of ore, and others that will be even bigger than that, such as the second mine by New Millennium and Alderon and those companies.

Anyway, to get to my point; in order to get that ore out, they need to have a transportation mechanism. What is being looked at today is extending and upgrading the railway, although it has already just gone through an upgrading project, but also looking at expanding the Port of Sept-Iles even further, although it was currently expanded in the last couple of years. They are also looking at a second railway.

That brings me to the point that it is time for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to start looking very seriously at ore shipments in Labrador and the iron ore industry. We are not talking about a ten-year project here. We are talking about 100 years of industry that is going to continue in Labrador. Unless we do something to ensure that we can capitalize on the benefits in Labrador, we are going to continue to see all of that ore going out of Labrador to Quebec and being shipped out of Quebec.

I will give you an example. When the iron ore companies started in Labrador West and the railway went through to Sept-Iles, Sept-Iles was a fishing community just like any other community on the South Coast or North Coast of Labrador today. It had a few hundred people, Mr. Speaker, and it was dependent upon one industry. Today, Sept-Iles has 40,000, 50,000 people in population. It has expanded industry around the mining sector alone. They have capitalized on the industry and the mining wealth of Labrador.

What I am saying to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador today, have a little bit of vision for where we are going in the next 100 years in Labrador, the next twenty-five years in Labrador. Have some vision for that and start looking at, one, how we bring power to these companies through Muskrat Falls. Secondly, is the potential there to finally build a railway across Labrador? Is it, or is it not? I cannot answer the question. All I see is an opportunity. I see an opportunity today to see ore processed and shipped from Labrador. There are lots of ports that are available. Goose Bay could be a port. Cartwright could be a port. The Straits could be a port. Rigolet could be a port. There is any number of communities that could be ports. If Voisey's Bay could actually be a port for ore shipping, almost any port in Labrador could probably be a port if you wanted to look at it in that capacity.

Mr. Speaker, we will not know unless there is a feasibility study. I am asking the government to do just that, to do a feasibility study to see if it is worth the investment in Labrador. Can we partner with the mining sector to build a railway? It is my understanding that even though the federal government is putting $55 million into the first phase now in Quebec, that money is going to be also matched by the Province of Quebec, but there are also going to be investments. A third of that money they are expecting to come from the mining sector alone. They are going to be asking mining companies that are taking ore out of Labrador, processing it in Labrador, to put money in to build the infrastructure in Quebec. That is what is being asked of them. That money is not going to come for infrastructure in Labrador or Newfoundland or benefits for our people, it is going to go to benefit Quebec. I find it very frustrating in Labrador, because I found over the last eight years there has not been the kind of vision for Labrador by the government opposite that should be there for an area of this Province that is contributing so much to everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador and has the potential to grow at a far greater pace than any other region in probably Eastern Canada at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, on that note, I want to talk as well about the highway. One of the areas where they have invested, they have invested to complete Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway and they have invested monies to complete the paving between Labrador West and Happy Valley-Goose Bay; however, so far this year we have received no commitment whatsoever on any funds for Phase II and Phase III of that particular highway.

Mr. Speaker, we already know that the cost estimates to widen and pave Phase II of the highway is around $147.2 million. We also know that the estimate cost to widen and pave Phase III of the highway is around $152.3 million. Mr. Speaker, what we want to know is what is going to be done this summer? How much of it is going to be started? How much are we going to see done?

I just drove the entire highway from L'Anse au Clair right to Cartwright in the last couple of weeks and the road is absolutely shocking. In fact, I hate to get up and talk about it because I do not want it to be a deterrent to people in the Province from using that road. I do not want it to be a deterrent for the tourism industry because there are times when that road, although it is a gravel road it is a good gravel road. There are times when it is bad; it is a very bad gravel road. I am always hesitant, Mr. Speaker, about bringing it up; however, in the last few weeks I have travelled that road and I can tell you it needs work. It needs work today. Not just a grader, Mr. Speaker, because in many sections of the road there is nothing left to grade. There needs to be crushed stone. Some of those sections of road are ten and twelve years old now and they have not had any crushed stone put on it, and it needs to be done.

We are waiting for the minister now to make his announcement with regard to what he is going to do on Phase II and III this year and what kind of stone we are going to see on the road, how much widening we could see done, if the survey work for the widening is going to be completed and so on. Those things need to happen. How can you develop industry and promote it to people to use if you are not going to do the work on it?

The other section of road is the section through the Labrador Straits where the pavement is very, very, very - and if I could say, very, again - old, Mr. Speaker, and very well worn. That particular section of highway, to resurface it you are looking at $30 million to $35 million to resurface the entire section. You have to realize that you are looking at pavement that is forty years old here, that has never had anything only cold patch, so you can imagine what it is like.

There were 3,000 people using that particular piece of road for most of those forty years; however, in the last ten years and in the last five years, the usage on that road went from 3,000 people to nearly 30,000 people using the same section of highway. It was already forty years old with very little maintenance, a bit of cold patch here and there.

If you take the amount of traffic that is now on that road and the number of tractor-trailers - we were lucky at one point, Mr. Speaker, if I was driving that road in the Labrador Straits before the highway opened, I might pass a tractor-trailer, I might pass a couple of cube vans. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am passing dozens of tractor-trailers. I am passing, every time I am on the road, twenty and thirty cube vans in a day. That is the kind of traffic that is being generated, a completely different ball game; however, Mr. Speaker, there has been no work done on it. People are damaging their vehicles every day. There is nothing only constant complaints that I get from people right from L'Anse au Clair to Labrador City, and all across the Island portion of the Province who have to use that road. It is the major highway in Labrador. Again, we are waiting for the government to tell us what work they are going to do on that particular road this year.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the ferry service continues to be a problem for the users in Labrador. Not a problem for a lot of people in the House of Assembly because you do not have to use the ferry services across the Strait of Belle Isle or in Northern Labrador. For the people who do have to use it, it is a problem, a significant problem.

Mr. Speaker, we have a ferry service that needs to be replaced. We have the Apollo on the Strait of Belle Isle, which when the Apollo was put there it was a good ship. It was far superior to anything we had ever had before in our lives and we welcomed it. It served the people of the area; at the time it was 3,000 people it was serving. Then the highway opened up a little further up the road, Mr. Speaker, and we served a few more thousand. Now that ferry services every person in Labrador, and every bit of traffic between Labrador and the Island portion of the Province. In doing so, we have seen the capacity on it quadruple over the years. In fact, we are carrying 100,000 people on that boat every year. We are no longer carrying the 2,000 or 3,000 people that we normally would.

While the ferry is going and trying, through its best efforts, to operate on a year-round basis – and we appreciate that – the reality is neither the ship nor the ports are equipped to handle a year-round service. When the government did that, they did it as a pilot and they saw what the demand was for the service, and it was hard to take it out of it when that demand was already there. What we have not seen is any vision, any idea of how they are going to fix that on a go-forward basis.

What we have been asking for, Mr. Speaker, is the government to call tenders for a new ferry for that service, to make it a twenty-year contract to go out and have a proper ship built to go on that service that can operate year round, can operate in the ice, can operate with the amount of tractor trailers and passenger traffic that is there, and put that boat on there to service the people in that part of the Province – and they deserve that. That would cost very little to the government. Because if they were looking for a twenty or twenty-five year contract then, whoever is bidding on that, they would have the time to build the vessel, deliver the vessel, but also to pay for the contract and the vessel. So you are not looking at a five-year contract or even a ten-year contract where it becomes front-end loaded for the government in terms of what they have to pay out.

This way, Mr. Speaker, they can rationalize the costs over a longer period of time, make it easier on the taxpayer, and still deliver a quality, first-class service to the people of Labrador. I do not know how many times I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, but I have been asking and asking and asking. For the last three or four years I have been writing – I have a file in my office this thick from not just letters and proposals from me, but from people all over Labrador encouraging the government, requesting the government, and begging them to deal with the ferry problem on the Strait of Belle Isle.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of other issues I want to talk about in the very short time that I have left – and I am hoping, in my remarks today, that I am giving the government some good ideas that they are prepared to work on, on behalf of the people of Labrador. One of the other areas I want to deal with is with regard to cellphone coverage and Internet connection. I know the government did announce some work that they are going to do around high-speed Internet in the Province, but you cannot ignore the fact that technology is the real tool for the twenty-first century for any kind of progress, whether it be social or economic. Without the technology infrastructure available in our communities, we are going to be stagnant. We are not going to be able to move forward. Companies are not, organizations are not, towns are not, and people are not. That is what happens. When you shut people in and you close them off from the centre of information and their ability to be able to tap into the entire world, what you are doing is you are isolating them in terms of their thoughts and their ideas and you are isolating them in terms of their ability to be able to go forward and do some of the magnificent things we have seen done as a result of people having access to technology in their communities.

In my district, many of the communities that have high-speed Internet are running out. I cannot even get Internet in my home community. I have to pick it up on wireless from my neighbour. I cannot get high-speed Internet. It is not available to me any more. Everything is to capacity. You go a couple of communities down the road, this is in Mary's Harbour, you go to St. Lewis and it is no different. Go down The Straits, it is no different; it is the same right across the district. We have used up all of our capacity; therefore, that needs to be upgraded. There are still communities that do not have high-speed Internet.

My brother lives in Lodge Bay in a tiny community with no Internet access, only dial-up. He went out and he bought his own system; he put in a wireless Internet service for himself. Yet the government cannot respond. I have friends who have cottages with wireless Internet, out in the middle of the wilderness away from everything, like my brother is in Lodge Bay. Yet the government has not been able to deliver quality Internet access to the people in the Province. That just amazes me. It does amaze me because information technology today is no different than having electricity to your house, or having a telephone to your house, or having a highway to your house. Information technology is one of the major pieces of infrastructure that we need today.

Cellphone coverage is important for the people in Labrador. You are driving over 1,000 kilometres of highway with no access to the outside world. Where else in the country are you going to see that? I have been on that highway. I have been there in the day; I have been there in the night. I have been broken down. I have been stuck in snowstorms. I have had car accidents. I have been stranded on the side of the road for tire problems, all the rest of it, Mr. Speaker. I have been there in every way, shape, or form that you can be, broken down and stranded on a road in Labrador over the last sixteen years. That is because I am a frequent user of the highway. Now, people who do not use the highway too much, I am sure they do not have too many incidents. I seem to have had a lot of them but only because I am on the road a lot, so the incident rate is going to be higher.

I am not alone in that. There is a sense of security, Mr. Speaker, in knowing you can make a cellphone call or you can access someone if you run into trouble, as opposed to just sitting there in the middle of a wilderness and not being able to get hold of people. This day and age, cellphone access has to be a part of the essential services. We want to encourage the government to partner with the private sector to deliver those services.

When you look at people like Aliant – I have had many conversations with them; they want to do something. They want to invest in these communities, but they cannot do it alone because they will not get a return on their money. They are like every other private company. You are not going to put money in when you are not getting money out, but they are prepared to put a certain amount in. They are prepared to operate the service and be a provider, but they need government to help them with the infrastructure. We are encouraging government to partner with the private companies to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with some very critical issues in my district these days. One in St. Lewis, I think, is probably the biggest challenge I have had since I have been in politics. I have had a plant close down in this community, which has been the sole employer. It impacts about fifty or sixty workers, which in essence affects the whole community.

I was in there on Saturday and I had a public meeting with them. I had an opportunity to meet with the Minister of Fisheries a couple of times last week prior to that meeting. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, he was very helpful to me and very helpful to my constituents in outlining the programs that the government does have available. We will continue to deal with them and that community over the course of the next little while as we work through that particular transition.

I know it is not easy for the people in that community any more than it is easy for the people on the Burin Peninsula, people on the Bonavista Peninsula, or anywhere else in the Province. Mr. Speaker, we cannot control what private sector companies often do. Like I said, it is all about the bottom line. When they cannot make money, they often have a tendency to pull out. Then it is left up to the government and to people who are elected like myself to try to pick up the pieces and help the community forward. That is exactly what we are going to do in this case. I will do so in co-operation with the Minister of Fisheries and with the provincial government to try to do whatever we can to look after the people in this community.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with issues around the school in Charlottetown. I know I am starting to run out of time, but I do want to mention it. Mr. Speaker, I walked in to what they now have as a classroom. They are in a gymnasium. They do not even have a window in this gymnasium. That is where these children are now being educated. I know the school had to be closed because of mould. I know there are other complications.

I know there is a report on the structure now being sent to the Department of Education; we met with the minister last week and he did assure us that we would get a decision in a very timely fashion with regard to this school, and I can only impress upon him today the need to be able to move forward as quickly as possible and, Mr. Speaker, to move forward with a new school, because that is what the children in this community are looking for, that is what they deserve. They do not deserve to have an old school that is mouldy, forty-odd years old, falling down, where pieces of it now have to be taken off because the structure is so bad, to have that upgraded and refurbished for them. They deserve a new school; that is what we will be lobbying the government for, and we hope that will be the decision that they will make.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know I am running out of time. I have some more issues, and I –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Oh, just a couple of minutes, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been able to cover a number of issues today in my debate. There is a whole list of them I have here that I certainly wanted to get to, especially with regard to home care, which is a very essential program, not just in my district but all over the Province. People out there today expecting something as family caregivers, and I want to say to them that we are not going to give up on you; we are going to continue to push for the family caregiver program to meet the needs of the people that are out there who need this service.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member. I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, by leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to clue up my remarks, I just want to say that all of the issues that I touched on are very critical and crucial issues. Unfortunately, none of them were in the Budget; however, I think there are major pieces of infrastructure and programs that the government needs to look at on a go-forward basis. I would encourage them to do so as soon as possible, because it will not only improve the lives of people when you are talking about servicing the mining industry, or bringing the roads up to standard, or putting in new ferries, and installing cell services and those kinds of things, but it will also contribute to the long-term wealth and return of wealth to the Province, and that is very important.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other issues which I will talk about in the days to come with regard to animal protection and with regard to family care givers in the Province, as well as housing programs, because all of these things are imperative to the people of the Province, and they do need to be considered by their government.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am absolutely delighted, Mr. Speaker, to be standing here today on this, probably my fourteenth or fifteenth Budget in the sense of responding to it, and responding to the Opposition in their claims that this Budget is not the budget for these particular times. I can say to the members of the Opposition, as well as to the general public, Mr. Speaker, that this is indeed a Budget of the times. It does get to a lot of the challenges that are out there with regard to infrastructure, with regard to our health care, with regard to our education.

I was very interested in listening to the Opposition House Leader. She stood on her feet and talked about what is not in the Budget, and also lamenting about a lack of investment of this government in the area which she claims to represent in a very forceful way, that being the Labrador portion of our Province. I would say to the people of the Province, that there is nothing further from the truth. This government, under very capable leadership of our Premier, has - this government over the past eight years has made significant investments in not only the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador but in Labrador itself.

Mr. Speaker, in order for you to understand the significance of our investment, you have to look at the situation when we took over government in 2003. We were presented with tremendous challenges in Labrador, of projects not completed, of projects that were in place that were not adequate. I will go on and talk about in particular the roads, as well as the ferry connections, as well as the infrastructure with regard to works, buildings in particular.

Let's start with the ferries. In the mid-90s there was a deal made with the former Administration and the federal government to take over the ferry services in The Straits, as well as the freight service and passenger service to the North Coast. To quote the press releases of the day, Mr. Speaker, the money that was given - hundreds of millions of dollars that was given - was to ensure that these ferry services would go on in perpetuity, and there would be enough money that, placed in trust, could ensure that there could be adequate services to the North Coast of Labrador, as well as across The Straits.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the ferry services saw very little of that money. The Apollo was placed in service for The Straits. The boats that were serving the coast at the time are still in our inventory. The money was taken and it was put into other projects, in particular the Trans-Labrador Highway. The Trans-Labrador Highway, from the beginning it was planned that, first of all, it would be put through. In other words, from Lab West down to Southern Labrador there would be a gravel road built to standards, and that on completion, would return back and then widen that road and harden it.

Mr. Speaker, when we came in, in 2003, almost $1 billion in current account; close to $12 billion in the long-term debt that we took two years before we could start to move forward, and move forward we did. The first thing we wanted to look at completing was the Trans-Labrador Highway, which we did; again, mostly on our own dime. That investment, I guess, was a tremendous investment that required us to prioritize it, make sure that it was going to be done. Mr. Speaker, about three years ago we delivered on that promise and the Trans-Labrador Highway was opened. Again, no pavement had been put down. An investment that we have made, Mr. Speaker, when we look at Phase I - there are three phases of the Trans-Labrador Highway - that runs from Lab West, Wabush, down to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, I was very delighted the other day when we looked at putting out the final two contracts of a $300 million investment in Labrador, $300 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, true to our word and our commitment, the Phase I of the Trans-Labrador Highway will be widened and hardened as of 2014. Again, we made no bones about it. That was what we were going to do. That is what was done in the original plan brought forward, I might add, by the previous Administration.

Mr. Speaker, that in itself is a tremendous investment. Every year since 2006 we have put in place, I believe when we are talking about that region of the Province, we are putting in place upwards of $80 million in contacts to go out to finish that highway. When you compare it to the money that we use for the entire Province, we are talking about a base budget for maintenance and repairs on our roads of about $60 million. Again, I say to the hon. member opposite that investment was a tremendous investment. We also pointed out that once we got to that point where we are closing in on the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway Phase I then we will set our sights on Phase II and Phase III. Again, Mr. Speaker, we have to look at our fiscal situation and this Budget clearly indicates that we are moving along, we are not pausing, we are moving forward.

That is the Trans-Labrador Highway, but that is not the only highway in Labrador. We have also invested significantly in the current highway system that exists in Southern Labrador. One of the places that we had to backtrack was around Pinware River. There, we are just completing now close to a $10 million diversion to make that road safer. Again, Mr. Speaker, we have invested and continue to invest in that particular road. Maintenance wise, we did some tremendous investments in the road, and I am just going to go down through some of those, Mr. Speaker. As I pointed out, the investment that we have made is about $300 million for Phase I. For Phases II and III, we are going to go pretty close to those numbers as well as we unfold it in the next number of years.

With regard to Southern Labrador – and this is again from the member opposite saying that nothing has been invested in the road, but we have made some significant improvements. I just mentioned the $9.61 million for Pinware. As well, we have invested about $4.5 million in Southern Labrador between L'Anse au Clair and Cartwright Junction; about $1.5 million in 2008; about $1.1 million in 2007; $600,000 for crushed stone between Shadow Pond depot and Port Hope Simpson in 2010. As well, we awarded a contract of $500,000 for crushed stone applied to various locations between Shadow Pond and Lodge Bay. We have invested $5.7 million to construct a new highway depot. This is important because, again, these depots were needed to maintain – $5.7 million. Again, since 2010, we have added forty new phones to the provincial satellite phone program. I say to the member opposite, we have invested, we are continuing investment, and we will get to the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway in due time.

As for the ferries, as the member alluded to, the Apollo was put in probably in 1999 – a boat that served well over the years but is coming to now the end of its contract. Already, we are preparing to put out a request for proposals to make sure that we can get the type of vessel that we need. We have just finished putting out an RFP for the coastal freight. We have had something like five proposals come back to us. We are now looking at those and I am very confident, Mr. Speaker, that we will be able to put in place the appropriate freight vessel for the North Coast and begin services as required sometime around mid-June.

On the Apollo, this government is investing in making sure that we can garner what we need in whatever is out there, and I am sure some proponent will step forward. Once again, that contract – I heard the ember saying for twenty years or so. We are looking further down the road than the next five or ten years; it will be a fifteen-year contract. We went fifteen years because even in the midst of that, Mr. Speaker, we as a government are continuing to look at ways to improve the service. One of them would be somewhere down the line, in the long-term, would be a fixed link with the Labrador coast; that, even if we started today I would say would probably take us a couple of decades. We have updated our feasibility study; we put it in 2012. It will be incorporated into our long-term transportation strategy, not only for the region of Labrador but for all of Newfoundland and Labrador as we continue to make the investments that are necessary in order to carry out the needs of the people of any particular region.

As for infrastructure in Labrador, where do I begin? I could start with the schools. Just from memory now I believe in Port Hope Simpson, in L'Anse-au-Loup, also as we go on up further I only have to go to Labrador West and one of the most pressing challenges up there was the health care. We now have in progress a health facility up there that is second to none. An investment of something like $98 million is a very important investment, again, given the economic development taking place in that particular area.

As well, right next door to it, one of the biggest challenges we looked at in Labrador was with regard to our college system. In Lab West, a brand-new college opened up, specifically geared to that particular area. Happy Valley-Goose Bay – and I am looking at the Member for Happy Valley-Goose Bay down the line – the tremendous investments we have placed in that particular area, as well.

In response to the member opposite, it is quite clear to all of us that this government values that part of the Province. It is an important part of the Province. We are picking up where a previous Administration had fallen down.

When we talk about the Trans-Labrador Highway and the problems that were associated with it, one of the things we have to go in now and fix are the rock cuts that were placed in. Where the road was changed and the direction was changed, it went through a part of the country where it should never have gone through. In many cases, that road would have been blocked off in the winter time. Again, this government made sure they put the depot strategically placed in the middle of those rock cuts so that we could keep that road open. The response of the previous government was to put a gate, I believe, at Red Bay and further on up the line. When it got too bad, they simply closed the road and walked away from it.

As well, with the year-round service – I do not think people really appreciate that this government took the initiative to put into service a year-round service to the Straits. We do realize that there is ice; given the ice situation of the last number of weeks, the best icebreaker in the Canadian fleet could not get through the ice. I do not know about building a boat that could get through the ice. It was packed hard on the Blanc-Sablon side. There was just no way of getting through. As a matter of fact, even if I had the Bond in, which has better capacity than the Apollo, those last couple of weeks there was very little anyone could do about it. I think the people of Labrador understand that.

It is not the ice, the wind, and that sort of thing, but it is their desire to have more appropriate vessels; once again, this government is stepping up to the plate and making sure that what we are putting in place is the most appropriate and for the long term. This gives an opportunity for a proponent to come in. Again, our accomplishments – we finally opened up the Trans-Labrador Highway, year-round freight service to Southern Labrador and the rest of Labrador. These are tremendous accomplishments, but we are not stopping there. We are continuing to make sure that even in years where we are not flush with cash as we are in this particular year, where we have been asked to make sure that we are fiscally responsible, we are still moving forward and making sure that the plans are in place to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway to get the appropriate vessels in for service.

The other part of Labrador that I would like to mention, because I have mentioned Lab West and Wabush and Happy Valley-Goose Bay – and Happy Valley-Goose Bay is right on the cusp of being a major development. If indeed this government goes forward and sanctions Muskrat Falls, we will see tremendous activity in Labrador. Nalcor, we are already working with Nalcor with regard to the transportation system, but as important, our layout areas and so on; I know that in Happy Valley-Goose Bay already there are plans.

That brings us to, again, the other part of Labrador that I would like to make mention – I am getting down to the last few moments – and that is indeed the North Coast. The North Coast has been challenged in many different ways. It is the North Coast, for example, that we cannot provide year-round freight service simply because of the ice that presents itself at various times, but we have indeed continued to invest in the North Coast. One of the investments that we are making right now is to try to equip each of the airstrips on the North Coast with more up-to-date navigational equipment so that we can provide the opportunity for more flights to come in and out.

As you know, the weather conditions on the North Coast, especially with the fog and the rain and so on and so forth, often make it very difficult for planes to be able to fly in that type of weather, but again we are working with the Nunatsiavut Government and making sure that our airstrips have the proper navigational – it is going to take some time because we have a consultant that is hired, working as we speak; and, of course, that has to go through Nav Canada. Of course, we are hopeful that we can get in the queue and that will happen as well. In the future, one of our biggest areas up there would be the relocation of the Nain airport. That is something we are working with the federal government on right now and trying to make sure.

Again, this Budget that is before us, Mr. Speaker, is a budget that is for all of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is for all of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and there is a promise of prosperity that is with this particular Budget. It is most appropriate for these particular times. Again, all areas of the Province have seen the tremendous investment that this government has made. This year alone, Mr. Speaker, once again, we are at the $900 million mark in infrastructure. It is a little shy of our regular $1 billion, but again, there are too many projects to go through at this particular time. Again, we are completing projects that have begun over the last year or so. We are beginning new projects, but we are pushing ahead.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, that this $900 million, it does give us the roads, it does give us the buildings, it does give us the infrastructure that is required to move forward, but it also has a tremendous spinoff because it is providing a lot of economic activity, especially in the way of work. Again, this government is about the people of Newfoundland, it is about the prosperity for these people, making sure that we are doing everything in our power, using what revenue we have, putting it in the right places.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot more to say. I never touched on housing, I have not touched on health care as such, but I can assure the members opposite that this government is serious about making sure that what we do is the right thing to do at the right time. Again, it is all about the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, government members are fond of referring to the government before and what they did not do. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to refer to the government before and I do not want to refer to the government before that government. I want to refer to the government before the government before and that government.

Mr. Speaker, we came into this Confederation with Canada in 1949. At that time, we had 300,000 people. From 300,000 people, Mr. Speaker, in the next twenty-two years our population grew to 500,000. Mr. Speaker, had the growth rate continued for the first twenty-two years - for the years subsequent to the first twenty-two years, we would today have 1,200,000 people in this Province. Why do we not have 1,200,000 people in this Province having gotten off to such a great start at the beginning? Mr. Speaker, it can only be because of mismanagement, lack of foresight, wasted opportunities and general incompetence.

Mr. Speaker, in the first twenty-two years of this Confederation, the twenty-two years under the Smallwood Administration –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that the Member for St. Barbe has the floor. I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, that government was elected by the people of this Province six times in a row. In the 1966 election, after seventeen years, that government was elected with thirty-nine out of forty-two seats. That would have to be seen as a resounding vote of confidence. In that period of time there were ups and downs with the federal government. Let's not forget the controversy over Bill 29 or Term 29 and the claw backs with the Diefenbaker government. Very little has changed in federal-provincial relations; however, our first Premier knew how to work with the federal government, even when it came to the point of erecting a tower in Central Newfoundland called Pearson's Peak so he would get the feds to pay for the highway. The feds finished paying for the Trans-Canada Highway in the late 1960s. We have a government today, Mr. Speaker, that is so inept at dealing with the federal government that we cannot even maintain search and rescue in the Province. That is absolutely disgraceful. It is tragic.

The junior member in Confederation in this partnership is the provincial government. The provincial government ought to be more proactive and creative in dealing with the federal government. The federal government's slash and burn policies seem to be absolutely unopposed by this provincial government. In the first twenty-two years, Mr. Speaker, our very first government built roads galore. Roads were built throughout the entire Province. Roads were built right to St. Anthony. Roads were built in Southern Labrador.

As a matter of fact, as far back as 1969, I travelled to Red Bay on a motorcycle over what was then a gravel road. One of the members referred to the Pinware River, and having to do a bypass around the Pinware River; well, the road went to Pinware in 1969. There was no highway. I crossed the Pinware River in 1969 on a trail bike.

Mr. Speaker, in the first twenty-two years of Confederation we built the building that we are in right now. Even though he was roundly criticized for building such a monstrosity so far out, we all enjoy this building right now, the building which is the Confederation Building. He built most of the hospitals that we now use. Most of the hospitals all over the Province were built at that point. Memorial University was built. Most of what we then called the district vocational schools were built, as was the fisheries college. Now, in case people are wondering where CNA came from, CNA came from most of those district vocational schools and the fisheries college.

The government of the first twenty-two years even built hotels. In 1966, when we had a come home year, so many people would come home and see how well we had done in the first seventeen years after Confederation. When our government, at that point, decided we did not have suitable accommodation for people to stay in, our provincial government went out and recruited, attracted, and funded four Holiday Inns; there was only one in St. John's before that. Our provincial government helped establish and introduced to this Province – talk about a Business Attraction Fund – the Holiday Inn in Clarenville, the Holiday Inn in Gander, the Holiday Inn in Port aux Basques, and the Holiday Inn in Corner Brook were all built under the very first Administration, the Liberal Administration of this Province: Smallwood's Administration.

The Labrador West iron ore mine was discovered and established under the very first Administration of this Province: Joey's Administration. That iron ore was found at that time, that iron ore mine was developed, and we have enjoyed the benefits from that.

Mr. Speaker, the Come By Chance oil refinery was established under the Smallwood Administration. How far back did the Smallwood Administration establish the Come By Chance oil refinery? I remember watching the debates in 1967 when the government was so roundly criticized for taking such a wild gamble as to invest in an oil refinery. The people who did the oil refinery were absolutely scandalized: Lundrigan, Shaheen, Doyle. It was quite commonplace around the university to refer to them as the LSD gang – LSD: Lundrigan, Shaheen, and Doyle; they put the Come By Chance oil refinery there. Yes, we have had some ups and downs, and the Come By Chance oil refinery right now is a tremendous source of revenue and employment for our Province.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of that twenty-two years if our population had continued to expand at the rate that it did in the first twenty-two years, we would have 1,200,000 people right now. We would be on par with Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and other provinces that are substantially larger than we are. Instead of that, we are struggling along with half a million people, aging people, and trying desperately to make ends meet until the oil revenue came in.

Mr. Speaker, what I have seen and the more I read about the actual performance of this government, the more disgraceful it is, the more discouraging it is, and the more shocking it is that our resources over the last eight years have been so poorly managed. We have had the resources and we have had the oil revenue, so how can a person have any confidence in this Administration?

Mr. Speaker, even the structure of government is difficult to comprehend. We have a Department of Transportation and Works that is responsible for buildings. Why would the Department of Transportation and Works be responsible for buildings? Shouldn't they worry about the roads, the ferries, transportation, and works? No, they have the buildings.

If we want to talk about the buildings, we have between 800 and 900 buildings in this Province. According to the last Auditor General's report, only half of them have been assessed. On spot checks that the Auditor General did in reviewing twenty of those buildings, of twenty buildings that were reviewed, insulation was not mentioned once. The people are paying for heat and light in these buildings, and on a spot check of twenty buildings, heat and light were not mentioned on a single occasion. The Auditor General has reported that we have buildings that are still in existence using the doors and windows from the 1940s. The Auditor General has reported that at least twenty-five of these buildings are vacant. Of the twenty-five buildings that are vacant, they are just sitting there basically going to waste and going to rack and ruin. Eight of these buildings have the heat and light still on. Nobody is home. The heat and light is still on. Money is being totally wasted.

One of these buildings, Mr. Speaker, is in my district. Probably more than one, but one building is in my district and it is called the provincial authority building. It is not a bad looking building from the outside. I attempted to have it as a constituency office. It was offered up. It looked fine to me. On closer inspection that building, which is unoccupied, still has the heat and light on, the sewage system has collapsed, the roof is leaking, it is not handicap accessible, the floor joists have all rotted off, and it is full of mould. That is the type of stewardship we are seeing of the resources of the people of the Province in the form of buildings.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of not being able to use this building, a public tender had to be issued for a constituency office – a novel idea. The government owns all of this real estate and is so unable to manage it effectively that we have to go out and rent buildings and pay top taxpayer dollars when we have our own real estate. We should be managing it much more effectively.

Mr. Speaker, people generally have forgotten where we are and how we got here. In the first twenty-two years – after twenty-two years, the provincial debt was $700 million; $700 million is less than the surplus generated of oil revenue last year, so in twenty-two years we had all of this going for us. We had a $700 million debt, and look where we are today. In the seventeen years following the first twenty-two years, the provincial debt went up five-fold. What did we get for it? We lost the railway. We got Roads for Rails, and now look at the roads. We saw the population first go up and then begin to decline. We saw stagnation. We saw more people leave the Province and they continue to leave the Province.

One of the best examples that I can relate as to how our buildings have been managed, how forgetful the people have been, and how they have been misled about the facts of the situation is: in 2006 I was campaigning in Placentia-St. Mary's. I was campaigning against who is now the Minister of Justice. In the community of Riverhead, I went into a building, an attractive-looking building; it is a community-used building, formerly a school. I looked at the plaque and saw when it was built and I went in and had a discussion with the individuals who were inside. The building was built in the 1960s as a school. In the 1980s it was refurbished by federal grant money. That building was built by the Smallwood Administration; it was refurbished under the watch of John Efford when he was a federal minister, and yet three out of four people in the building were going to vote Tory. They were going to vote against the people who had created and built the building and restored the building that was there. They had no inkling whatsoever that they were the beneficiaries of that building. They simply did not know. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the people in our wonderful Province, if they would stop and take stock of where we are, how we have gotten here, how we arrived here, and what we have done with our resources in the last handful of years, I think they would be totally dismayed.

This Administration says that they had to take over from an Administration that left them in poor shape financially and I agree with that. I agree, because there was no money. That Administration had taken over from another Administration that had taken over from the Smallwood Administration with little or nothing to show for the efforts – saddled them with a $5 billion debt.

When this Administration took over, the first thing they did was change the accounting methods from cash to accrual. Everybody knows that is legal; however, anybody with any accounting background whatsoever knows that when you change from cash to accrual, you automatically account for all of your major debts. You show the major debts; you have to display the shortfall and the unfunded liabilities. Mr. Speaker, the result of changing from a cash to accrual system of accounting was to make things look far worse than they were before. It was, as I said earlier, smoke and mirrors; it was a sleight of hand to be able to change from cash to accrual, because now all of the unfunded pension liabilities – which have not been dealt with in this Budget and will be passed on to somebody else – came into accounting and had to be accounted for.

Mr. Speaker, some of the examples of how I see money being left on the table, it is as if we have become so oil-struck – and we have become very wealthy, not just by Canadian standards but by world standards – that we have forgotten to run the store. We are not managing the resources of the Province adequately. If you look at a program such as the Growing Forward Program, first of all, Mr. Speaker, a province that wants to be an energy warehouse – and I agree; we are an energy warehouse and we should be an energy warehouse, should have an energy minister; not a Minister of Natural Resources, an energy minister who is in charge of massive developments like offshore drilling, like hydro-electric developments.

Why should this be simply natural resources? Granted, it is a natural resource; however, why should a minister who has the responsibility of a project which may well be $10 million before we get there, with overruns which we are going to be looking at for the next fifty years, have to worry about cutting permits in another part of the Province? Why has this government, and this most immediate government in the last year or two, not properly reshuffled the Cabinet so that ministers like the Minister of Transportation and Works worries about the roads, worries about the ferries, and does something about it, and he does not have to deal with the buildings? Why don't we have a realty corporation or a Department of Public Works? Why should we have a department like the Department of Advanced Education and Skills training when really, what we are looking at is vocational education, and then that department has to worry about social services?

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to understand why budgets do not get spent. Monies get allocated and there is no great saving to save money and not do the job. Mr. Speaker, if you said to a contractor tomorrow, I would like for you to build a home for me in my hometown, a vacation home or a cottage or whatever, if you gave that person a budget for $250,000 and you gave the person a set of plans, you would not want them to come back a year later and say, I built a place for you, I saved $100,000, but you have no wiring and you have no plumbing. We are not quite finished, and there is no landscaping. If it is in the budget and you are supposed to do the job, then do the job, apply the funds and get the result.

This is what gives me such concern over the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. If they do not use the budget, what did you tell the Minister of Finance last year to get that money approved that you did not spend it on? What are we going without? Because if you did not need to spend the money, by all means change your forecast, revamp the budget, do it in a mid-year statement, do it quarterly, but at least apply the funds properly. Do not come back with extra money at the end of the year and the job not properly done. If you have a department that needs to manage large items, then clearly, that department, that minister should not have to manage the items that should be born in the nature of minutia, born in the nature of small items.

Mr. Speaker, in my submission, in my view we have too large a Cabinet. We have more ministers than we need. We have half a dozen stand pat departments. Clearly, you work with your budget if you have Justice, if you have Education, if you have Health, if you have Municipal Affairs and housing, these types of budgets. Mr. Speaker, this Province needs to have departments that are more economic development departments; more like energy, more like forestry, more like mining, more like the fisheries. These must be very proactive, aggressive departments. I would say we need no more than half a dozen of each. We do not need wasteful departments. We need departments that are focused, some on maintaining the services for the Province, and others that are maintaining economic development for the Province. We need fewer ministers and fewer departments. Mr. Speaker, to have –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: To have parliamentary secretaries in a Province with only half a million people is an absolute farce. A parliamentary secretary where you have only half – we are only as large as a medium-sized to large-sized city in Canada; only a small city in most of North America, yet we have Cabinet ministers and we have parliamentary secretaries. We are totally over governed –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Clearly, we are budgeting amounts that may or may not make sense. We are not applying the expenditures where they should be applied, and we are not addressing our deficit properly given the amount of funds that we have.

Mr. Speaker, the current Budget assumes $124 a barrel Brent price for crude oil. Right now, Brent is trading for $5 or $6 a barrel, or less than that. Clearly, this must be almost like a card trick. I would say my friend the Minister of Finance was told: You make it balance or go within a quarter of a billion dollars, do whatever you have to do. How can we forecast the actual and run the risk that oil prices will not be that high? Wouldn't it make more sense to do what prudent financial planning will be, prudent budgeting would be, and maybe forecast 80 per cent, 85 per cent, or 90 per cent of the actual?

Mr. Speaker, I have no more comments at this point, but I am looking forward to more opportunities to debate this Budget.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, it is a real pleasure to have the opportunity to stand here today as well and take part in the debate on the Budget, and in particular on the non-confidence motion and the amendment put forward by the member opposite.

I have had many opportunities, actually, to stand here in the House and speak on the Budget over the last number of years. It has always been, indeed, a real pleasure for a number of reasons. One is the most significant impact that the budgets of this government have had on the Burin Peninsula and my district in particular. There has been any number of great initiatives that we have been able to move forward because of wise investment and focused economic development opportunities. I think of all kinds of things that have benefited us when I go right around my entire district.

I am not going to get into naming a lot of projects, Mr. Speaker, but suffice it to say that we made some very positive investments in infrastructure in facilities, in particular school facilities and medical facilities. I will name, for example, the Grand Bank Health Centre, the Burin centre, and the US Memorial in St. Lawrence as three where we have made significant investments. It is fair to say that people of the district have recognized that a number of times over. They recognize the tremendous leadership that our government has provided over the years and a tremendous number of investments we have made that have made life better for people on the Burin Peninsula and people in my district in particular.

Mr. Speaker, it is not only because of the district investments and the many good things that have been able to occur in my district. I am also very pleased to be able to stand because, as a member of government, we have developed a tremendously positive number of programs in this Province over the last number of years. I think about the kind of vision we have been pursuing around social programs, and if you take education as an example, we have invested not only in the facilities of schools, but in students themselves. The elimination of school fees and the provision of free textbooks are two of any number of initiatives that we have done. All of those kinds of things help not only students in schools, but they help families. We all recognize that low-income families, single parent families, and others who are challenged, the fact that textbooks are now free and there are no school fees, not only does it put money back in the pockets of families but it reduces stress at home. It allows for a better home environment, and a better home environment provides opportunities for students to come to school better prepared.

It is not only at the K-12 level, Mr. Speaker. My colleague, the Member for St. George's – Stephenville East has talked on any number of occasions about the investments at the post-secondary level, the provision of the tuition freeze, the provision of upfront, needs-based grants which focuses on investing in education, Mr. Speaker. A cornerstone of this government from the day that we were elected was we recognize that the success of the Province and the success of the individuals who reside here are tied directly to education levels. We recognize that we have to provide every opportunity possible for everyone to gain a good quality education which will better them for life, to move forward beyond schooling and to support themselves and their families. This is very, very positive, progressive, visionary investments, Mr. Speaker, on the social side of things.

Health care: My colleague the Minister of Health has talked about any number of initiatives that we have engaged in here to support people and families in the Province. I could talk about the medical transportation program; I could talk about in my own district on the Burin Peninsula investment in dialysis services, becoming a bigger and bigger demand every single day, Mr. Speaker. Every single day we are hearing of more cases where people need assistance. It is a policy that we have invested in; the recent Budget did further expansion in dialysis services. Progressive social policy initiatives, I call it, that the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are benefiting from because of the leadership provided on this side of the House. It is always indeed a real pleasure to be able to have the opportunity to stand and to speak to some of that, and to pass along my thanks to government on behalf of my constituents and also on behalf of the people of the Province who I deal with every day not only as an MHA, but in my capacity as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, right now we are debating a non-confidence motion. We are debating a non-confidence motion brought forward by the Member for Humber Valley and the Opposition Leader. I want to speak to that for a moment because there are a number of pieces to this non-confidence motion that obviously I believe are incorrect and take issue with. I am going to speak to them, but I must say upfront that I really feel for the Leader of the Opposition. I really feel for the situation that the individual is in because he is in a real tough spot. Any time you are in Parliament like this, in the Legislature, and you are leading a party in Opposition it is never easy, Mr. Speaker. I admire the role he is trying to perform, but he is in a tough spot. Because while he is in here trying to focus on the debate and attack the issues and organize the caucus, others are out there across the Province kind of taking a stab in the back if you will, other aspiring leaders doing their piece, and that has to be tough, Mr. Speaker. As one person said to me a while ago in the House, I think it was something to the effect that I would rather take a smack in the face than a stab in the back. Now, I guess it is something like that in some regard, Mr. Speaker. It is a tough spot to be in, and I certainly feel for him.

The other tough spot is we just listened to the kipper rant across the way for about twenty minutes. I want to address some of those comments because I am sure that it cannot be the policy and the vision of the Official Opposition that we are hearing come out across the way for fisheries in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – and not only fisheries, but a couple of other things I will touch. Certainly, it cannot be the vision of the Opposition Party here that the salvation of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador is that first of all we are going to confiscate closed fish plants. We have no idea what we are going to do with them because there is no fish to catch to process, but we are going to confiscate closed fish plants. That is the first plank of the platform that I have heard unveiled. They still have not figured out what they are going to do with them, but that is the first plank. I am sure that is not part of the vision.

The second part that Captain Kipper unveiled about two weeks ago was that the salvation is a $50 million reward to the Province if we catch herring for nine cents a pound – and I may be off on the numbers; we can check Hansard. I believe it was fifteen cents for a small tin can and then we sell it in the dollar store and we make $50 million in profit for the Province. I have been asking myself for two weeks: Is everybody in the Province stupid? Is there not somebody with an ounce of common sense to realize that if in fact that could be done that they are not out there doing it? I have discussed with a number of processors of herring – I have had a great chat over the last two weeks, I have to say, and I have yet to find one who sees any merit in Captain Kipper's analogy that the salvation to the fishery is to can herring in this Province and pump $50 million. I do recognize that he is making an effort. The member is making an effort to contribute to debate, and that is good because it gives me and the others an opportunity to talk back about the vision put forth and to talk about it to folks at home who want to hear who has a vision for the Province and what the visions are. I think it is fair to say that you will get a good glimpse, as I continue, that our visions are fairly different in where we would like to go as a government versus where members opposite seem to want to go, or at least the spokesperson on behalf of the fisheries file seems to want to go. I am certainly not sure about the kippers.

Mr. Speaker, I have also heard conflicting reports come out across the way about – on the one hand supporting the seal hunt and supporting an investment; then earlier today I started to catch comments that seem to be contrary to that, questioning why government was investing in Carino, why we were offering support to try and kick-start the seal industry this year and to get things moving.

I may be wrong, Mr. Speaker, and if I am, I am sure the member opposite, the critic for Fisheries and Aquaculture, will certainly correct me when I am wrong. That is what I thought I heard, anyway. I just want to put it out there; if he did not mean that and I misunderstood, then fair enough. People of the Province need to hear where we stand on these kinds of issues. As I said, I see members reacting over there, so I recognize this may not be the official policy of the members opposite. It might be just the views of the person who speaks to the policies for the party opposite. If that is the case, maybe they will fine tune some of the speaking notes for the future.

Mr. Speaker, the other piece that we seem to be at odds on when we talk about the vision for Fisheries and Aquaculture, in particular, for the future, is on the whole marketing side and how it is that we are going to proceed with government's announcement to support not only marketing council for the Province, but the development of a consortium of companies that will come together to market their product and indeed, the financial assistance that we are going to provide through what once was called the Fisheries Loan Board. There are a number of other similar programs now; one we had in place through the Department of Innovation, Trade and Business and another that we are looking at as a result of a commitment we made in the last election. There are some very strong discrepancies, Mr. Speaker, as to how we would pursue that.

The vision that we are pursing – and I want to talk for a couple of moments to ensure that people who are listening at home, in particular, understand. We committed, as part of the MOU process – and as a reminder for people who cannot remember, the MOU process was a process that involved not only members of government of all political stripes, but in particular, most importantly, it was a coming together of members of the Fisheries, Food and Allied Workers, members of the public, and members of the processing sector, the companies. It was a collaborative approach, Mr. Speaker, to come together to talk about the needs of the industry. There was a whole series of things identified, some of which government was able to support, some of which industry was able to support, and some of which none of us are able to support at this point in time. There are two things that came out of that; one was the direction on marketing that I just talked about a few moments ago, and number two was how we would achieve that.

Here is where our visions differ, and I want to point this out very clearly for this Legislature today. The member opposite has stood, at least on – and let me be clear, I am talking about the Fisheries and Aquaculture critic opposite, who I gather does not necessarily speak for the party when he speaks. Let us be clear, I do not want to insult all members; I am talking about Captain Kipper there. His view as expressed here –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the member to be mindful of the need to be respectful of all members in the House.

MR. KING: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. It was said in jest and I think the member opposite received it that way. I certainly apologize; no intention to insult or otherwise.

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

MR. KING: Back to my very important point and distinction that I want to draw on how we are going to pursue the vision of marketing in the Province, Mr. Speaker. It was unanimously agreed by all the participants in the MOU process that we would follow a collaborative model that would be developed from industry up. Government would facilitate the process and we would provide some technical administrative support and financial support to get the model done. We are doing that, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to have some very positive news to share, hopefully, with this House in the coming days, weeks, and months about marketing and where we are headed with that.

The difference people need to understand is on three, if not four, separate occasions, the member opposite has stood in this Legislature and indicated very clearly that if he was the minister he would have nothing to do with industry; he would have nothing to do with the groups. Very clearly he lays the responsibility for moving that initiative forward at the feet of government and at the feet of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Mr. Speaker, two very clearly different models and approaches.

The member was not here, so I will give him the benefit, but I remember a debate here last year when I was actually the Minister of Human Resources. I remember a debate on a particular topic where we were talking about consultations and going across the Province and engaging people and consulting people on issues. Members opposite condemned that, Mr. Speaker. Members of the Official Opposition condemned it; they did not believe in a consultation process at that point in time, but rather government should simply dictate the policy and put it out there.

I raise that, Mr. Speaker, because it would have been my hope and the hope, I am sure, of members here on this side of the House, that position would have changed with the election of new members, a bigger Opposition, and more bodies ready to go and get up and go at it, but what we have been hearing the last couple of days, Mr. Speaker, is a repeat of the same philosophy. We do not need to consult in this Province all those hardworking harvesters in my district – Garnish, and Frenchman's Cove, and Grand Bank, and Fortune, and Grand Beach, right around to St. Lawrence – all of those who get up early every single morning and go to work in the fishery, Mr. Speaker, and work hard. Some of them make very good money and some of them do not. Some of them are struggling to keep things going for their families, Mr. Speaker. On this side of the House, we support them and we listen to them.

We do not believe in the philosophy articulated opposite, that there is no need to listen to those people because they do not matter. They do not matter in the debate on the fishery and the debate on how we are going to market product. Their voices need not be heard, they do not matter. They do not matter to the Opposition critic for Fisheries and Aquaculture. Well, I say to the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, that they matter to us. The members over here on this side of the House, not only members who serve rural districts, Mr. Speaker, look around, there are a good many, but there are also lots of members here who represent larger districts, larger communities with not necessarily having a strong attachment to the fishery, but they also believe in the same philosophy. That if you are going to move forward, you have to do it with a collaborative vision, Mr. Speaker. You have to know where you want to go and you have to be prepared to engage people in the process. So, I say to the member opposite, you might want to rethink what it is you are articulating as the vision for the party and where you want to go.

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be remiss if I did not point out that the member spent the best part of twenty minutes articulating his position on the Budget and his position on government, and articulating that he stood by Joey Smallwood, a government that operated in this Province back in the 1960s. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a good many over here who were not even born when Joey Smallwood was Premier of this Province. If that is the vision that is supported by members opposite, then heaven forbid us, that they ever get the opportunity to form government, Mr. Speaker, because it is not our vision. The challenge that we face is picking up the pieces of successive Liberal governments that have burdened this Province – the member opposite talks about all the hospitals and all the schools and all that sort of stuff, all well and good. There are a couple of things that he has forgotten. Does anybody remember the words Upper Churchill? The Upper Churchill, I did not hear any mention of that when he talked about his vision and how if he was in power - Joey Smallwood is the vision for this Province, Mr. Speaker; Joey Smallwood.

I heard him say in one sentence we do not have enough Cabinet ministers, there is too much on the plate of the Minister for Advanced Education and Skills, and then a few moments later he said there are too many Cabinet ministers. I am thinking now for the people of the Province – I look to the camera – so you want more Cabinet posts, but fewer ministers. So, who is going to run the Cabinet posts, I say to the member opposite? Is that the vision, Joey is coming back to run it?

I say to the member, you need to be clear – not clear in the House, because I think you are clear as you can be with us, we understand. The people of the Province need to hear where you stand on some of these things. If you are going to stand in here and talk about a vision, and say things about a government being disgraceful – and this is not only, Mr. Speaker, an MHA, and it is not only a critic for a government department, but this is a former leader of the party who sat there –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: He did not get elected.

MR. KING: Yes, let me be clear for the people at home. He was not an elected leader, Mr. Speaker. He was never an elected leader, but to give him credit he was a former leader who sat over there, and I am sure understands the struggles that the current leader is going through in trying to manage a caucus and a vision that seems to jump every twenty-five or thirty words, like a crossword, all over the place. I am sure that former leader recognizes the challenges that the current leader is facing when everyday he is trying to focus on keeping this piece together. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the party faithful are out there and they are talking about how things have to change.

I can table this if you want to see it, if you have not read it. It is in the paper. It is not secret. We have the travelling road show, or as Randy Simms is going to say, a very well concocted scheme. You are going to go across the Province on the people's dime, the Liberal Party dime and pretend that it is all about renewal. When we are ready, we will take the knife and we will shove it again, and we are going to go through a new leadership. Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting, by the way. It is very interesting, I might add, that the great speech of the next one happened to happen in the district where you might argue that the king of the knife stabbers used to represent in this House for the Liberal Party. So it is very ironic.

Mr. Speaker, I notice my time is winding down. I just thought I would have a few comments. I had all kinds of stuff I wanted to say about the fishery and where we are going to go. I am sure that members opposite are going to provide a little more time for me to elaborate on that in the future.

I appreciate the enthusiasm coming across the House from my colleagues. To the Member for the Bay of Islands, I have to say, I had a great visit a couple of weeks ago. My only advice for the Member of the Bay of Islands to help his party a little bit, is bring your critic out and show him what the real fishery looks like because it is happening in your district, I say that to you. Your critic could use a little lesson on how good fish plants are operating and how good harvesters are operating. You, as Mr. Congeniality on behalf of that party, would be the real one to take him out and show him around.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I am very pleased to finally get the opportunity to stand and to speak to the Budget which the Finance Minister tabled last week. We have been here for a whole week now since the Budget was read and it is good to finally be able to voice an opinion here in the House of Assembly with regard to the Budget and not just doing it through the media.

One of the most interesting things about the Budget is the title. It promises a lot: People and Prosperity – Responsible Investments for a Secure Future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: The title begs to be spoken to, which is what I am going to do, Mr. Speaker, because we need to really look at what does this government mean by responsible investments. What is it that this government is truly investing in, Mr. Speaker?

I have been reading the Budget documents carefully. I will be honest; I have not gotten every single word read, but I have gotten every single important word read to this point. I have read the press releases. I have read the speech. We have of course been preparing for Estimates, and I have read the Budget document itself. I have been looking for all these wonderful investments that the government is talking about, Mr. Speaker.

There is absolutely no doubt that right now in this Province, we are in a financial state we have never been in before, and we have been saying that for a number of years. We know that we have cold cash; we have $2 billion in cash, and that is great. We have never had that before, but we have the money to make that happen. This government has been every year, just about since 2004 – especially when there have been surpluses; every year that there is a surplus they have been putting money into the cash and temporary assets and building up the cash and temporary assets. They have a reason for doing it, Mr. Speaker, and I will be speaking to that in a few moments.

We also know that the government has a debt repayment plan in place and it is a good debt repayment plan. It is on target and there is no doubt that we have the ability; because of the money that we have, we do have the ability to bring our net debt down to more national standards, the average of the per capita debt in the country. We can get there; we can get there without too much difficulty. We have a deficit this year; it is only our fifth deficit since 2004, but we have a deficit that can be handled. There is no doubt about that. We do not have a lot of problems when it comes to our economic strength. As the minister himself has said, the Minister of Finance last week said we are flush with cash and our financial situation is the strongest it has ever been. That is quite a statement, Mr. Speaker, for a Minister of Finance of Newfoundland and Labrador to be able to make.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, with all of that, with all of that strength, with all of that money, with all of that ability to deal with debt, we have a government that is quibbling over making drug cards accessible to all seniors, something that in most of the provinces in Canada is a given: once you become sixty-five, you will have access to a drug card. Mr. Speaker, what an investment in our seniors that would be, if seniors knew they would not have to worry about whether or not they pay for food or pay for drugs.

We know we have the 65Plus program. We know that, and there are many seniors who are eligible for it, but there are many seniors who cannot get that drug card because they are slightly above the line, the threshold, that is there, that becomes a necessity if you do not make the card universal. Even the Minister of Health and Community Services last night in the Estimates meeting talked about the difficulty of a threshold, because with a threshold you have some people who are below it and then you have some people who are just above it. The ones who are just above it unfortunately do not get the card.

Here we are with all of this economic strength and we are quibbling over giving the rest of our seniors a drug card. Invest in our seniors. Seniors, when they turn sixty-five, many of them have another twenty or twenty-five years left. I have been to several one hundredth birthday parties in the past six months in this Province. On Friday alone, my colleague from St. John's East attended two in one day. I attended one with him. Many of our people are living to be in their nineties, to reach 100, and to go over 100. Many of those who are in their seventies, eighties, and nineties are healthy, their minds are clear, and they are active. So making sure they have a drug card is an investment in them.

Home care – basing home care on need; if you need it, you get it. That is an investment in our seniors. That is an investment in people who have long-term disabilities. We have to see these things as investments as well. That is a responsible investment, to make sure that seniors can stay in their homes as long as possible. They remain healthy, they remain active, and they remain part of the community and add to the community. That is a responsible investment. Something as simple as the cost of glucose strips for people with diabetes – something we had in our platform, Mr. Speaker. How much money does that take to make sure that people with diabetes have something that is essential for them to keep their disease under control? That, too, is an investment, Mr. Speaker.

So, when I look at what the government is talking about when they are talking about responsible investments, I wonder, what really do they mean? Especially, Mr. Speaker, when I look at the fact that in this year's Budget the government has set aside $664 million for government's equity investment in Nalcor to put toward, mainly, the work that might start on Muskrat Falls – a project which has not even been approved, which has not been sanctioned, which is still being investigated. So, in this year's Budget alone, there is $664 million for an equity investment. We now know from the Minister of Finance – and this is something we were trying to get said, and the Minister of Finance has started saying it publicly, and we talked about it this morning in Estimates. We also know that the liquid balance of $2 billion cash that we have in the Province right now is also something that the government could use – it does not say they are going to, they have not made the decisions on that, and I am not saying that they have. I am putting out what we now know for sure, that that $2 billion could be used at the moment of sanctioning of Muskrat Falls by the government as their equity into the project that they have to put in once the sanctioning happens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: They could take a loan, and the $2 billion, obviously, would be collateral to help with that loan, or they could use the cash itself. The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is $664 million, a couple of billion at the time of sanctioning that is necessary for equity investment, the money that has already gone in, we are talking about this government putting billions of dollars into Muskrat Falls, while they quibble over a few million dollars to help people in the Province with small things that would really improve the quality of seniors in this Province. It makes not sense to me, Mr. Speaker; it really does not. Putting billions into this major megaproject and not taking care of people at the same time. Government paints this as investing in the future of the people of the Province. That is their responsible investment. That is the people and prosperity. In other words, hang off, wait for your drug cards, we cannot give them to all of you yet; hang off, wait for home care; hang off, wait for child care; hang off, wait for affordable housing because they are going to do all of this investing and somewhere down the road you are going to benefit from it.

Mr. Speaker, that really begs a very, very serious question because what it says to me is if we cannot do the investing and at the same time take care of the people, at the same time put in place programs that people expect elsewhere in this country, if we cannot do the two things at the same time, then I do not call it responsible investing.

Let's use a really practical example. What if a parent who had responsibility for a family, had a partner, children they were responsible for, decided that that person wanted to take a large chunk of the family's annual income to put into an equity investment that could possibly yield benefits for the family ten or fifteen years down the road? What would be the first question we would ask that parent? Mine would be: Can you do that and take care of all of your other regular expenses? If the parent were to say to me: Well no, it is going to make things really tight and perhaps we are not going to be able to have the kind of food that we are going to need, have the children eat as well as they should eat, and perhaps we will not be able to do as much healthy recreation that we might want to do, but in fifteen years time we are going to make a lot of money off this investment. We would say to that parent: That is unconscionable. You cannot be investing your money that you need now. Is that really an investment then? If using money that is needed now to take care of the family and calling it an investment because in maybe ten or fifteen years time you are going to get money from it, is that a real investment in the family? I think we would all agree that it is not.

That is the question that I am putting out here because that is the situation I see our Province in at the moment. I see us trying to be in this world of making these huge investments with the hope that in ten or fifteen years' time Muskrat Falls is going to give a big return, while in the present we have people in need. That, to me, is unconscionable. That is why we have to have the full analysis of Muskrat Falls. That is going to happen. We are being promised a debate here, and hopefully we will have all the information we need to really see how responsible that investment is, Mr. Speaker. The bottom line becomes that for me, how responsible is the investment?

This government, this minister, and the Premier too, talk about the fact that they know that we do have the big problem of facing the day when we do not have the revenues from the offshore. I know that is probably part of the government's vision with regard to Muskrat Falls. They are going to replace one megaproject development, and that is oil, with another one, which is Muskrat Falls, so putting all of their eggs in the basket of megaprojects as the way to go for the Province.

The government talks about the need here and now to diversify the economy. The Minister of Finance has been talking about putting a plan in place to diversify the economy. Mr. Speaker, this government has been in office now for eight years. Over and over and over people have talked about diversifying the economy; I have certainly talked about it for the past six years. This government still does not have a plan for diversifying the economy.

Mr. Speaker, if they do not soon start showing us how they understand diversification of the economy, then we are in trouble. We know that we have a couple of areas, many of which have to do with major developments, megaprojects in the natural resources. They talk about the growth in mining, yes, we know that is happening. They do not look at things that are right under their noses as places where investment has to be made, Mr. Speaker.

We have to be a Province that does more than look at megaprojects as the way to go in order to bring what our people need, prosperity to all people. The prosperity that we see in the Province - there is prosperity in the Province. Sure, our gross domestic product is great. There are all kinds of good things happening for people who work in the oil industry. There are great things happening for people who work in the mining industry.

Mr. Speaker, we have the ordinary person in the Province, both in the urban settings as well as rural Newfoundland and Labrador, who are not benefiting. It is no good to just be putting money into roads and into infrastructure of that nature if they are not leading to communities where people are living lives that are healthy, are living lives that have a sustainable economy, and are living lives that they know they can continue living in their smaller communities.

One of the things that we believe and that we have told people as a party and that I will continue to say is that we have to look to much more than large corporations and financial institutions in order to build a healthy economy. In order to have a healthy economy, Mr. Speaker, we also have to have small businesses that are strong, that are diverse, and that are the backbone of our economy. Two thousand small businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador employ more than 40 per cent of the workers. Now that is across the board, because you have some of those small businesses in fishery, you have some of those small businesses in agriculture; you have some of them in forestry. In our natural resource sector and in our retail sector, in our business community we have small businesses. We need to be investing in those small businesses and small ventures because that is part of the diversification that we need, Mr. Speaker.

One of the places where we have probably learned that somewhat is in the tourist industry. There is no doubt that our tourism is growing, and if the federal government does not take the rug out from under us -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - hopefully that will continue. Although they are making decisions with Parks Canada, that listening to some people this morning in the news is very disturbing because it could really affect the small business and tourism, what they are doing in Ottawa. I think this government had better continue knocking on the Prime Minister's door and saying, can we sit down and talk; because you have a lot to talk about with them.

We have to be looking at putting our investments in the people, where people are coming up with creative ideas. We have to put money into communities where people - for example, there are lots of people out there, some of you in this room know. People are coming up with creative ideas for the use of seal, for example. Putting money into that, real money into it, Mr. Speaker, not a few thousand here and there but real investment in setting up that small business network that we need in this Province.

We need, Mr. Speaker, to assist immigrant people, new people coming into our community who are entrepreneurs. One of the things we had in our platform was the introduction of an immigrant small business loan -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - a loan guarantee program that would help newcomers obtain credit from Canadian financial institutions, because they have trouble doing that, Mr. Speaker.

Another thing that we had in our platform, and I do not see any of this in the government's Budget, is to invest in the renewable energy and conservation sector. Look at green energy; look at the whole green – and the environmental businesses that are there, clean energy, Mr. Speaker, that even the United States will recognize as being green. The United States, I would like to point out to the minister, does not recognize hydro energy as green, by the way; they do not, and he knows that and I know that.

Invest our money, Mr. Speaker, in agrifoods, in the fishery, in forest value-added production and marketing. These are the kinds of things, Mr. Speaker, that we had in our platform and that if we were the government we would be doing, and that they should be looking at. This is what they should be looking at.

Another thing in our platform, Mr. Speaker, was to redirect funds from the Business Attraction Fund to an investment fund for co-ops and small businesses, and create a seed capital fund for social enterprises. Mr. Speaker, this government does not have to wait to do those kinds of things. If they want to talk about responsible investment, this is the kind of stuff I want to see.

The question that is facing them, the question that is facing the people in the Province and the question that is going to be facing us as we discuss Muskrat Falls down the road, Mr. Speaker, is: Do we have the resources to do it all? Do we have the resources to be involved in the big world of being the big spenders and putting all of this money into equity investment, at the same time taking care of our small business and investing in our small business, and at the same time taking care of the people in the Province?

Mr. Speaker, that is going to be a very serious discussion that we will continue in this House, a discussion that I am really happy to be part of and looking forward to continuing. It is going to be a very basic discussion and the question that we are going to have to answer as we move into the decisions about how much further will you go with spending billions of dollars on a megaproject.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to start off by answering the question of the Leader of the Third Party. Do we have the money to do it all? No, we do not. We do not have the money to do everything that everybody wants or everything that the NDP wants to throw at us, Mr. Speaker. We cannot do everything for everyone, and that is the bottom line.

If the Third Party thinks that is the way we are going to govern and that is the way that we are going to be able to manage the finances of the people and the finances of this Province, you are so wrong, that they will never be able to get past the Third Party, Mr. Speaker. That is where they are and that is where they are going to stay because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador understand that there is a Budget here, that we have to make the best use of that money, and that it is not unlimited.

Mr. Speaker, I want to also address some issues with regard to the Department of Advanced Education and Skills. Before I do that, there are a few comments I want to make, because I have been hearing here there is no plan. I just heard the Leader of the Third Party say it over and over: there is no plan, there is no plan.

Mr. Speaker, what it is, there is no listening. There is no understanding. If the Third Party bothered to listen and understand what was happening in this government in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, they would certainly see that there is a plan. We have many plans and many strategies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: As we are discussing the Budget, Mr. Speaker, I want to certainly congratulate the Minister of Finance for the job well done again this year on the Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: It certainly lays out a plan for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, and one that considers future generations of this Province, not one that spends, spends, and spends in the hopes that there will be a re-election, Mr. Speaker. We all want to get re-elected; however, we are not going to jeopardize the future of this Province for political reasons.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the department, I want to talk about the comments from the Member for St. Barbe today, saying that we had no vision. He talked about the vocational schools and wondering why the income support program was in this particular department. Mr. Speaker, he also gave us a history lesson going back to 1966 and talking about the vision of the government at that time. His more recent vision, Mr. Speaker, than going back to 1966, was about students in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Do you know what the Member for St. Barbe, as the former Leader of the Opposition, recommended about students in this Province? He recommended that students get paid less than minimum wage. That is the vision that we heard from him. Here he is talking now about going back to 1966, but the most recent vision he shared with us was to pay students less than minimum wage.

Students, Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador are treated with the utmost respect from this government. One thing I wanted to talk about is the housing for students in Newfoundland and Labrador. We hear so much about housing coming from the Third Party day in and day out, but not once have I heard that they commented or complimented this government on the fact that we are providing 700 new spaces for students primarily from rural Newfoundland and Labrador so that they can attend post-secondary education and so there is affordable housing for students in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, our investment for housing for students in Newfoundland and Labrador this year alone will be $40 million –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: – with a total investment of $70 million so that the students in Newfoundland and Labrador have accessible, adequate, and affordable housing in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the Member for St. John's Centre talking about housing; she has never mentioned that. I hear her on the radio call-in shows whining about the decorum in the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, the decorum in this House of Assembly was not created since she was elected. If she wanted to do her homework, understand what this forum was about, that there is debate that goes on here, sometimes it is lively debate, and whether or not she likes it, Mr. Speaker, is just too bad. It is what it is. It is the House of Assembly, and none of us will stop debating in a manner that we feel is most appropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: She can whine on all the Open Line shows that she wants, Mr. Speaker, but this is the House of Assembly.

I do want to talk a bit more again about the department, but before I do I just want to make one more comment. Maybe I am listening to the call-in shows too often, but anyway, I heard a call again from the Member for St. John's Centre last week talking about the cuts to the arts and indicating that the money that was cut was not worth it and why would we do it. Let me remind the Member for St. John's Centre that the NDP platform was going to have a 1 per cent cut across the board. She might not like what she heard in the arts, but do you know what? It was going to be in the arts and every other program in government. That was their platform. Now, she can get on and criticize, but I guess either no one explained it to her, or she absolutely forgot about it.

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to get back to the department and talk about the post-secondary students because, as I said, this government has shown more respect to the students in Newfoundland and Labrador than any other government in the history of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we implemented a tuition freeze and it has been in place now since we came in government. The first time we brought it in would have been in the spring of 2004. I have heard – I have heard it in this House and I have seen it in a press release, and I hope all of the members hear this because it is actually kind of funny – the person who takes credit for the tuition freeze is none other than the Member for St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I have been in many consultations, many meetings, my colleagues here have been in many debates whether it is at caucus, Cabinet, or wherever and never once in our debates about the tuition freeze, how do we maintain it, and if it remains important, never once did the name of the Member for St. John's North ever come up. Did anybody ever hear his name – but he takes credit for it. Mr. Speaker, that is ego. That has nothing to do but thinking you are so important that you influence the policies of this Province. Mr. Speaker, this is a reality check here today, and guess what? He has had zero influence on the tuition freeze policy of the government of today.

Mr. Speaker, this year alone, for us to maintain the tuition freeze at the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University is an investment of $44 million, for a total since 2005 of $183 million that we have invested into the young people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the young people of Newfoundland and Labrador did not always have the benefit of this respect, because back in the 1990s there were tuition increases. If you go back and you look through the history of the increases at the university, I can go back to 1995 – I cannot go back to 1966, like the Member for St. Barbe, but I can go back with information to 1995. In 1996, the government of the day – which was not a PC government, not at all – they increased tuition at Memorial University by 15.5 per cent that year and increased the tuition at the College of the North Atlantic by 20 per cent. The College of the North Atlantic, they went up that year by 20 per cent. The next year, on top of that 20 per cent, they went up another 10 per cent. On top of that again the following year, the College of the North Atlantic went up another 10 per cent. So, in two years, the students at the College of the North Atlantic had a 40 per cent increase in their tuition fees.

Mr. Speaker, when we came to office, the tuition at the College of the North Atlantic was $1,452, and guess what? Today, it is still $1,452.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the tuition at Memorial University went up by 38.3 per cent, but then the panic set in. They knew they were facing an election and they brought the tuition back down by 24.6 per cent – and they will applaud themselves for doing it – but they missed one very important factor. What they did at that time was they eliminated the grants that went to students. There was a grant program for students that we are bringing back in, but as they looked at the tuition increases and decreases, they decided that they would eliminate the grants for students. That is shameful – and they also collected interest on the student loans. Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador, under this government, was the first Province in this country to eliminate interest on the provincial portion of student loans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have also brought back the up-front needs-based grants. All of this is being done because we value the young people of this Province. Let me just explain what the up-front needs-based grants means. When a person applies for a student loan, 60 per cent of the loan comes from the federal government, 40 per cent comes from the Province. Of that 40 per cent today, a person will only pay back 40 per cent. The first 60 per cent is given as a grant. Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that we would like to roll that out to 100 per cent. As we move through this mandate, if we are in the fiscal situation and we are able to do it, that will remain a priority for this Province and certainly for me as the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we also have young people who go through the apprenticeship program; not everyone goes through university. A lot of people go through the College of the North Atlantic and a portion of the people who go through the College of the North Atlantic, do so by attending courses in the skilled trades. Mr. Speaker, it is very important today that we focus on the skilled trades for many reasons. One of the most important reasons is because our economy is growing. It is a hot economy that we have here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to ask, well why is our economy so hot? Why are things moving along at such a pace that we are anticipating a skilled shortage? Mr. Speaker, it is there because we have negotiated Hebron.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MS BURKE: Now I heard the Member for Bay of Islands say a Liberal initiative, but I do not think they were anywhere near the table when Hebron was being negotiated.

The other project, Mr. Speaker, that will certainly demand our attention with regard to skilled trades is going to be Muskrat Falls. Mr. Speaker, both of these projects have been negotiated in recent years and will provide tremendous opportunity for this Province, and we want to make sure that the young people are well prepared to take the jobs that are going to be available to them.

Mr. Speaker, the shortage of skilled trades came because of a number of factors. One certainly has been out-migration because up until recent years we saw many young people leave our Province, primarily for employment. We also have a lower birth rate than we had in our history. Back a generation or two ago it was quite common for people to have eight, ten, twelve children. Today, Mr. Speaker, families are quite different than that.

We also have a global workplace. Who would have ever thought, this was something that came about - I remember when the mill closed in Stephenville in 2005, just seven years ago, it was discussed and thought well maybe some of the people from Newfoundland and Labrador affected by the mill closure may be able to commute to Alberta. That was a question back then, and all of a sudden as the years progressed that is commonplace today. The global economy has opened up and people are certainly far more transient for work than they ever have been or that we could have ever imagined. Of course, our local economy has been boosted by the policies of this government, Mr. Speaker.

We are at a point in time where people are either staying in Newfoundland and Labrador or want to come home to Newfoundland and Labrador and want to work. On top of that, we also have people who have probably never lived here and have no attachment, but understand that we are the best Province in Canada and they want to come here. They want to experience all we have to offer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: So, Mr. Speaker, we have certainly brought in a number of initiatives to help our young people and in the apprenticeship program. We will have some more initiatives as we roll out what was announced in the Budget this year.

Mr. Speaker, we have invested $5.5 million so that our government departments or agencies can hire apprentices and give them an opportunity to work. Mr. Speaker, just from that program alone, Memorial University participated, and every person, 100 per cent of the apprentices employed by Memorial under this program, were female. I think that is a wonderful accomplishment for Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we also invested $4.2 million in a wage subsidy program for apprentices, which saw 283 individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador find employment as an apprentice that they otherwise may not have had access to. Mr. Speaker, we also provide approximately $800,000 to the Office to Advance Women Apprentices in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We also took action to ensure that a number of fees were eliminated. In total, there were nineteen fees that apprentices had to pay that they no longer pay in this Province. That would be anything from registration to writing exams, or certification renewal. We also invest $9 million a year in block training. So 2,100 apprentices are able to participate in their block training through funds that we certainly feel are well invested in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We increased our seats at the College of the North Atlantic for skilled trades by 46 per cent. In 2006, we had 939 seats for skilled trades at the College of the North Atlantic. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have 1,369 seats in the skilled trades in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we also administer the LMDA, or the Labour Market Development Agreement. Through that, we have our job creation projects, wage subsidies, skills training, and our employment assistance offices. As well, Mr. Speaker, we have our own career centres that are owned and operated by the Department of Advanced Education and Skills.

My question is: Are we doing everything we can with this investment? Mr. Speaker, that is a question this government constantly looks at and we review. We will look at how we spend our funding and what is most important. Are we getting the right amount of money out to individuals to ensure that we maximize the amount of people who are eligible to do skilled trades and would like to do skilled trades? We need to look at that number; we need to look at how we divide up the money from the LMDA. As we look at it, one thing is paramount and one thing is important, that is to ensure that we respect the young people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they have every opportunity that we can possibly make available to them so that they can train and be prepared for the labour market stresses that we feel in Newfoundland and Labrador. If we are able to get more people trained and into the labour market, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are planning to do. Last year, Mr. Speaker, in September, 340 individuals were unable to go and do their training because of the funding. When we allocate the funding, the priority absolutely has to be on the young people to make sure that they are able to participate in the labour market.

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, too, we held a forum on apprenticeship here in St. John's that was well-attended by employers, by labour, by apprentices, and by people who work in our colleges, whether private or public, to train people in skilled trades. We had some very positive feedback and, Mr. Speaker, we are also concerned that maybe because it was in St. John's it may not have had the regional focus that it needs. This week, on Friday, we will be holding three more forums. We will be having one in Labrador West, we will be having one in Grand Falls-Windsor, and we will be having one in Stephenville on the West Coast. We have invited apprentices, employers, labour, and our colleges who provide the training. We want to hear from people who are involved in the skilled trades to ensure that we understand that the program meets their needs.

Mr. Speaker, we have also had some very serious internal discussions with the College of the North Atlantic and the post-secondary branch of the Department of Advanced Education and Skills. We want to make sure that the apprenticeship program in Newfoundland and Labrador, if it is not working to meet the needs of the people who need it most, then we need to change it. If there is anything we can do to fine tune it, to make it more user friendly for people, to make it more accessible, that is exactly what we are planning to do. That is why this feedback is absolutely necessary.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Advanced Education and Skills is a department with an economic focus. We certainly see that the Income Support Program fits well with this department because it is all about labour market attachment and how can we move people into the labour force, how can we provide the opportunities that they need so that they can also benefit from what is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other elements that are associated with the Department of Advanced Education and Skills. We have our workforce secretariat. We also oversee the Poverty Reduction Strategy for government. We also have the Office for Persons with Disabilities; we oversee that as well. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other initiatives from any of these other divisions within the department that I will be speaking about, because I know I will have a few times to speak on the Budget during our Budget debate. There is so much going on in this department, good news, and things that are certainly of interest to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that I will be looking forward to more follow-up debate.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks for the day.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just stand for a few minutes to have a few words on the debate. I heard the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills talk about all the wonderful things. Every time I hear her speak, I always come back, Mr. Speaker – and I will come back to it later. Fourteen times – and I lost count – she committed to the people of Corner Brook on the West Coast to bring legislation to the House on Grenfell College autonomy – fourteen times.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many times?

MR. JOYCE: Fourteen – and I lost count. So, every time that the minister stands up and speaks, I always think about that. I remember how many times she was going to bring – so everything that she is saying you have to sift through it, Mr. Speaker.

I heard the Minister of Fisheries talking about the former leader – and from my understanding, you had a few people lined up to help you out to go as Premier until you got a few bawls and were told to back off too. There are a few people behind you who speak about what is going on in the PC Party also, let me tell you. Twenty-two, I think were behind you; that is who committed until they got a call and were asked to back off – twenty-two that you had. I can see why; I honestly can. When you are talking about the former leader of the party, there is a few people behind you saying about the phone calls they got after they told them to back off or there is going to be trouble. So, we know you could have been Premier, we know.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I just had to get that off my chest, because when you are out criticizing people, you always have to look behind. So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak about the hospital in Corner Brook; it is a very serious issue. I say to the Minister of Health, whom I asked a question on the million dollars that they said they put in now for more design – will that be suffice to get the engineering work done? She would not answer the question yesterday in the House. So, Minister, it is a very serious issue, because this was announced back in 2007. In 2007, Mr. Speaker, that is when they started making this announcement on the hospital in Corner Brook. Just let the people in the Province know. Last year, during the election they had tractors rolling, a connector road built. They got all the work done on it, and they come back: Oh, we haven't got the design done. We haven't got the design done - after doing all that work during the election, the minister and everybody else with the big photos. It is a disgrace. I agree when Israel Hann said it was a slap in the face. I agree, because you cannot be out doing all that work and doing all the design work and all of it and then come back and say, we have not gotten it completed. I think the hospital is going to be done; there is no doubt in my mind the hospital is going to be done, but when?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, but when? When? That is the question.

I look at the long-term care facility, Mr. Speaker. The long-term care facility started out as 279 beds; that was the original design. It is down to twenty-four. This year, again – and this is fact; we can go check the Minister of Finance's own Budget - this year, the same $3 million is still used this year that was announced three years ago to open up a wing that is still not used. I have been saying for a month and a half that the wing is not open – yes it is, yes it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: The same $3 million is announced again this year for the same wing; the long-term care facility was opened three years ago, and it is still not fully functional.

It is going to be done, but the question is going to be: What are we going to have? What are we going to have?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I said, Minister, fully functional.

When the minister said to me, one day: It is, Eddie, it is – do you know what I did, Mr. Speaker? Do you know what I did? I jumped in my car; when I was in Corner Brook, and I went in the long-term care facility. I went into this wing, I looked up, and nothing but gyproc. That was after I had been told –

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, on a point of order.

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, he is referring to the fact that the fifteen beds that he was looking for in the long-term care facility do not exist on that wing. Mr. Speaker, the fifteen beds have been done –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries can attest to this: I am such a nice guy. I will tell you what I will do - and he can attest to this; this is very serious - the next time the minister is in Corner Brook and she wants to see the long-term and see this wing not open – there are twenty-one, twenty-two patients in acute care beds - I will bring you up and I will show you the gyproc on that wing. That is what I will do. If you really want to see it, I will bring you up personally and show you it is not done.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, she is over there now, the minister is over there now; she has not stayed quiet, but when I asked her the question, will the $1 million suffice to do the design, she would not answer. When I asked who did the design, she would not answer. When I asked, when did the design start, she could not answer. Yet, she is over there now….

This is an important issue, Mr. Speaker, because I know what happened to the long-term care facility and I know that it was put down from 279 to 224 and there is still a wing not open there. This is why we have to ask questions about the hospital. We just cannot believe everything that is said, and believe that everything is going to be rosy, that everything is good. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to believe that everything is rosy and good, let's look at Grenfell College.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you got the steel up there?

MR. JOYCE: No, the only one who wants steel there now is the Member for Humber West, because the Member for Humber East is going to resign and he is going to move in as the minister, he is hoping. I heard he is out looking for a contract. He was out looking for contracts on a piece of steel to be put on the site. Then again, on a very serious note, look at what happened in Grand Bank. They put up some steel, they took it down, tore it down, and shipped it off. Listen; don't go jumping to conclusions, because he wants steel there yet.

Mr. Speaker, look at Grenfell College, and this is why I am very skeptical of what is going to happen with the hospital. You have to stay there to make sure that what is going to be put there is what was committed to. Look at Grenfell College. In the 2010 Budget, I read it again the other day, the Minister of Finance stood up and said: Autonomy for Grenfell College. I think the Minister of Fisheries was the Minister of Education. How many times did you say you were preparing legislation to bring to the House? At least five.

AN HON. MEMBER: I was out there.

MR. JOYCE: You were out there, but how many times did you commit legislation? I know the Minister of Natural Resources was the Minister of Education for a while.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. JOYCE: You were not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: Well, there was someone else.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to direct his comments to the Chair and not engage members on the other side.

MR. JOYCE: Sorry. I think the Minister of Transportation and Works – I cannot remember. There was another one, Mr. Speaker, another one that I counted personally; the Minister of Advanced Skills and Trades was fourteen times, the Minister of Finance said in his own Budget, and there were two other ministers who I had seven quotes that they were preparing legislation and it was never, ever brought to the House.

This is why people on the West Coast are a bit skeptical when you say, oh, we are going to have this big hospital, Mr. Speaker. This is why we are a bit skeptical. Look at the courthouse; we heard the big courthouse, a nice building. It is too bad we had to spend another $230,000 to fix the roof because everybody rushed through it; too bad. Two hundred and thirty-seven thousand dollars; you want to talk about wasting taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Two hundred and thirty thousand dollars under the Freedom of Information that I got.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I acknowledge the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They are over there, Mr. Speaker, they just do not want to hear the truth, but I can tell you they are going to hear it from me. Two hundred and thirty thousand dollars, if they are talking about wasting taxpayers' money, because they are rushing to do something with the courthouse to get it built it up, Mr. Speaker. That is what was spent to replace it.

Later on, Mr. Speaker, I am going to come back and have another few words. There are a lot more things I have to say, but I can assure you the hospital will be number one on my agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I move to adjourn debate, seconded by the Member for Burgeo - La Poile, and I will continue on with my few words and my information later.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a motion on the floor to adjourn debate. You have heard the motion.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

This afternoon, the Social Services Committee will review the Estimates of the Department of Justice and Attorney General, commencing at 6:00 p.m. in the House.

Tomorrow, May 2, the Resource Committee will meet in the House at 9:00 a.m. to review the Estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, it now being 5:28 p.m., I would move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Tomorrow being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, the House stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow.

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