The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Speaker would like to rule on a point of order raised by the Government House Leader on April 14. On Wednesday, April 14, the Government House Leader raised a point of order concerning the use of expressions, Pinocchio and modern day Pinocchio, in reference to members of the House. The Chair has reviewed the transcript of Wednesday's proceedings and found that these comments are not recorded in Hansard. However, the comments were audible and the Chair did hear them. Having consulted with our counterparts in other jurisdictions, we were unable to identify a jurisdiction in which this expression was used, although others with similar meanings were used.

As we stated in an earlier ruling, the codification of parliamentary language or unparliamentary language is no longer considered useful. Expressions which might be considered lighthearted or humourous in one context can take on a different meaning in another. In this instance the Chair is of the opinion that the expressions, Pinocchio and modern day Pinocchio, are somewhat borderline and therefore ask all hon. members to bear this in mind and refrain from using expressions which might be provocative or tend to cause disorder and therefore disrupt the flow of debate.

MR. SPEAKER: We have statements today by the hon. Member for Burgeo & Lapoile, the hon. Member for St. John's Centre, and the hon. Member for Bellevue.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was very pleased yesterday to host a televison telethon at Burgeo, in my District of Burgeo & Lapoile. The purpose of the telethon was to raise funds to acquire a twelve-passenger bus with wheelchair capability to be used by the seniors of Burgeo, both at the Calder Health Care Centre and those living in private residences.

The total cost of the new bus was $82,000 and, I am pleased to say, as a result of the efforts of the Burgeo Lions Club, the Lions International, the Resident Family Committee and thousands of supportive constituents this goal was realized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: It is amazing how Newfoundlanders and Labradorians come together to support each other in worthwhile causes. The pledges came from all across this Province and, indeed, all across Canada. The response was fantastic and everyone chipped in to do their part.

The bus will be used so our seniors can take part in the many community activities which occur, such as visiting the local Sand Banks Park and other social and recreational activities. It is quite clear that just because you get older you need not be a shut-in and the seniors of Burgeo will have a more complete and fuller lifestyle because of this initiative.

Hats off to all those who helped out in this most worthwhile cause!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Volunteer Week, a special time set aside to honour people who donate their time and energy to their fellow citizens. This year, Volunteer Week is being recognized from April 18-24, and the theme chosen is: Volunteers Grow Community.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have over 4,300 voluntary community-based organizations and 138,000 volunteers. These people give of their time, effort and knowledge to many programs, services and projects that make a significant, positive impact on the quality of life for their fellow citizens.

Over 31 per cent of our residents age fifteen and up, have volunteered their time and skills. On average, they give up 206 hours every year in their volunteer activities.

Newfoundland and Labrador leads the nation with the highest median participation rate by volunteers, at ninety-six hours. The Canadian median is seventy-eight hours.

Mr. Speaker, we are blessed to have these volunteers in our community, and I ask each and everyone of us to take the time to say thank you to these volunteers as we encounter them during the coming week.

To the sports coach, the Girl Guide leader, the literacy tutor, the person helping at the food bank and all the other 138,000 volunteers in this Province, I offer you my personal thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to the North Atlantic Refinery for celebrating ten years of successful operations in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Since taking ownership of the refinery on August 15, 1994, the company has invested in excess of $400 million to make their facility safer, cleaner, and more efficient. Over the past ten years they have cut emissions by 80 per cent and increased their safety performance threefold.

The refinery in Come By Chance, in the District of Bellevue, employs over 700 people and the refinery contributes more than $140 million a year to the provincial economy.

North Atlantic Refinery, fuel exports top $1 billion annually, they operate eight home-heat locations and eighty gasoline outlets, a true Newfoundland and Labrador success story.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating this Newfoundland and Labrador business and wish them much more success in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is day nineteen of the largest strike in the Province's history, and the people of the Province continue to suffer because we have a Premier and a minister who have no idea how to conclude a collective agreement.

Mr. Speaker, have the Premier and the President of Treasury Board bungled these negotiations to a point where they cannot possibly be saved, or was this prolonged strike part of a plan by the Premier and his government all along?

Let me ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Was this part of a master plan in the new approach of government to send a message to the unions, or is it just that your total ineptitude in collective bargaining is shining through? Which is it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we were given a mandate by the people of this Province to try and clean up the fiscal mess that had been left to us by the previous Administration. That was the mandate that we were given on October 21, and that is the mandate that we will fulfill. We were not responsible for creating this problem but we do have to try to fix it, and we will do everything in our power to try and fix it.

With regard to the negotiations, myself and the minister, in consultation with our Cabinet and our caucus, had made a fair proposal on March 31. We felt we made a proposal to the members of the union, to the leadership of the union, that was a very good proposal, and in our opinion it was a stretch proposal given the fiscal situation that we are in, in our Province.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has to remind people who are visitors in the gallery that regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with what it being said on the floor of the House, the protocol says that visitors are not to engage in any approval or disapproval whatsoever. We welcome you to the proceedings, this is the people's House, but again we ask you not to engage in any commentary or any expression that might be seen as participating in the dialogue.

The hon. the Premier, a moment to conclude your comments.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, since the negotiations have started, from a concession perspective, we have taken sick leave for current employees off the table, we have taken pension indexing off the table, and we have taken severance off the table. Over the course of this weekend, job evaluation was satisfactorily agreed to between both parties, so that, in fact, had been removed on a package basis. So, we have done virtually everything we can. As well, outstanding issues with regard to the pension were also taken. We are now down to a situation where we are left with sick leave for future employees, salary, and the Warren Report.

What we have found during the course of the discussions and negotiations over the weekend, through the minister and representatives from the union, we found that as we went back to the table they were, in fact, increasing the offer. The last offer that we had from the union was 1.5 per cent, 1.5 per cent, 3 per cent and 3 per cent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On April 17, they came back with a written proposal that was 1.5 per cent, 1.5 per cent, 4 per cent and 4 per cent. When they came back again on April 18, we had a further increase and they, in fact, came back and they were looking for a signing bonus; a signing bonus of approximately $25 million. As well, they wanted a CPI increase which was $66 million on an annual basis. Unfortunately, that is just not affordable. It is not something we can even entertain. It is just not even there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think people will judge for themselves. To me, it does not sound much like a Premier who is trying to get a settlement. It sounds like somebody still trying to provoke confrontation.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday past, the President of Treasury Board agreed to a media blackout and yet, throughout the whole weekend, the people of the Province were subjected to new ads from the government, aired on radio, television and in newspapers all over the Province. Government, as we understand it, and the Premier just confirmed, is still seeking and insisting upon concessions at the bargaining table, and the Premier has decided, for some reason, not to participate in the talks personally. It is not worth his attention, I guess, is the view.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier: Does he have any real interest in ending this strike at all, or is he going to continue his right-wing approach to negotiations and sit back and see the services for the people of the Province continue to deteriorate while they stumble and bumble their way through?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have done everything we can to try and end this strike. As a matter of fact, the reason that we returned to the table last week, when we had no response from the union for five-and-a-half days, was because the minister actually contacted the union leadership and indicated that we, in fact, wanted to return to the table, which we did. We then entered into negotiations throughout the weekend. We made progress throughout the weekend. We have done everything possible to try and reach an agreement. We want to get our public sector employees off the streets. We want to get them back to work. They chose to strike. They have a right to strike. They have every right to strike. That is their right, and we respect that right. All we can do is try and reach an agreement, and we have done everything we can, but when the union leadership continues to move higher and higher in their demands, rather than working towards an agreement, then there is nothing we can do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Quite a noticeable change in a couple of weeks from a Premier who was going to visit the picket lines and do the negotiation himself, on the side of the street, and now, when there is a media blackout, will not even go to the talks and will not participate. That is how important it is now.

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious to anyone who is following this that we are dealing with a Premier who has a fundamental right-wing conservative philosophy that would make the former Mike Harris government of Ontario pale by comparison. We continuously hear the call that we must cut services, freeze wages and achieve concessions. In the meantime, last week we saw a political decision to spend an additional $1.7 million unnecessarily for a ferry to sail to Lewisporte for no good reason other than pure raw politics.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Premier's right-wing philosophy has caused this strike. Let me ask the Premier: Has his fundamental belief - because he is so intent on having these concessions - always been that the contracts of public sector workers should be stripped no matter what, or is this just something that he thought up in the last few weeks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is fully aware of the concessions that we have, in fact, taken off the table. I can only repeat them again. We have taken sick leave off the table for current employees; we have taken pension indexing off the table; we have taken severance off the table; we have reached agreement with the union over the weekend on job evaluation; and have reached agreement on pensions. All of these matters have come off the table. We are working towards an agreement. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I did not serve in the Wells' Cabinet, which was very much a right-wing Cabinet. We did not roll back wages. We did not enter into wage freezes at that particular point in time.

You have a record that you have to live with, as Leader of the Opposition. Don't stand there and pontificate to me, and be self-righteous and hypocritical.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The record will show, for those who want to live in the past, that the current Premier was a great supporter - financially and otherwise - of Clyde Wells -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: - and said that he was doing the right things.

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

Members know the general rules of asking questions, there should be no preamble or a very short preamble for a supplementary, and I would ask the member now if he would get to his question.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming clearer by the day that this government has no credibility, and it is quite apparent they are not able to negotiate a settlement to this strike by leaving demands for concessions still on the table after nineteen days.

Is the Premier willing to do something, and try something maybe a little more constructive, because it is obvious they cannot negotiate a settlement themselves, and sent the outstanding, remaining issues to binding arbitration so we can get a fair and timely settlement, get the services restored for the people of the Province and get the workers back to work where they really want to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My answer to that is the same answer that their government had to give to the very same question, that they were elected to discharge the responsibilities of the Province and to be able to make decisions on behalf of the taxpayers in light of our fiscal ability; the very same thing.

It is kind of ironic, Mr. Speaker, that now the question is coming from that side of the House and the answer he is expecting is the same answer that it was when they had the choice to make that decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Knowing that they are unable to negotiate an agreed to settlement, knowing that they would absolutely take the adamant approach that was just given, that the answer is no to binding arbitration, means that the plan all along was to get to a point where a crisis would develop and you could legislate the workers back to work.

Would the Premier answer today, on day nineteen, whether or not there have been any discussions in the Cabinet, and/or any instructions, to start drafting back-to-work legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker, there have been no instructions to draft back-to-work legislation.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have learned enough about the Premier to be careful of the words he says. I notice he said no instructions. That means there has been lots of discussion, because that was the other part of the question.

Mr. Speaker, again I ask the Premier: Will the legislation that is being discussed, even though they haven't given the word yet to actually write it down, will the legislation that is being discussed just be legislation to send workers back to work for the health and safety of the people in their care, in the Province, or will the right-wing agenda really come forward in flying colours and will we see a wage increase in the legislation that is less than what is talked about at the bargaining table? Will we, in the legislation that he admits is being discussed, see concessions?

I would bet, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier probably will not stand and answer that question because the concessions are still there. Are they in the legislation that is being discussed? That is the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the Leader of the Opposition quite clearly that there has been no discussion on any options to do with any legislation or drafting of legislation in Cabinet or otherwise as to what specifics or anything because it has not occurred, I say to him. It absolutely, Mr. Speaker, did not occur. We have not entertained it. We just hope that the union will come back with a reasonable offer that we can accept on behalf of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

We have heard of the serious problems developing in the long-term care system. People are not receiving adequate care. Some residents have not been taken out of their bed in the past nineteen days. They are not receiving baths. Meals are not being received on time. There are reports that some seniors, Minister, who normally go to the washroom on their own are now wearing disposal diapers. Minister, to you, is this a system that is coping?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We do have ongoing discussions on a daily basis with all of the health care boards, including those responsible for long-term care. They are providing emergency and urgent services. There is a strain in the system because we are at day nineteen, and we remain hopeful that there will be an early resolution to this labour dispute.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the early resolution is in the minister's domain. I do not know if the minister visited any of these long-term care institutions or talked to any of the people on the picket lines or the front-line workers but, Mr. Speaker, I am receiving reports right now that people without training or experience in the health care field are being assigned to look after patients in long-term care facilities

Will the minister confirm that this is indeed the case and that designated essential workers, who are already under extreme stress, are now being asked to train these people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In the long-term care facilities, yes, care is being provided by essential workers and also by management staff. With regard to the hon. member's question regarding what is happening in the health care facilities, yes, I am receiving numerous calls from people in the health care facility and that is all I have to say.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, cancelled appointments, delayed surgeries, huge waiting lists, that will be the legacy of this government when the strike is over, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: The health care system will be struggling with backlogs for months to come, and she knows that will be the case.

Can you, Minister, tell this House exactly how many appointments have been cancelled, how may surgeries are delayed, how much time it will take to deal with the backlog, or do you simply have no idea of the mess that you and your government have created in health care in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As I have indicated earlier, we have ongoing discussions with the boards on a daily basis with regard to the current situation. Yes, there are backlogs in the system, as you would expect during the times of a labour dispute.

At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with urgent and emergency cases, and other more routine cases are not being acted upon.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

Minister, the annual spring runoff is causing serious damage to the roads across the Province. Roads on the Burin Peninsula are in worse shape than they have been in decades. Some roads are passable only to one-way traffic, and if repairs are not done immediately they will not be passable at all. Minister, in one area a three-foot deep hole in the road is raising concerns over the safety of a bridge nearby. Will the minister give assurance to the people of the Province that necessary repairs to these roads will be carried out immediately?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

We are doing the best we can under the present circumstances to take care of emergency situations. We are aware of the situation on the Burin Peninsula and other parts of the Province. Some of the washouts on the Burin Peninsula are fairly extensive and we will have to call tenders to have the problems corrected anyway. We are in the process, Mr. Speaker, of trying to get the tender documents prepared and so on, as we speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: I guess, Minister, for some people they will have to wait probably three of four months before the roads are repaired when the minister has to go to tender.

Minister, over the weekend the snow in different parts of the Province made driving conditions extremely dangerous. As the snow melted there were no highway crews clearing or salting the roads. This caused black ice on the highways. Accidents were reported at an alarming rate and road safety was a factor to drivers and police officers alike. Minister, these severe road conditions are a recipe for a serious accident to happen and could possibly involve the loss of lives. Will the minister tell the people of the Province what steps his department will take to control of this serious situation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the hon. member's preamble; in terms of calling tenders, there is only a certain amount of job size that our own crews - even if there wasn't a work stoppage - can take care of. If it gets beyond that we do, in fact, have to call tenders. I say to the hon. gentleman, that is in process now.

In terms of snow clearing and ice control over this past weekend; yes, I say to my hon. friend, there has been difficulty in a number of places in the Province. We do have an essential service agreement with the union. In most places that agreement worked very well. However, there were places where we had difficulty getting equipment out of our depots and onto the roads because of picket line action, but we have managed to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is a fact, Mr. Speaker, some places we did have to have help to have flyers, spreaders, salters and sanders. There is a strike, and we understand that, but there is an essential services agreement which allows some of our people to do some of that work and over time, during the course of the weekend, I think most of it got done, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier who said, a few moments ago, that the government is doing everything that it can to end the strike. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report, commissioned by this government, states that inflation over the next four years will be in excess of 8.4 per cent. Mr. Speaker, this government's most recent wage offer over the weekend to the public sector workers is 5 per cent. Now, if the government is interested in ending this strike, why are they, effectively, offering a wage rollback of 3.5 per cent to public sector workers over the next four years?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There were two offers put to us on March 31. One offer was for a five-year - and we offered at that time, on March 31 with -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: We offered 8 per cent over that period - was one of our initial offers. The most recent - when they decided they only wanted a four-year contract, not a five-year contract, we put an offer to them of zero, zero, 2 per cent and 3 per cent. The rate of inflation, based on projections, can vary. There are always revisions occurring, of course, and we do look at it. If you want to compare the rate of inflation, we can go back two, three, four, five years and we can look at the average which would have been higher than the rate of inflation in many instances, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, to the Premier. Having saved millions of dollars thus far in the nineteen-day public sector strike, why is this government refusing to even consider a signing bonus, when effectively, could put some of that money into the hands of workers now without adding to their annual rate of pay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A signing bonus of $25 million is very expensive, I might add. For anybody making $40,000 a year, it would be over 3 per cent. Somebody making $30,000 a year, it would be over 4 per cent in year one. Between -

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind visitors to the gallery that I am reluctant to have the galleries cleared at this stage in the proceedings, however if we continue to have interruptions -

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: If interruptions continue, then the Speaker has no choice but to ask visitors to respect the integrity of the House. We do not want you to engage in dialogue back and forth. Long-standing precedents in this House is that visitors to the gallery are welcome to be there, however, they cannot participate in debate that occurs on the floor. The Minister of Finance was asked a question. He was in the process of responding. I am not sure whether or not - he has a short commentary to clue up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was saying that if you want to look at different scenarios of what the member asked there -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what negotiations are all about.

MR. SULLIVAN: It was $25 million. I could use examples. For example, if it was at $40,000, it would be over 3 per cent; at $30,000 it would be over 4 per cent. If it is at $20,000 it would amount to a significant -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: It depends on what the salary level is. It would have varied anywhere from 3 per cent to 4 per cent, and higher in some cases, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I ask the Premier if he really wants to settle this dispute, why did he and his government reject each of the three or four proposals put forth by the union showing flexibility and ingenuity in trying to deal with government's concern about sick leave? Why did he reject all of them instead of trying to find a solution to this strike, which the people of this Province want?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There were certain options put there. One was to reduce it to eighteen days and add 3 per cent on wages; when the average usage of sick leave was a little over sixteen, to put it from twenty-four to eighteen. It would not have made - it would have cost us -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the minister. I ask the minister now to complete his answer to the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

If they ask questions and they do not want an answer I will gladly send it over in writing. I will respond to it, if they do not want to hear it in the House. I have answered the question. I will gladly answer any question they have, truthfully and honestly and give them the figures.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, when questioned last week about the safety of our roads, the Minister of Government Services told us, in the House, not to worry. Well, Mr. Speaker, a critical part of highway safety is the highway safety officers who enforce highway regulations and inspect transport trucks and other heavy vehicles.

I ask the minister: How many of these highway enforcement officers are still working? Can we be sure that she is looking after the safety of our travelling public?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. We have an essential agreement with the union people and we do have some of our inspectors on staff. We are now monitoring the situation and we are doing what we can in a strike situation in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about public safety here, and the government has no idea what is going on in this Province. There are only three out of fifteen highway enforcement officers out there working and there are numerous reports all over the Province about overloaded vehicles. It is my understanding there are only three out of thirty-one people working at weigh scales.

Can the minister tell us how many transport trucks and heavy vehicles are being inspected with only three weigh scale operators, how many unsafe vehicles are going unchecked, or is she even concerned about the safety of the public?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Thank you for your question, hon. member.

The essential service agreement is in place and we are carrying out our duties in highway safety. In lieu of the strike that is here in this Province, we are not up to full standard, but we are concerned about the safety issues in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the cookie cutter reply is not helping the situation on our highways, I can assure you that.

We are talking about public safety, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the minister: Is she aware that no restaurant inspections are being done in this Province because only five out of twenty-nine environmental health officers are out there in the Province working?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to reply to the hon. member's question. We again have inspectors with essential services and we are doing, not the full routine because we do indeed have a labour dispute in this Province, but we are carrying out the necessary inspections and we are very concerned for our safety's effort.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Education.

The minister should know that several school districts in our Province control busing, and as a result they are not on the job today. As a result of this, one school in my district today had enrollment down by 30 per cent, as a result of not being able to get to school. That is happening in a number of districts around the Province.

I ask the minister: Is he concerned about the impact that this strike is having on these students, especially in light of the fact that classes are going on as normal for the rest of the students?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question and I say to the hon. member, yes, we are concerned. These are not easy times, these are difficult times, and we all have to work to ensure that these problems, as the member has indicated, are minimalized.

I say to the hon. member, that the disruptions in our schools throughout Newfoundland and Labrador today are minimal. We are working closely, I say to the hon. member, with school boards to ensure that disruptions are minimal. Many parents, I say to the hon. member -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Many parents in those school districts where we have busing circumstances as have been described, are carpooling, and we are all working to try to minimize the situation, Mr. Speaker, as best as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Time for one quick supplementary.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They may be minimal here in St. John's but, I will tell you, they are not minimal in my district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you about minimal. As we speak, 650 student assistants are on picket lines around this Province, leaving the most vulnerable students in our society without help, and in some instances unable to attend school. I ask the minister: Can he tell me what measures his government has put in place to ensure that children with special needs are looked after during this strike?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Time for a very quick reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the co-operation of our school boards, with the co-operation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, the vast majority of our children who require special attention, their needs are being addressed. They are getting the attention that they require, and we will work with all parties, Mr. Speaker, at this difficult time to ensure that the situation is as best as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House will recess until order can be restored.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Chair wants to make it quite clear that members of the public are always welcome to the galleries of this House, as they have been since Parliament first assembled in Newfoundland and Labrador and as people are welcomed in all Parliaments throughout the British Commonwealth; however, there is a rule that we have in our Parliaments, not just in Newfoundland and Labrador but all throughout Canada and all throughout the British Commonwealth, that members who are in the galleries are not to participate or to demonstrate in any way in order to show approval or disapproval of any proceedings in the House.

Again, I have to remind members that visitors should try their best to adhere to the traditions and to the protocols that govern their visiting in the public galleries. I appeal to all visitors here to listen to the debates, to listen to what has been said; however, we cannot continue to have persistent disruption of the proceedings.

I thank you very, very much.

We were at the stage where I was calling, I think, petitions. I think the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair had just stood to present a petition.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I present the petition, I just wanted to say for the public record - because over the weekend I got calls in my district because each time I stood on a petition was when there was an outbreak in the House of Assembly. They wanted to know if I had people in the galleries booing the fact that we are trying to advocate for transportation services in Labrador.

I just want the people who are listening to know that is indeed not the case. What it is, it is our public servant workers who are very frustrated, Mr. Speaker, who are out on a strike because they have been provoked and pushed by the government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the member now - we are on petitions. I think she has made an explanatory note, but I would ask her now if she could get to her petition, the prayer of it, and what you wish to say in the allocated time of three minutes.

MS JONES: Indeed I will, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to clarify that is the frustration of our public sector workers that has been ongoing in the gallery.

My petition today is with regard to the Labrador marine service, Mr. Speaker, and the fact that the government opposite has made a decision that is certainly not in the fairness or certainly in the best wishes of the people I represent in my District of Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.

Mr. Speaker, this government went out and hired a consultant who gave them advice. The advice that was given to them by the consultant was totally ignored by the minister and by the government when they made that final decision. Also, Mr. Speaker, I need to point out that the decision that government has chosen to make will be an additional cost to the taxpayers of this Province that could be as high - or will be, I would assume - as $1.7 million annually.

When you look at the fact that they have just made a decision that will cost more money to the taxpayers of the Province, that was not recommended by the consultant but serves only one purpose, Mr. Speaker, and that is the purpose to meet their own political agenda and to do what was wanted to be done in the district of the minister and Member for Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, my people, and the people I represent, take great exception to that. They take great exception to it. More so, Mr. Speaker, they take exception to the fact that the Premier of the Province, in a conference call with them on November 26, 2003, told them, Mr. Speaker, that he would honour the recommendations of the consultant's report and do what was most cost-effective for the Province. That was not the case, and that did not occur. He made a commitment to the people of my district and then he broke that commitment to satisfy the political agenda of one member and one minister in his Cabinet, and that is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, to add insult to injury, the money that will be used to create these jobs in the member's own district will come out of the Labrador Transportation Fund. That fund is there for the betterment of transportation for the people of Labrador and there are many more priorities that money could be used for. If there is free rein on the Labrador Transportation Fund, I say to the Member for Lake Melville, why didn't he go after it to build an auditorium in his district? That has been a priority for the people there. Why is there a school in my district that has been cancelled and yet the money will go to create employment in the District of Lewisporte? This is unfair!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave to clue up has been granted.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to point out the difference a day makes. The Member for Lake Melville, only eighteen months ago, wrote a letter, on file with the government, saying that the Cartwright would be the best ferry service for Labrador; would enhance the transportation in Labrador. Now he sits in a government, tapping his desk to a decision that is totally opposite to what that is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I believe we are moving back to Motion 1 where the Leader of the Opposition has some time to clue up. So, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition. I do believe you have seven minutes left in the Budget Debate sector.

MR. E. BYRNE: Whatever you need (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Well, by leave.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate in our last session on Thursday, and an opportunity to make some concluding remarks today. Just for the record, again, the motion that I am speaking to is one that says: That this House of Assembly Approves in General the Budgetary Policy of the Government, otherwise known as the Budget Speech.

I believe in the time that I spent on Thursday, Mr. Speaker, I had made it abundantly clear to anyone who was here in the Legislature and anyone else who was listening through our televised proceedings that I do not support the budgetary policy of this particular government. I have been giving a number of reasons why I did not, and why I thought that it was wrong in policy, wrong in philosophy, wrong in terms of the choices that were made; poorly thought out, ill-conceived and, actually, a very destructive Budget for Newfoundland and Labrador. If that is what I believe, having read the Budget and studied it, then it would be kind of hypocritical for me to suggest that I am going to stand and speak in favour of a vote for a motion that says we approve the budgetary policy of the government, because I am one of those who clearly does not.

Because there are only a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker - and I would not want to lose an opportunity to make a few other comments. What I will do at this point, in the last few minutes of my time, is make a motion, moved by myself, as the Member for Exploits and the Leader of the Official Opposition, and seconded by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, who is the Opposition House Leader. I will forward this to the table for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, to check that it is in order. I believe it is normally referred to as a non-confidence motion in the Budget. I will move now this motion, and my motion is this one, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: My motion, seconded by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, our Opposition Government House Leader, is that this House - rather than support the budgetary policy - condemn the government for its failure to accurately represent the true state of the economy in the Province and the government's consequential failure to take appropriate budgetary action to deal with the real problems.

I present that motion, Mr. Speaker, to yourself for your consideration to check that it is in order and, if ruled such, than I would like to commence debate on that particular motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take a moment to consult with the Table Officers to ensure the amendment is in order. We will not recess the House. We will just take a moment or so to consult here and then we can proceed.

In consultation with the Table Officers, the motion is ruled in order. I would invite the hon. member now, if he wishes, to speak speaking to the non-confidence motion. I understand that you have one hour to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, like Thursday, it should not take me a full hour to say what I want and need to say, but you never know, sometimes I get provoked by members opposite. They get me a little bit off my train of thought and sometimes it takes a little longer than you expect when you start.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to lay out a few things, because even from today, we saw and witnessed a few things here with respect to questions in Question Period that look at where we are in the Province today, look at the budgetary situation, look at the fiscal situation, look at the circumstance that we face, and see whether or not we should be supporting the approach taken by this government, which is to solve the problems as they see them, in an exaggerated version with a report that they went out and got done - that is questionable, at very best - to exaggerate the circumstance, and then come down with the big, heavy hammer and say: The answers are to get rid of 4,000 jobs - and I talked a little bit about this on Thursday - get rid of 4,000 jobs.

Again, Mr. Speaker, let me restate this: There is a difference between saying we have no choice but to get rid of 4,000 positions. We would really rather keep them all. We really believe that everyone of these 4,000 positions is valuable, that the people who are in these jobs are actually making a contribution. Or do they believe as a matter of philosophy and policy, and approach and support for a right-wing Conservative agenda, that we do not need the 4,000 anyway, even if we had surpluses?

What we covered on Thursday, for a few minutes, was a clear indication that the Premier of the Province today, and the Finance Minister of the Province today, the President of Treasury Board, and a few other members who were willing to be identified with the statement on Thursday - because when I named them they acknowledged and said, yes, they agree with that - that they believe that even if we were like Alberta - because by rights we should be the Alberta of the East. If we were only getting the fair treatment from Ottawa that we deserve, even on off-shore alone, we should be the Alberta of Eastern Canada. Now we are not, and I am getting more concerned by the day, by the way, that it might not be going to happen, because again, our federal minister was down here - was it about a month ago? - opening up oil and gas week, when he said: He was here on a Monday - it was about a month ago, maybe a little longer. The Minister of Natural Resources, I know, would recall the date for us, because he said he was here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: - about a month ago. He was going to meet with the minister. He was going to meet with our Premier on the Friday. He said: I have been sent here by the Prime Minister to work out a plan; to find out what it is that Newfoundland and Labrador really wants, and what it is that we can do and commit to, so that we can make sure that Newfoundland and Labrador keeps its money from the offshore and starts moving towards our proper status as a have Province, instead of a have-not Province. I was encouraged by that, as I believe everybody in the Province was. Now, what scared me and what discouraged me was what I heard said on the weekend.

On Friday past, as a matter of fact, with the same federal minister here in Newfoundland and Labrador, restating, by the way: I do not expect much to happen on equalization. We all know that is not going to happen for another five years. So we have been led down the garden path on that one again. I covered that in some public commentary before, where our own minister, who stood here and supported us when he was in this Legislature as part of the government, turned around, speaking for the Government of Canada, and said: Well, you cannot expect changes in equalization in Newfoundland and Labrador because you can't have your cake and eat it too. I was discussed by those comments; floored by them actually. And now, in speaking on Friday past, he states -

AN HON. MEMBER: Was that what Mike Harris said?

MR. GRIMES: That was exactly what Mike Harris said. Now we have our own federal minister in the federal Cabinet, Mr. Efford, saying the same thing, and everyone who was here in this Legislature heard him make the exact opposite speech a hundred times in this Legislature.

On Friday past though, a month after he was down here with the message of hope, that he was sent to get the plan, to find out how it was that we could implement something which would let us keep the money from the offshore. He comes back on Friday past and what I heard him say was: Well, you don't really expect me to look at quick fixes. I wouldn't want to be doing something that is sort of a band-aid just because there is a federal election coming up. I am looking for some long-term solutions and I might not be able to get them in the next few months before the election.

I have always been on the record as saying: If we are going to fall for that one, then shame on us. Shame on the whole lot of us, if we are going to fall for that one. Here is a federal election coming, they have already pushed the whole issue of equalization aside and said we are not going to talk about it for another five years, and now we are down here seeing signals, a month later, from a federal minister who was here with the great message of hope a month ago, saying: The Prime Minister sent me down, we are going to work out arrangements, I am going to meet with the right people here and I am going to take it back. He told me to come down and find out what proposal to bring back to him, so we can implement it. Now only to be told: Don't expect anything before the election. I am not sure I can deliver anything right away. I heard, actually, one of the television commentators say what he read into it, that it might be two or three years before we get any money from the offshore.

I am telling you, folks, if we are going to fall for that one, then I am going to turn into one of those salesmen who has some bogland down in Florida and stuff to sell you. We might as well be that stupid about it, if we are going to miss this opportunity. I am going to say it loud and clear, and people will say: How come you are saying that. They are Liberals and you are Liberals. I have said it before, I am for Newfoundland and Labrador. I don't care if they are Liberals or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: They have to do the right thing. When I have said that in the past, people said: Oh, you are too antagonistic with Ottawa. You should go up and be huggy, kissy, try a kinder approach and see if they will give you something. I am telling you, the time has come now to get this commitment. I was really distressed when I heard on Friday that the message of hope from a month ago might disappear.

Anyway, we had some messages here today, because we all believe that is where we need to go,

back to that kind of a future, so we don't have to take the kind of agenda that was laid out in the Budget that I speak against and I am not going to vote for, one that says the answer is to take 4,000 people out. What we had was the Premier and the Finance Minister say, that even if we had all that money from Ottawa and even if we had a balanced budget, then I believe we should take 4,000 jobs out of the public service anyway. Now, that is what they have said. They have said it in the media. The Finance Minister said it in the media lockups prior to the Budget. I would understand if he was there saying: Listen, we really are strapped for cash and I haven't got much money. I would like to keep everybody but I just cannot afford it. That is one thing. That is not what he said.

The explanation went like this. He said: Look, in Newfoundland and Labrador, 27 per cent of the entire workforce works for the government. That is the biggest percentage in the country. This is the explanation. He said: That is too big a percentage. So it has nothing to do with whether you have the money or not. There is a belief that at least is articulated and you have to, I suppose, respect the integrity of the person to say it and say this is what I believe: I believe, the Minister of Finance says, that we have too many people working for the government.

Now, everywhere that I have worked before, in the teaching profession and elsewhere that I have worked outside of being an MHA, in the public service - and the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women would know this. She is on the record as saying, before the election, that there are not enough child welfare workers. When she is asked about it in the House these days she says: It is not my department.

We know it is not her department, but long before the election she was in the papers all over Western Newfoundland saying: I know this issue intimately. I support this. I believe we should have more service.

Now, she is sitting there and she will vote for a Budget that says, I believe we have too many workers. Now, I do not know if she believes it or not. Maybe she is doing it because she believes there is no money, but the Minister of Finance is doing it because he believes there are too many, even if you had the money. The Premier is doing it because he believes there are too many workers, even if you had the money, that it is sort of like a business model. You just compare here to, say, Ontario. Well, if Ontario has only 21 per cent of the workforce working for the government, I guess it should be 21 per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador, not 27 per cent. Never mind the fact that we do not have an auto industry. Never mind the fact that we do not have the other industries. Never mind the fact that most of what is up there is supplied from and by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, anyway, over the years. So, you just pick a number from across the country and say, the average is 21 per cent. So, it must be 21 per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador. It does not make a bit of sense. It does not take into any consideration the circumstances in our Province and what we need to do, but it does reflect a conservative, Tory, right-wing view to a mindset now being played out in a government, through a Budget.

The members opposite, I hope when they speak - because I think, Mr. Speaker, there are probably about twenty of them who can speak after we are finished, because we have twelve and they have thirty-two or thirty-three, not counting the Speaker. If they all want to speak, they can all speak, and I would hope that they would get up and say something about the 4,000 jobs, because they are going to vote for the elimination of 4,000 jobs.

I think it would be interesting, Mr. Speaker, for each of them to stand and say whether they are voting for the elimination of 4,000 jobs because they believe - they have made themselves believe - that they do not have a choice, or whether, like the Minister of Finance and their leader, the Premier, they believe they should not be there anyway. That would be interesting. I am sure their constituents would like to know what they believe; because I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, what I believe. I believe we need the 4,000 jobs and, as a matter of fact, in lots of areas we probably need a few more, just like the Minister of Human Resources, Employment and Labour and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women thought she believed in before she got elected. Before she got elected she thought she believed that, and she is going to stand up some time in the next few weeks and vote to take away 4,000 jobs. Maybe she will not, though. Maybe will come over on this side and sit as an Independent or join the NDP or do something. I doubt it very much but it is possible, I suppose. You never know.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of things about no confidence, let me get back to this one. There are people on the other side who do not have a lot of confidence in the Budget because they do not know for sure what the Budget is. Let me give another example. I gave one the other day about the cancellation of the hospital in Gander, the James Paton Memorial Hospital, redevelopment. Cancelled, the Budget says, right on page twelve. I will reference it again to make sure everybody understands that I am not making this up. These are the exact words written in the Budget and read into the Speech, page twelve, top sentence, I highlighted it because I could not believe it when I heard it, but it is here. "We are canceling several health projects, namely the extension to the Grand Falls-Windsor hospital...", which was, by the way, to put in a new cancer treatment clinic; $4.3 million total cost, of which they were going to raise $1.3, the government was going to be asked for $3 million. This new government cancelled it and is going to spend $5.1 million instead, over the next three years - the same time this redevelopment would have occurred and would have been built - to put a ferry into Lewisporte when there is no need for it to go there, as an option, as an alternative, as a choice, for the people to get on a ferry because they might not want to drive over the road.

Lawrence O'Brien, the federal MP, when he was asked about that, said, "This lack of respect for Labrador is gutless and appalling." - by this government. Nice words to hear. I am sure the members opposite do not like hearing that said about them.

He says, he "...is especially disappointed that the Premier, who stood up for the Labrador Transportation Fund when the previous administration proposed abolishing it, is now siphoning money out of the fund for political reasons."

Lawrence O'Brien, the MP for Labrador, working very hard, by the way, with the Premier and the government to try to do things about 5 Wing Goose Bay and other things in Labrador. I am sure he did not find it very easy to say that the "...lack of respect for Labrador is gutless and appalling." - by his good personal friend, by the way, the Member for Lake Melville and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister. Good personal friends. I am sure that Mr. O'Brien did not take any particular satisfaction in saying that but he decided, on balance, to stand up for Labrador, not to just kowtow to the one-man show, which is what we will see from the Member for Lake Melville, who is nodding in agreement that is what he is going to do at the time when he gets to vote on the Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I say we will see the Member for Lake Melville stand up and vote for it.

Talk about the cancellations: Grand Falls-Windsor, James Paton Memorial Hospital, the redevelopment in Gander, and the health centre at Grand Bank.

I mentioned on Thursday, though, that when the Premier visited Gander - because that was not a popular decision - the first paragraph from his speech says: Premier Williams insisted that, despite what was said in the Budget Speech, redevelopment at the James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander is not cancelled.

Now he is behaving exactly the same after he is elected as he was before. You could almost understand it before, because the pattern, Mr. Speaker, was, no matter where you were, no matter who you are speaking to, tell them what you thought they wanted to hear because you had to get elected. Now, he is elected and he is still using the same modus operandi, as they say in the detective shows, the same MO. He is going around now. If he is in Gander, tell them what they want to hear in Gander. So, in St. John's, what did he do? The Minister of Finance got up and read this statement: We are cancelling the extension to the James Peyton Memorial Hospital in Gander. The Premier went like this [member taps on desk]. He went to Gander and a few people criticized it and, out in Gander, he was making a speech in Gander, he said: Oh, never mind what the Budget says. That is not cancelled.

So, which one is the Budget, what he said in Gander or what he applauded in this Legislature? I am sure the Member for Gander would like to know before he stands up and supports the elimination of 4,000 jobs and tells the people in Gander they are not needed any more for elderly care. They are not needed for acute care. They are not needed in the school boards any more. They are not needed out there providing basic services. At least some of the 4,000 are going to come out of Gander, for sure, because there are a lot of them out there.

Then you have the typical confusion, which is why we do not support this policy, because they are still grappling themselves over there with what it means. The messages are confusing. Now we have the Member for Bonavista North and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation - because, again, in the same Budget document it said that the golf course project in Bonavista North is cancelled. It did not say delayed. It did not say deferred. It did not say postponed. It said cancelled. There are other things in here, by the way, like The Rooms, on page ten, where it does say - so they must know the difference between the two words - "We will delay opening The Rooms...". It did not say we are going to cancel it. It said we are going to delay that, but theses others were going to be cancelled.

As a matter of fact, in the first interview that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation did on the radio, he was asked about cancelling the golf course. He said: Oh, in light of all the other decisions, that was the easiest one of them all, to cancel a golf course. That was the easiest one to do, to cancel a golf course.

Then the Member for Bonavista North, his colleague who sits up here behind him and supports him and taps on the desk every day because 4,000 jobs are going, because his golf course is going to be cancelled - and the people out there thought that was going to be one of the real hinges for tourism and economic development in the region, just like it has been, by the way, in some other parts of the Province, for that summer season. It really helps. So, what they did with him is this. He said - this is the Member for Bonavista North, in talking to the reporters, two answers inside the same interview. It says how much they know about the Budget that they are going to stand up and support in a few days' time. He said: Well, you know, if we are cancelling - now, here is the Member for Bonavista North - the hospital in Gander, you cannot expect us to go ahead with a golf course.

AN HON. MEMBER: He thinks it is cancelled.

MR. GRIMES: He thinks it is cancelled. He is in Bonavista North, which is - I have driven it - I guess maybe an hour's drive to Gander, talking to the same reporter in the same paper, saying: Well, you have to understand cancelling the golf course if you are going to cancel the hospital. Meanwhile, the Premier is up in Gander making a speech saying the hospital is not cancelled.

It even gets better. Now they contact the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Recreation, who said the day before on the radio: By the way, the easiest decision that we made out of the whole lot was to cancel the golf course. You know we are not going to have 20,000 people on strike, tell them we have no money, have a wage freeze, cut 4,000 jobs, and still go ahead and build a golf course. That was an easy decision to make.

Now he is in the paper, and what does he say in the paper? Now he is in the paper saying: Oh, it is not really cancelled. Maybe the finances of the Province might turn around in a year or two and we can have a good look at it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Harry didn't know that.

MR. GRIMES: The Member for Bonavista North did not even know that. The Member for Bonavista North was saying: Well, it has to be cancelled because the hospital is cancelled.

I will not spend a lot of time on that, Mr. Speaker, other than to point out that there is a fair bit of confusion with the crew.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget Grand Falls-Windsor.

MR. GRIMES: Our friend for Windsor-Springdale, standing up for his constituents, by the way, the right thing to do -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - standing up for his constituents - the same Budget, same page, same speech, the redevelopment, the new cancer treatment clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor, that I have visited half a dozen times, and so did the Member for Windsor-Springdale, I will give him credit for that, so did the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, and Windsor-Springdale. We all visited it because we have an interest in it, because we believe it should be build, because we have seen the conditions in which the cancer patients are subjected to inhumane circumstances when they are already suffering enough and it is not a decent place for them to receive their treatments.

AN HON. MEMBER: A press conference during the election (inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: So they go during the election and say: Oh, we commit to that. Cancelled, it says in the Budget we were supposed to vote on. Front page story: MHA Hunter confirms PC's commitment to redevelopment.

Now, which one is it? What are we supposed to vote on in a few days' time? Are we voting on the Grand Falls redevelopment being cancelled, or does the Member for Windsor-Springdale now know something that the Premier has not told anybody in the Province, that the Finance Minister has not told anybody in the Province, that the Minister of Health and Community Services, who is responsible for it, has not told anybody in the Province, that the Minister of Works and Transportation is responsible for getting it built if the government decides to build it, has not told anybody about? Or is he just out playing a bit of politics, or is he just out trying to save his neck?

AN HON. MEMBER: There are two budgets.

MR. GRIMES: Maybe there is one Budget for public consumption and another one for any Conservative member who gets into a bit of trouble in their own district, to go out and tell them something else.

Mr. Speaker, there are some serious problems with respect to that, and it just goes to show the kinds of things that have happened.

A couple of things today, though, that are again telling, the Minister of Government Services was asked about food inspections in the food-serving establishments in the Province - restaurants, pubs and so on - all over Newfoundland and Labrador. The view is this - let me put the story clear again - 4,000 too many workers, we are told, so we are going to eliminate them, but again the very group that are now in government, when they were in the Opposition, asked countless questions of us, as the government, as to why you were not going to beef up the number of inspectors. In particular, the most unfortunate incident a little while ago, where we had a volunteer group serving a turkey tea, a takeout dinner, with salmonella, and there being challenges as to whether or not there were going to be new rules for those kinds of things, because the food, if it is going to be served and sold to the public, you need to check the facilities. You need to check the law to see that it is complied with. You need to check for hygiene and safety and cleanliness and health. They said: Aren't you going to hire more than the thirty-one paltry inspectors that you have? We have 600 communities, most of them with some kind of a food-serving establishment, and you have thirty-one inspectors. They said: You need more because you are putting people's safety at risk.

Today, the minister was asked about the fact that under the essential services, because she did not know how many were there, she had to be told - she was told that there are only five of them now working. There are only five of them working for nineteen days, instead of thirty-one that they said were not enough. She was asked about safety and she said the necessary inspections are being done.

MS FOOTE: Scary, that is scary.

MR. GRIMES: There is a really, truly scary thought, because here is what I read into it. Maybe that is where part of the 4,000 are going to disappear, because if the ones that are being done now are the only ones that are necessary, maybe we do not need thirty-one of these inspectors. Is that what they are really saying? I could understand if she said: We are hard-pressed and we know we are not doing as many inspections as we need done and we do have some concern for safety - but, that was not her language. That was not her answer. Her answer was: The necessary inspections are being done.

If those are the only ones that are necessary, does that mean that is the only level of inspection that we can expect at all, into the future? Is that part of the plan? Is that where some of the 4,000 are going to disappear from? Because you have to listen very closely. We have learned this. You have to listen very closely to this group and what they say. They learn it from their leader, who today was asked: Are there any consultations about back-to-work legislation, or is there any drafting? He ignored the first part and said there is no drafting going on.

Now, the Minister of Finance got up and said there are no consultations going on, but I can tell you there are and there have been. One person who has been involved is one of the ones who scurried out through the door today, the Minister of Health and Community Services, who says every single day that she is in contact with the key managers in the health care system every day. She knows about the seniors who are being put into Attends or Pampers instead of being taken to the washroom. She knows it cannot go on much longer, and surely goodness they are not going to sit there and all of a sudden they will get a call tomorrow and say: Oh, we had better have our first chat now. We had better have our first chat ever about back-to-work legislation. They have already had lots of discussion, and the Premier did not talk about the word discussion. He said: I have not given any instruction to draft it yet.

We have caught on to this crew, just like the people of the Province have caught on in the last six months.

AN HON. MEMBER: Words are important.

MR. GRIMES: Watch the words closely. Words are very important. My colleague, the Government House Leader and the Minister of Natural Resources will remind me, I am sure, when he speaks in the debate. I am sure he has lots of examples of things that I have said in the past that he will remind me of, and many others, because he is good at that. He keeps track of it and he pays a lot of attention. We are learning to pay very close attention to this government and the Premier, because the word that is coming around is betrayal.

The first group that used that word, the Metis. Does everybody remember? They thought they had heard and seen - they even had a letter that laid out how they were going to have their hunting rights guaranteed to them by this group should they get elected. Then, what they got back was slick lawyer talk afterwards, saying: Oh yes, we applied it to you but it did not really apply.

That might make sense to a lawyer, that might make sense to some people who are trying not to do something and find a good excuse not to do it, but it did not make any sense to the Metis and all the members of the Labrador Metis Nation who used the word betrayed.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have seen betrayed used by the workers, 20,000 of them on the street, who took it seriously when they saw full-page ads in the paper from the government during the election saying: No layoffs, we are committed to a quality public service. This government, if elected, there will be no layoffs in the public service and we will not reduce the public service by 25 per cent, contrary to the allegations and the fearmongering of our political opponents.

I guess they felt a bit betrayed because they saw this, by the way. Even their president admitted that they voted for this particular person because they had these kinds of assurances. Then, we had all kinds of issues with respect to the school boards, who were told - our critic pointed out that from January right up to a week before the Budget, representatives of the eleven school boards, which are now going to be five, were told by the Minister of Education: No, no, we are not doing any realignment of school boards this year. We might look at it for the future.

The last group in Gander were told that, the week before the Budget. Sure enough, when the Budget was read, here you go, it is all going to be done by September. The Chair of the largest school board in the Province, which represents twenty-odd, almost 30 per cent of the full student population of the whole Province, resigns because he said there was no consultation; because the consultation he was involved in was one that said you do not have to worry about it, we will come back and talk to you about these kinds of things.

Mr. Speaker, then of course we have the school councils that believed last year when the group - the same one, the man who is now the Minister of Education was marching with them out in the lobby when we brought in a budget that laid off some of the teachers - not the number that is in the report, in the formula, but laid off some teachers and kept 218 in the system. He walked outside and marched with them and said: One teacher coming out of the system is one too many. So they felt they had great comfort, and they had the man who is now the Minister of Education saying that last year with them. They had the man who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education saying that and marching with them. Then when they announced they were going to reduce 476 teachers over the next two years, they applauded the desk, like that.

They were sitting in the gallery, Mr. Speaker. The representatives of the school councils were sitting in the gallery that day and they had to get up and walk out because they could not believe what they were seeing. They could not believe what they were seeing, but again, you see now the same group - let me take the argument for you. A year ago the argument was this: Never mind the pupil-teacher ratio, that does not mean anything. Never mind that we have the lowest pupil-teacher ration in Canada. Why are you government members saying that? That does not make a row of beans difference. A small pupil-teacher ration does not mean anything. We need the teachers. You should not be laying them off. We need some more because we do not have enough programs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. There is too much distance education. We need some more student assistants because there are not enough hours available for our special needs students. That was what their speeches were.

This year, when it was announced they were going to take 476 teachers out, what was the speech that the Minister of Education gave the day after? He said: Well, it should have a very minimal impact. There probably should not be any negative impact because, you know, we have the lowest pupil-teacher ratio in the whole country. We have the best pupil-teacher ratio in the whole country, what do we need these teachers for? You can understand why those people felt so betrayed, Mr. Speaker, that they left and walked out of the gallery. I do not think, if they were given a chance, that they would vote for this Budget either; I do not think they would approve the budgetary thing.

One of the key issues that is now central to whether or not this strike settles by mutual agreement or whether we are going to have draconian back-to-work legislation brought in by this government - and then we will see where they all stand. They will get a chance to speak to it. They will get a chance to vote for it. One of the key issues - because there are two remaining right now - is sick leave and the fact that there was a nine-week strike in the schools in Newfoundland and Labrador - not every school board, it did not happen in St. John's. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons people said it went on so long is that it was not in St. John's; that this board was not impacted. It was only in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the Opposition used to say. The then Opposition, they would say it was only rural. So he said: You Liberals are not paying attention to it because it is not here in St. John's.

The issues were these: it was dedicated hours of work, committed hours of work and dedicated funding so that we could have appropriate levels of secretarial assistants in the schools, appropriate numbers of hours for those providing the cleaning and janitorial services - because many of them, by the way, double as bus drivers. In order to have a full job they drive the buses. They would go in and clean the buildings, and then drive them back home; so all those kinds of things. After a nine-week strike we had people like Dr. Phil Warren and Vic Young involved in it, who finally brokered a solution. The solution was to put dedicated funding in and make the school boards put in time for the secretaries and make the school boards put in time, proper hours, for the janitorial services, and make the school boards put in the proper hours for the bus drivers who were also janitors in cleaning the schools; because they wanted clean and safe schools.

Then there was one other issue, Information Technology support services, which we did not fund last year. We had started implementing. We funded the other two. We did not put in the money for the Information Technology support, which is being done - as the Minister of Education would know, and the Parliamentary Secretary would know - mostly by teachers and students and those secretaries in their spare time, free. You know how important, by the way, your systems are in the school. They need access to their computer systems. They need access in some of the bigger schools through their local area networks. Some of them are big enough to have them, especially some in the city. It is all being done on a volunteer basis by members of the school board unions and some of the teachers and some of the better students who happen to have a knack for these things.

Sometimes, like when I was first doing that twenty years ago, they brought me up one summer and said you are going to have to teach computer technology in the summer. I said, very good. The last time I did anything like that was in university twenty years before that. They said, we will send you off to summer school and you will learn the course yourself and then you will teach it. I learned a little bit. My five-year-old daughter - we had a computer at home - picked it up a lot faster than I did because that came natural to her. She taught me a few things. Then the best students in the class taught me; I was the teacher. I was in charge but I am telling you, those students learned a lot because we all learned together. I was no great master at it. Today I pride myself in using it for e-mail purposes and a few other things but I am telling you, that it is absolutely essential - and you have that kind of an arrangement in the school boards.

What does the government say? What does the government say in the strike? For the first time in history we had some dedicated monies - because what the school boards did, if you just gave them the funding they did not use it for secretaries. They did not use it for janitorial services. They used it for other purposes that they deemed to be more important. So we made a major breakthrough as the result of a nine-week strike, and here is this government, a year-and-a-half later, back at the table saying: We want to reserve the right for the managers of the system to decide whether there is going to be a secretary, whether we need certain numbers of janitorial hours, and we are not going to have any dedicated hours at all. Members opposite, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: During the strike they said we were not going far enough, that we are being mean-spirited. We did not understand the issue and we should put more money into it, because the secretaries, the janitors and the bus drivers and the other maintenance people were right. That was the view then. Now, it saying: No, no, no. The managers, the people at the school board office should be given the money and they should not be told whether or not you have to have a half-time secretary or a full-time secretary. They should not be told how many hours you have to have paid to clean the school. So, you have those kinds of things happening and they are saying we have to take that back.

When asked about it today, when asked about services for those kinds of issues and asked about special needs, the Minister of Education again, very telling, said: Oh - I think, the phrase was - minimal disruption. Minimal disruption. Here you have school boards, again, where they have board-owned busing services in rural Newfoundland - the same areas where the strike was a few years ago - where on the first day back after Easter, attendance is down by somewhere between 30 per cent and 50 per cent. The Minister of Education stands in the House and says: Oh, that is a minimal disruption. Because their plan, by the way, in taking out the teachers and consolidating the school boards, is that most of these schools that he is talking about, are going to close anyway with this crew. I guess that is a minimal disruption if there are only half of them out of school now, because the whole bunch of them are going to go to a different school sometime soon when their particular version of saving rural Newfoundland and Labrador unfolds. So, you have those kinds of things that happen and you have a general message, Mr. Speaker, of betrayal that is setting in. It is for those reasons that we think the whole Budget is wrong-headed and we will not be voting for it. I certainly will not.

Mr. Speaker, let me move to another topic of broken commitment and betrayal. Tied to the school system, tied to this Budget, tied to the fact that one of the things the government prided itself on in the Budget that they read - which, I think, I have made the point that we are not sure if that is the one we are voting on or not, because what has been read has already been changed by the Member for Windsor-Springdale in one town, changed by the Premier in another town, changed by the Member for Bonavista North someplace else. So it depends where it goes. But, to get to the issue, they said: We did not raise taxes. Now, never mind the corporate one. I am sure some of my friends here will talk about the corporate taxes. I want to talk about personal taxes. We did not raise taxes. That is one of the great accomplishments in the Budget, they did not raise taxes. Instead, they did one of the most retrogressive, terrible things that you can do instead, which is put in fees. They put in fees like licensing your vehicle. It went from $140 to $180; a $40 increase. The problem with that, you see, Mr. Speaker, from a philosophical point of view, is that it is a $40 increase for everybody who has to have a car, a vehicle; $40. So, it is $40 for somebody who is making minimum wage. It is $40 for someone who is out there scraping by, falling through the cracks, those people who are out there just getting by, not on social assistance, just barely making it, proud to be working, just keeping the bare essentials together, and it is $40 for me. I do not mind telling people. I make $145,000 a year or something, whatever it is. So it is $40 for me and it is $40 for somebody who makes $5,000. Now, that is what is wrong with that.

At least when there is a tax system, if you put on a 1 per cent tax then you take 1 per cent off the $5,000 person, by the way, which they do not pay because there are certain levels up to which you pay income and you get forgiven all your income tax, and you take a per cent off me, which is not $40 but it might be $150. That is right, because I am supposed to be able to afford to pay for it, but this non-discriminatory tax grab through the fee system shows no respect. As a matter of fact, the issue was, that is why school tax was abolished over a decade ago, because it was like $100 or $150 for everybody in the town, regardless of their earnings income and earnings level, and was replaced by a payroll tax, which has since been reduced over the years, but it was replaced because it was wrong in philosophy. It was $150 for the poorest person in town and $150 for the richest person in town. It did not respect the ability to pay.

Everybody who is in a taxation system in government normally says you put in a tax that respects the ability to pay, and those who have more can pay more, and usually do not mind doing it, and those who have very little or nothing do not pay anything.

Let me tie in the fees - ranges of fees like you would not believe. One of the things that we were criticized for last year, by the way, when school opened, was school fees. Does anybody remember?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. GRIMES: School fees. The same one, the Minister for Education now, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, out in the lobby again, out marching around with people, saying: Abolish the school fees. Get rid of the school fees. Of course, we said we would, we absolutely would.

Now, they did not mention it because they were asked during the election: If you get elected, are you going to honour these commitments that the Liberal made? The Premier sort of said: Well, we will look at them.

I guarantee you, they did not get eliminated. Not only that, a whole bunch of brand new fees that did not exist at all - by the way there is now, for the first time in the history of the Province, a fee for a death certificate.

The last crack is going out the door, going out the door. There was never a fee for a death certificate until this group brought it in, in this Budget. So they get you when you are born, for a birth certificate, and they get you going out the door. They forgot all about the fact that last year they were supporting doing away with school fees, and you had the director, like Mr. Shortall, talking about they might have to increase them, they might have to do some things because they are not sure of the budgets they are going to get for operational purposes.

There are lots of broken commitments and there is a whole litany of groups that are now out there adding their name to the notion of saying, we feel we have been betrayed.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that they do not take it lightly and they do not like to hear that said about them. I saw a cartoon in the paper one day last week about the sick leave issue with the strikers. (Inaudible) Danny talking about the sick leave. It said: Sure, he has made me sick every day for six months.

It is these kinds of things, Mr. Speaker, that lead to that kind of a feeling which shows itself in editorial cartoons and it shows itself in groups that feel very much let down by the government.

The difficulty, as I see it - I will try to wrap up shortly, Mr. Speaker - is this: It is a Budget that does not show any hope. There is nothing in it about how the economy is going to grow. I mentioned on Thursday that last year, for the first time in over a decade and for the first time in twenty years, we had both population growth and in-migration in Newfoundland and Labrador. Last year. What are they predicting in the Budget again this year? A return to out-migration. I think everyone who has seen the Budget knows why, because if you are going to take 4,000 opportunities out of the system, if you are going to reduce the services in health care, if you are going to reduce the services in education, if you are going to reduce all the basic services that people expect, need and desire from their people because some of their members, at least, believe that we are providing too many of them. Some of them might still think that maybe we do not have enough money.

I talked about that a bit on Thursday and I might not have time today. Here is how bad the despair was. A day or so, Mr. Speaker, after the Budget, the Premier was asked about it in an interview again outside the Legislature. Oftentimes he says something in here, gives an answer, and goes out and says something - elaborates a bit more, I will say. He says a bit more outside the House. He does not seem to want to answer the questions from us, but if the media asks him he sort of says a bit more. Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, he was asked about: Well, you know, there are pretty dire projections in your Budget. Things do not look so good. A $360 million deficit or so, all these things happening, and you are planning on getting it down to zero over four years, but there is no real growth agenda in here. You are going to set up a business department some time and you are going to set up a Rural Secretariat some time when you get around to it. Not yet. Those things are in there but there are no real teeth to it. There is no real substance to it. There is no real essence to it, to show that there were any definitive plans to see how the economy is going to grow.

Outside the Legislature when he was asked about it, finally, maybe he was getting a little bit exasperated, might have been getting a little bit frustrated, which he does sometimes, he said: Really, if the feds do not help us, I do not know what we are going to do.

Here is the man who went and got elected with a whole bunch of people dragging on the coattails, Sir, like you would not believe, saying: I know how to make successful businesses. I know how to create jobs. I know how to grow an economy. I know how to make Newfoundland and Labrador a better place.

What does he say himself, two days after the Budget? If the feds don't help, I don't know how we are going to do it. Now, there is a message of hope for you from the Premier of the Province. I will tell you one thing, our message always was, we knew and we know we are not getting the proper treatment that we should be getting from the federal government, but we always dedicated and committed ourselves to creating the opportunities, providing for more job growth, making sure that the economy got stronger and more diversified, and then generating more revenues for the government so we could pay for the services that people need, instead of using the excuse that, we haven't got the money so I am going to cut out the service. I have always said, that is the easy way out.

The new Premier, with - what was the slogan, Real Leadership - the New Approach, or something?

AN HON. MEMBER: The New Approach - Real Leadership.

MR. GRIMES: Two days after his first Budget throwing the hands up in despair and saying: Well, boy, I don't know what we are going to do here if the feds don't help out. That is not a very hopeful, inspiring message for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let me take a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker, to talk about rural revitalization, because I think the new department is named Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. One of the things that is going to happen is there is going to be a rural secretariat established sometime. They have only been the government for six months so far, they haven't gotten around to it yet. I guess, that shows you have much of a priority it was. It didn't take them long to figure out that they had to freeze the wages of people. It didn't take them six months to make that decision. It didn't take them six months to make the decision that they are going to get rid of 4,000 jobs. I guarantee you, it is taking them a whole lot longer to figure out where the rural secretariat is going to be. Guess where it is going to be, by the way?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ontario.

MR. GRIMES: St. John's. No, no. St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not Ontario?

MR. GRIMES: No, it is not in Ontario. That is a different office in Ontario. They are definitely creating a job in Ontario.

It is going to be in St. John's, and we are going to have the very thing that was criticized - we used to have an Economic Recovery Commission before, a decade or so ago, and the Opposition criticized it and said: How do you expect a bunch of people sitting around St. John's to figure out the solutions in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? So, what are they going to do now? The very thing they criticized ten years ago, they have it reinvented. They put a new name on it, called it rural secretariat, and it is going to be right here in St. John's. They are going to hire a bunch of people here in St. John's to sit down and figure out what is going to work on the Northern Peninsula, what is going to work on the Burin Peninsula, what is going to work on the Bonavista Peninsula, what is going to work in Northern Labrador and what is going to work in the Southern Straits of Labrador.

What they have always told us, and what they would tell them if they ever talked to anybody, is: Listen, you don't need to sit in St. John's and talk about that. We know the answers, just come out and talk to us. Just come out here and if we give you a good idea, work with us and let us make it happen. That is all they want. Instead, they are going to set up a rural secretariat here in St. John's, spend a million or a million and a half on it, employ some people, by the way, in jobs at $100,000 a year or so, to sit in St. John's, drink coffee and talk about what might work in rural Newfoundland. Now, that is what you are going to have from this particular group. That is the message of hope that is in this particular Budget.

The minister, by the way, in standing to make her maiden speech a couple of days ago, talked about it a little bit and talked about the fact that she has bought into the argument, that I believe she would like to keep the 4,000 jobs is what I heard her say, because she believes that they are getting rid of the 4,000 jobs because they just cannot afford it. I do not think she believes they should not have them. Maybe she will stand up the next time she speaks, Mr. Speaker, and clarify that. I was listening closely to what she said. I got the impression that she believes it would be good to have the 4,000 jobs if we could keep them, but she has bought into the myth that we are just about bankrupt and we are just about broke and we really cannot afford it.

AN HON. MEMBER: She knows the difference.

MR. GRIMES: Maybe not, but she will explain it all to us.

The real story, as I mentioned the other day, basically is this. What we have had - because she talked a bit about this fiscal mess and the mismanagement and all those buzz phrases they like to use. Let me again, Mr. Speaker, as I start to conclude, talk about the real circumstance in the last few years. Let me talk about the last two Budgets in particular, the last two presented by Liberal governments that I was very pleased to lead.

Two years ago, when this same Mr. O'Brien who is now saying, " This lack of respect for Labrador is gutless and appalling." - when he was criticizing the Liberal government because we were planning on taking the funding from the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, which had $97 million remaining in it at the time, and we were going to put it into the general revenues of the Province so that we could keep hiring teachers, keep paying all the health care workers, keep going with the health care system that we desired, put the kind of funding that we needed into the school boards for things like the secretarial services and the janitorial, and we said, rather than leave it off in a separate pot, we will deal with the general issues of the Province and we will find the money at some point in time with the help of people like the then Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the MP for Labrador. We would go to Ottawa and they might help us with, say, the Labrador Highway because that was a great development thing - roundly criticized, roundly, roundly, roundly criticized.

By the end of the year, because we worked so hard at creating jobs, growing the economy and making sure that revenues increased, we projected that year a deficit of $90 million. Now, when it was all over, guess what really happened? This is the first time that some of the members opposite have heard this, because they have heard a very different story painted for them. What happened that year was that we actually generated revenues of $150 million more than we anticipated, because we worked with people to create jobs. Employment went up, unemployment went down. Retail sales went up because people had confidence. Money came into the provincial Treasury and it was $150 million more than we anticipated. So, what we did was, we left the $97 million in the Labrador Fund. We did not have to take it out. In the Budget, we did not know if we were going to - we said we would take it out. We left it in the Fund, Mr. Speaker. Not only that, the deficit that we said was going to be $90 million came in at $30 million, so we put $97 million back in the Fund and we raised another $60 million. I do not know the details of it, but -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: No, but it is all part of it, in any event, and it fluctuates from year to year.

Just for the people who are watching on television, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is asking about how much of the federal revenues did they change drastically that year. The fact of the matter is that every year there is over $1 billion that comes to Newfoundland and Labrador as a combination of equalization, CHST and other transfers directly to the government, and the number does not change. It is within $100 million or so each year, and $100 million is a lot of money, but in the Budget purposes it does not make that big a difference when you are talking about $4.1 billion versus $4.2 billion. When you talking billions of dollars, which is what our provincial government Treasury is, then the $100 million, while it is a huge number, in context, is not overly significant - but here, we outperformed by $160 million.

Then the next year came, which was last year, and last year again we predicted that there would be a deficit of $286 million because there were some one-time funds that were no longer available and so on, and we laid out a plan to balance that over four years, which is what the current government is saying now, but what really happened is again that revenues increased by another $100 million. The real deficit was still bad enough. It was $196 million or $197 million, but it is not the disaster that this particular group has bought into.

If you believe some of these people, like the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, they would make you believe that there is no money anywhere. There is no hope. Whatever you put in the Budget is all you can ever hope for. The case, by the way, with this group, that is exactly the way it is going to be, because by eliminating 4,000 jobs they are casting a great pall over consumer confidence. They are predicting, in this year's Budget, that retail sales will decline, and so they will because there is no confidence.

They are putting us on the track they are in, into a downward spiral fiscally. I have talked about it publicly before. It is part of the kind of mistake that we made, as a government, in the early 1990s, because we took the same fiscal route and all that happened is that it turned inward and downward upon itself, and the very revenues that government needs to pay for services diminished instead of growing.

In the last few years, we took the opposite approach. We had the consumer confidence. We created the jobs. Employment went up. Unemployment went down. Record job numbers in the Province. The revenues increased. Out-migration stopped.

Now we have a new government, and today we heard the Premier say: We got elected on a mandate to do this. That is not what anybody heard last September and October. Nobody heard: Elect me and I will get rid of 4,000 jobs. I will have wage freezes, and I will do all the - nobody heard that. When the Premier of the day was asked about it publicly, actually he was asked by one of the reporters: Well, why didn't you mention a wage freeze during the election? He said: Nobody asked me about it. I was not asked about a wage freeze. I was asked about layoffs. Then he tried to say: Well, I said there would be no massive layoffs. That was the excuse he was giving for a few weeks. Of course the full page ads did not say anything about massive. It said: The team led by the now Premier has clearly stated that under a Progressive Conservative government there will be no layoffs in the public service.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not one.

MR. GRIMES: No sign of the word massive. That was the mandate that was given, and then the Premier stands today in answer to questions and says: We were given a mandate to layoff these people, get rid of 4,000 jobs, bring in the wage freezes. They were going to even roll back $5 a month from the pensioners, until they came to their senses. They tortured and tormented the pensioners even, for three or four months. They thought they were going to lose $5 per month. You had a Premier who would say: Oh, I had not checked it. I did not know how much it was going to be. I did not know it was going to be $5. That was very telling in and of itself.

Mr. Speaker, what we have is this. We have a deficit which needs to be brought under control through some moderate restraint measures, not the kind of draconian measures that are in this Budget. We have a problem, a separate one, and a different one with pensions. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Finance address it, a day or so ago, when he said: Over the last twenty years the investments in the pension fund have averaged a return of 10.2 per cent. He said if that happens again, if that continues, we will not need to worry about changing any benefits or changing any contributions, things will be fine.

I believe they finally came to their senses over the weekend, and wrote down, I think for the unions, saying: We are not going to increase your contributions and we are not going to do away with any of your pension benefits over the life of whatever agreement we put in place. But, it took them until nineteen days into a strike to finally agree to it at the table, of what he had been saying publicly, and stood in this House and said: If the same performance of 10.2 per cent return on investment occurs, there will be no problems with the pension plan, it will fix itself over time. There are additional contributions being made, above and beyond the partnering of a 50-50 split, the employees contributing, the employer contributing. The government, by the way, on the encouragement of an auditor general from ten years ago - a Liberal government, on the encouragement of an auditor general, took it seriously and made special contributions to the pension plan above and beyond what was required to match the contribution from the employees. We did it consistently, year in and year out. It started at $20 million extra, went up to $40 million, went up to $60 million, and I believe now it is even higher than that. The combination of the special contributions and the investment will certainly see the pension plans - but again, some members opposite, because they want to talk about an accrual deficit, say: Oh, the pension plans are so bad -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted for some concluding comments.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few minutes to clue up my last few thoughts with respect to this non-confidence motion. There are some who then - now on the opposite side - firmly believe that the pension plan or plans are in such bad shape that the whole fiscal integrity of the Province is in jeopardy. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely nothing!

There is a plan in place that has been worked at now for ten years, being continually worked at by this government, to its credit, and the Finance Minister himself, saying: If the returns that have happened on average in the last twenty years continue, it will take care of itself over time. When they want to say we have to get rid of 4,000 jobs, they say: Oh my, the pension plans are just about bankrupt. This cannot be handled. This is terrible. Again, the circumstances, the real circumstances that you have to deal with.

I want to make a couple of other comments, Mr. Speaker. I think there are a number of people, including myself, who had different expectations of our new Premier than what we have seen. I firmly believe for one, because I have known him on a personal basis for a number of years - as a matter of fact, he has often told me in the past, when I met him in different portfolios that I was working in, that he thought I was doing a fabulous job. He thought I was doing a very good job, and that he really admired people who went into public life and stood by their convictions and did the things they thought they had to do. Others who are here, by the way, have been in my presence and his presence when he said those things to me. Now, you would never believe it today compared to what he says these days.

Also, he always used to give this message: Well, the one thing I do not like about some politicians - because he always excluded me - is that some politicians are a bit manipulative. They try to twist things around. They are doing things for political reasons, instead of just doing the right thing. He said: From what I have seen from you, you stand up - whatever job you are given to do, you do the best you can with the job. You go out and stand up and do what the government has decided is the best thing for the Province. You go out and defend it and support it, and you work at it. He said: I give you a lot of credit for that.

I assumed we were going to get a person who was not at all manipulative; wasn't interested in playing games; wasn't interested in promising somebody one thing and doing another. Why would he? Why would this new leader, this new Premier, bother to play those kinds of games? That is what has disappointed so many people, Mr. Speaker. It is because we have seen those kinds of games played repeatedly. Unfortunately, the couple of examples I gave before show that they are still being played. They are still being played in Gander, about whether there is - if it is cancelled, what he used to say to me is: Stand up and tell them it is cancelled. Don't mislead them. Don't make them think it is going to happen in two or three years' time. If it is down in Grand Bank, we do not want to hear that Grand Bank is cancelled. In Grand Bank, the Minister of Health says they are taking down the steel. I guess that means it is cancelled. He would always say: Be upfront with people. Be honest with people. Deal with them with integrity. Say what you are going to do and then go do it, and people will respect you for it.

That is what has caused quite a bit of shock, actually, in the Province in the last six months. That is what led to that kind of cartoon of the striker saying: Sick leave, I guess I am going to fight for my sick leave because every time I have seen this fellow for six months he has made me sick. That is not very flattering. That is not very complimentary, but it is very telling, Mr. Speaker, because you have someone who is willing to stand here, sit in this Legislature and applaud when a statement is read saying that a project is cancelled. Then, when he goes to look the people in the eye, who are actually hoping that it would be built, he says: Never mind what you heard in the Budget, it is not cancelled.

I do not know how the government can expect to continue to maintain a sense of integrity and have any kind of support when you have a person who said they would not play politics and all we seen before, to get elected, was playing politics; playing to whatever crowd, in whatever place, either saying what needed to be said or, better still, say nothing and let them think you are on their side. That is probably sometimes better, I guess, if you are being manipulative, than saying something because then your words do not come back to haunt you. It is like the wage freeze. What about a wage freeze, the reporter said? No one asked me, he said. I guess you can manipulate people and lead them on just as much by saying nothing as you can sometimes by saying something. We had that kind of circumstance. I think there are a lot of people, Mr. Speaker, who are somewhat disappointed in him.

Let me conclude by saying this. Here is the sad part of the Budget and why I moved the non-confidence motion, and suggesting that if anybody looked it - because a lot of people in the Province, if they were in our position, if they did not have party affiliations, and if they were not being told by the leader of the party and by the whip that you must vote for this because, by the way, you must vote for the Budget or the government falls on a vote of non-confidence. Then we have to have an election. I do not think anybody on the opposite side wants that again. I do not think many people in the Province want it, quite frankly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, they do. People around the Province want one.

MR. GRIMES: Maybe they do, but again, I am sure the group opposite do not particularly relish the thought of having an election because they did not vote for the Budget. That will be explained to them - if it has not been already, that will be explained to them, Mr. Speaker, that this is a confidence motion. If it falls, then the government loses confidence and the Lieutenant-Governor would suggest that maybe we should go back to the people and see who they would have confidence in. I do not think they relish that thought. That is how serious this debate is.

The problem is this: We have a Budget that says, by plan, we are going to start by digging a hole. The hole is going to be 4,000 jobs deep. By plan, not by accident, not by poor circumstance, but by plan. At least some of them believe that it should happen even if they had the money. Then they are going to have a Rural Secretariat based in St. John's. He is going to try to figure out some way to get a handful of those 4,000 jobs back in rural Newfoundland and Labrador some time - well, good luck. Good luck, because I am telling you, a lot of these people who have worked at those jobs before will likely reincarnate themselves just like the unelected minister, Dr. House. The unelected minister put a new name on his old economic recovery commission, and he will probably have his old buddies gathered around him in an office here in St. John's in the not-too-distant future.

It was Tories, by the way, who condemned it back then and encouraged the government, led by Brian Tobin, to abolish it and instead put some real authority back in the regions through some economic development boards and had people from the actual regions on them, and in some areas they have had some tremendous successes - some tremendous successes.

The other piece, Mr. Speaker, they talk about the need for education. They talk about the need for education as being one of the real linchpins for economic development, and what do they do? They gut the investments in education. Take out the teachers, for starters, after arguing consistently for years that the loss of one teacher is one too many. So, take out the teachers. In the post-secondary, cancel the most progressive debt relief program in the country for students who have too much debt. We were the only Province to allow a write-off of payments on your capital, on the principal, not just the interest. So, what did they do? Cancelled that program.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. GRIMES: Oh, you did not know that was in the Budget?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. GRIMES: Maybe they are going to make a speech somewhere to students saying it is not cancelled, but it is cancelled. That is cancelled. The debt relief program, unique in the country, leading the way - worth, I think, on average, somewhere between $130 or $150 a year to a student repaying their loans, which is important to them - I guess it is not important to somebody who says moving a licence fee from $140 to $180 does not matter. So, if you are sitting there saying: Well, let's put a fee on a death certificate for the first time in history, it does not matter. No matter to these poor students. What is another $150? We will keep that and will not let the students have the benefit.

Then they claw back the funding from the College of the North Atlantic and expect them to improve their programming in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. In rural Newfoundland and Labrador, where most of their nineteen campuses are, but they are asked to take $2 million out of their budget, and another $2 million out of the funding for the University. What are they going to do to fix it all? What are they going to do to fix it all, though? They are going to hire some buddy of theirs for $250,000 to do a study on post-secondary education, as to how to make it more affordable and more accessible. They are going to take $150 from each one of the students paying off their loans, small mortgages, and they are going to give $250,000 - wait until you see who the name is. It will be a well-known name, well acquainted with the party opposite, who will go out and spend a year doing a study and a White Paper on Post-Secondary Education. That is the kind of Budget that they will be asked to vote for.

Mr. Speaker, let me just make one last comment. The same group on education, the same group that said in the Blue Book - which is now the blueprint - savings from education will definitely be reinvested in the system. Of course, they always asked us ever since the reorganization in 1996-1997, they said: Are you sure you are putting all the money back into education? We said: Yes, and more besides. Every cent that was saved from restructuring, and more besides, was put into education.

I saw a couple of them over there with that puzzled look, like that is the first time they heard that. They probably believed the myth again that it was not reinvested. It was reinvested, plus some extra money, every year because we believed education was the real future for Newfoundland and Labrador.

What did they do with the $6 million they are going to save from the school boards? The minister stands up and says it is going towards the debt. It is not needed in education. That $6 million, by the way, could pay for all of the secretarial time, all of the janitorial time, all of the bus drivers who were on strike for nine weeks two years ago, all of the IT people they need for their Information Technology capabilities in the schools. The total bill for implementing that full report was $5 million. They have $6 million in their grasp from savings and they are not going to use it. They are at the bargaining table with the same group that was on strike for nine weeks two short years ago, saying: I cannot guarantee you that you are going to have three hours a week for a secretary in your school to do some correspondence on behalf of the teachers, student council, and all the rest of it, and to handle a few phone calls if there are no teachers off. In many of the schools, the teachers do not get these so-called study periods and so on that they get in some of the bigger centres. In many of the schools, all of the teachers are in all the classrooms all of the time. There is no one to take a phone call. There is no one to arrange for a sick child to be tended to or taken home, if they need their parents to pick them up. They need a secretary for a few hours a week to try to do some of those things. That is what they are at the bargaining table saying: We want to take that away.

The minister has $6 million in savings that he says: No, no, I did not fight for that, as the Education Minister, to have that reinvested like the blueprint said we would. Another betrayal. Another commitment broken.

Mr. Speaker, let me just spend a couple of minutes on health care and then I will wrap up. I heard the Minister of Health and Community Services using some numbers the other day, and I know that she is suppose to be good at numbers from some of her past experiences, but I did some of my own checking. The basic numbers in health care show a gross budget this year of $1.6 billion compared to last year $1.5 billion. Now the number is almost $100 million more, but $100 million on $1.5 billion is not very much. Actually, it is less than 5 per cent. So, you get to the point of saying health care costs in Canada, driven by pharmaceuticals and other things, and increasing salaries for health care professionals, by the way, that we want our health care professionals to be paid on a par at least with Atlantic Canada, if we can. We do not believe that we should have to be second- or third-class citizens in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, just to keep pace, you need to increase health care funding by in the range of 8 per cent or 9 per cent. This group is going to increase it by less than 5 per cent.

What is going to happen is, you are going to see a 4 per cent or 5 per cent cut, an absolute reduction in health care services, and that is why you are going to see sustainability of health care in rural Newfoundland - and I have said it before and I will say it one last time - you will find circumstances like the health care that is sustainable for the Port au Port Peninsula is what you are going to get in Corner Brook, because that is what this kind of a reduction leads to. The clinics that are in many of these rural settings, I visited myself when I was Health and Community Services Minister, just about all of them. Let me take the one that is down in Harbour Breton, as an example, a great new facility, clinic space for visiting physicians to come, dentists too, specialists and so on to come once in a while. People make an appointment. They get down once every week, ten days, two weeks. People wait and they go to the clinic. Clinics, by the way, have not been open for nineteen days because there is no one down there to arrange the particular visits, so they are closed. In this plan, guess what is going to happen? Stay closed. So, those people who could occasionally get to see a doctor in Harbour Breton, from the Connaigre Peninsula, where are they going? They are going to go up the highway, two hours. They are going to turn left and go to Grand Falls or they are going to turn right and go to Gander.

The health care that is sustainable for the Connaigre Peninsula is what is going to be in Grand Falls-Windsor or Gander. The health care that is sustainable for the Port au Port Peninsula and all the way down to Port aux Basques, by the way, is going to be what is in Corner Brook, because there is a real reduction in this Budget. They did not even keep pace. They did not even fund inflationary costs for heat, light, medications, pharmaceuticals, and salary increases for the professionals in the system. So, something has to be reduced and we will see the start of it when we get the reports from the West Coast. I think they are due in November. In October or November we will get the reports, the reorganization will occur, and then the actual cuts will occur. Then you will see actual cuts in some areas, but other things going ahead as a priority if they happens to be in the Premier's district. You will see how people match those up. I am not sure if the one in Clarenville is going ahead any more. I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and Community Services is after falling out of favour, I think, with the Premier. That might have been on the list for a while, but I think it is down on the list now. At least my sources suggest that it is falling down the list.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Very reliable.

Mr. Speaker, that will unfold and again members opposite do not know it yet. Just like the week we were asking questions before the Budget, they were saying: Wait for the Budget. Wait for the Budget. Wait for the Budget. Every question we asked, announced in the Budget. Just like we said. Here was the crew over - and some of the ministers did not even know what it was.

We had the Member for Bellevue at a school board meeting out in Clarenville, telling his colleagues that their school board was gone. Three months ago, he said: I have the information - I do not have a briefcase here - right here in my briefcase. They said: Go on, that cannot be true. That is not right, is it? He said: Oh, no, your school board, the school board in Clarenville, is going to be gone. They are reorganizing the school boards.

They came in here on Budget Day and we were saying: They are probably going to announce them today, even though a week before the Minister for Education was saying it was not going to happen, but our sources had told us it was going to be in the Budget. Sure enough. You should see the faces on them when they heard it read. The first time they heard of it was when the Minister of Finance read it for the public, that the school boards were going to be reorganized from eleven down to five. They had not heard about it in the caucus. They had heard about it from the Member for Bellevue before, because he told them, and they are going to find out a whole lot about hospital and health care reorganization in November, December, January, February, and it is not going to be pretty and it is not going to be good news, because I believe - and I am sure I will be corrected if I am mistaken - the Minister of Health and Community Services is one of the few who believes we do have too many, as a matter of policy, as a matter of principle.

Just like the Minister of Finance - I do not think she is one of the ones who says: I would love to keep everyone we have in the health care system if only we had the money. I believe she is one of the ones who says: Twenty-seven per cent of the workforce is working for the government. That is too many, and we should take them out anyway, because the rest of the Province only has twenty one or twenty two. Some are as low as eighteen, and we should not have any.

That is what you will see unfolding and we will see how much applauding they will do. We will see whether people stand up and applaud 4,000 job cuts as was in the Clarenville Packet about one of our members from Bonavista South - biggest kind of a headline, biggest kind of a placard, 4,000 jobs applauded. Shameful, it said.

I cannot mention it now because the member is too good a friend of mind. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I tell you, I will finish by saying this: In my view - which is why I moved a non-confidence motion - for all the wrong reasons, because some people have bought into a myth, we will find out how many people will stand up and say they really believe that there are too many workers, and they should do it anyway. I know there are three of them so far, I think. The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health, and the Premier believe that. I do not know how many more.

It is the worst Budget by far presented in the history of the Province since Confederation. By far. It really has pierced a big huge gaping hole in the heart and soul of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and it will not be obvious, all of it, how big the hole and the gap is. It will not be obvious for probably another year, Mr. Speaker, and it is for one reason. It is because we have a group that chose the wrong priorities and made some bad choices based upon false information, and because of that, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have a circumstance where we will certainly be supporting the non-confidence motion, and we will listen with great interest to see what the real reasons are for members opposite, as they stand and try to justify why it is that they are going to vote for the worst Budget in the history of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Let me say this. A couple of comments have come across the way here this afternoon. The word betrayal was used, and I want to say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition: You know all about betrayal. The people of the Province know all about betrayal, and that is why you are sitting on the other side and we are sitting over here. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the people of the Province thought about betrayal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I want to take a couple of minutes and I want to address my good friend, the Member for Torngat Mountains. I want to address my good friend, the Member for Torngat Mountains who, on the last day in Hansard, made a number of comments I want to address here today, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Budget.

MR. HICKEY: This is all part of the Budget, I say to the member opposite. I want to say to the member that a number of points that he made were incorrect. I have to say, it looks like we are talking to a group of Chicken Little's. The sky is falling in all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the sky is falling in. Are we having some rough times in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Absolutely. Why are we having these rough times, Mr. Speaker? I will tell you why: Because the crowd on the other side, Mr. Speaker, left us a fiscal mess. They left it to us, they left it to our children, they left it to our grandchildren, Mr. Speaker, and we as a government are committed to fixing it, and I tell you every member over here is prepared to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I want to talk a little bit about the ferry system and the marine service. I want to commend this government for the changes we have made, Mr. Speaker, because those changes are for all of the people of Labrador, not a select few. All of the people of Labrador are benefitting from this, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I want to address a comment that the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains made last week in Hansard. He said: It was cherry-picking, the service was cherry-picked. Well, let me say to the hon. member, last year reports off the North Coast of Labrador, while you were the Minister of Labrador Affairs, were, it was the worse service ever received in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: You did nothing, Sir, you did nothing for the people last year. You allowed the Trans Gulf to come in, a ship that now they are telling me is not even going to be able to handle it this year. That is what the people from the North Coast are telling me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to also address a couple of other points that the member made. He alluded to a letter that I wrote as the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. He said that at that time, I, as the mayor, supported Cartwright. Let me say to the hon. member, at that time - and I know he has never served as a mayor, therefore he probably doesn't understand the responsibilities that go with that. I will say this to you: I went with my council, at the direction of my council, and I have no problem with that. Today, Sir, I say to you, my area of responsibility is a lot wider than the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It covers the Town of North West River, the Town of Sheshatshiu, the Town of Churchill Falls and the Town of Mud Lake.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: That is what the people told me, Mr. Speaker. They told me they wanted to see the Bond to Lewisporte. I can tell you, some of the e-mails that I will read for my hon. friend over there on the other side, that I got just in the last number of days, are certainly telling me the same thing.

While I am in the mood, Mr. Speaker, I will say to you, I had one just this morning. It is to myself and the hon. Trevor Taylor, the Minister of Labrador Affairs: I just wanted to say hello and how pleased I am of the recent decision of the ferry to go back to Lewisporte. Last year, I took the road from Cartwright and it was not that enjoyable. The services are not there yet for the traffic on the road nor are they there for the residents. That was just one.

I have another one here, Mr. Speaker, that I will read into the record. This lady says: I was sitting in front of my television this evening watching the NTV Evening News when a story on the ferry service from Goose Bay-Lewisporte was mentioned. During the broadcast, it indicated that meetings would be held tomorrow in Lewisporte to address concerns with regard to the ferry service to Labrador. She goes on to thank this government, to thank us for putting that ferry back so that she now has the option.

I want to say in this House today that every conversation I have had with every minister - and let me say this: Yes, this member has lobbied every single minister on this side of the House, and I make no apologies for it, to have that ferry system back into place. One of the things I said continuously as we had those discussions is that this ferry system is for the people of the North Coast of Labrador, absolutely. The other thing I said is that it will stop into Cartwright going and coming. That is what this government decided, and that was the best decision for all of the people, for all of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and I make no apologies for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has raised a couple of other points that I want to address. He talked about lack of police officers on the North Coast of Labrador. I can tell you, I have spent twenty-five years from one end of Labrador to the other and I know every one of these communities integrally. I can tell you that the policing on the North Coast of Labrador has to be improved, no question about that, but let me say this: The federal government and the Labrador Inuit Association have a responsibility to work with the Province to ensure that the appropriate funding comes from the federal government to take responsibility so that they can have the numbers of community constables on the North Coast of Labrador. Let me tell you, there is nobody in this House that supports the community constables aspect and program more than I do, because we started it in the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay while I was mayor and on the council. I can tell you, we were proud to partake in this program, in partnership with the RCMP. It has been a successful program and I will continue to support the people on the North Coast and those communities that want to become more involved in Aboriginal policing, and I think that is exactly where we want to go; but, again, we have a financial mess of which that member was a part and he has to pay for his decisions that he made at that time.

I thought it was an interesting comment that he made the other day when he talked about the Voisey's Bay monitor. The hon. member says, and I quote: Mr. Speaker, the sitting Member for Lake Melville was promised a job as monitor last year but he declined to take it.

Well, let me clarify for this hon. House, because the member over on the other side is famous for telling half-truths. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, the then member, who was Minister of Labrador Affairs, chased me all over the base in Goose Bay, stopped me in front of the CANEX, got out of his vehicle, came to me and said: John, we have a position down there. Would you like a job, the monitor for Voisey's Bay? I thanked the member and said: Thank you very much for that offer, but I am going to be too busy campaigning because I want to be a part of the government that throws you out of office. That is exactly what I told him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I am not at all apologetic for saying it.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of jumping in on the member when he is speaking, but I can tell you that I offered the minister the job for the Voisey's Bay monitor. Yes, I did, because I wanted to track him down. I asked him if he wanted a job and he said: No, I am going to be too busy. I have quite a few things to do this fall.

The member never mentioned running for office and throwing me out of power.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to marine service, I make no bones about it, when I spoke about the boat, I distinguished between the ferry service and the marine service.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the member, if he has a point of order I would ask him to get to it so the Chair can deal with it.

MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, I will.

Mr. Speaker, I was the member responsible for getting the Liberal government to change the ferry service from running out of Cartwright and going to Lewisporte because that is what the people wanted. I fought my own government and, when I did that, the Member for Lake Melville, who was the major at the time, wrote a letter saying that I was only looking after the interests of my people. The President of the Labrador Inuit Association had to turn around and put him in his place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I call on the Member for Lake Melville to continue with his dissertation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this. As long as I am in this hon. House and as long as I am the Member for Lake Melville, I can tell you this: I plan to ensure the people of Lake Melville and the people of Labrador get adequate representation on all of the issues affecting all of the people of Labrador.

I want to say this, Mr. Speaker: I get a little tired when I hear the member over across talking about the gutlessness - as he used the other day, the hon. member - of the people on the other side of this House. I have to say, while the member over there voted for the $97 million, was going to take it out of the Transportation Initiative Fund, he and his colleague from Cartwright-L'anse au Clair were prepared, along with the rest, to pass over the $97 million and put it towards the deficit. Don't point the finger over here, I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains. Do not point the finger over here. Look at yourself in the mirror, I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains. Look at yourself and look at yourself in the mirror today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues in this Budget but I want to say this: I believe that we, as a government, are doing the best that we can with the resources of the fiscal responsibility that we have. I want to say that, as far as I am concerned, there are going to be lots of opportunities for us in this Province. There are particularly lots of opportunities in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you, I look forward to working with this government under the leadership of Premier Williams, as we tackle on each one of those challenges.

I can tell you, over the last number of days I have seen - certainly, we have had issues. We have issues now in Labrador. Every single day we have issues. We have issues with the Innu of Quebec right now, and I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about that. Right now we are seeing the decimation of the Red Wine Caribou herd taking place in Labrador. We have seen that such action over the winter. I want to say here very clearly for the record in the House, Mr. Speaker, that I will work with every single minister in this government and the Premier and this caucus, but at the end of the day let me say this: We are going to protect our borders in Labrador. We are going to protect the wildlife resources of Labrador, and we are going to protect the Red Wine Caribou herd of Labrador. The days are over where we are going to see the ecesis of our wildlife resources going out to the Province of Quebec, down on the black markets of the Quebec lower north shore. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we will do whatever we have to do to ensure that that stops. I want to thank my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, for the help that he has given me on this particular file and the support that he has given me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about, for a minute, the transportation system in Labrador. I want to tell a story that I caught this weekend about a young businessman in Happy Valley-Goose Bay who talked about how he had to ship his freight to Lewisporte last year. He told me how he had to ship his freight to Nain from Happy Valley-Goose Bay in order to get it to Lewisporte, Mr. Speaker. Well, he is not going to have to do that this year. He told me he used to have to take - because the ship would not pick up his freight in Goose Bay, he had to ship his freight to Nain and then had to get a buddy to transship it down to Lewisporte. Well, that is not going to happen this year, Mr. Speaker. I am happy that we are going to be able, over the course of the next while - I understand that our department is taking reservations, the Department of Transportation and Works, and the first sailing of the boat will be June 11 from Lewisporte to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I want to say to the people of Cartwright-L'anse au Clair who, I know, are upset over the decision that, I believe, once they look at this and once they experience it this summer, that they will like it. To the people on the North Coast I say this: Last year you received a ship once every fourteen days. This year you will receive a ship once every seven. I can tell you, that is going to be a welcome to the people on the North Coast.

Mr. Speaker, there are some great opportunities going to happen in Labrador, but one of the things that we have to do, as a Province, is we have to get our fiscal house in order. There is absolutely no way that I, as a sitting MHA, want to leave a legacy to my children or to my grandchildren where we only put this Province, and the debt of this Province, further into a bigger hole.

We are going to have to make some very strategic choices over the course of the next couple of years, but I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of this four years this Province will be a lot better off than what it was when we came in as a government, because of the commitment that the men and women have here to ensure that it is going to be very successful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a few words today dealing with this non-confidence motion that has been filed here by the Leader of the Opposition, and to speak to the Budget. It is my first opportunity. I am sure there will be several others in the next couple of weeks or so. I guess the first one I would like to make is that my comments will not be finished in twenty minuets, albeit, that is the parliamentary time that the rules allow. My comments today will be finished in twenty minutes, no doubt, because I will comply with the rules but in essence, this is going to be a four-year speech. The reason I say four years, I would like to explain that, is I would like to take a different approach, if I could, in dealing with, not only this Budget, but what we will call the record.

We had a big decision made in this Province on October 21; a big, big decision. The people of this Province - and the people, by the way, who are always right - made a decision, they wanted a change of Administration. They chose to elect this new Administration and to turf out the old Administration. That is their absolute perfect right to do, and they did that. Now, we are going to have four years fixed terms. If you went to university that would equate to about eight semesters, and right now we have about one semester done in this Administration, who hope to advance, who hope to graduate, who hope to get a degree at the end of four years and go back to the electorate again and say: Did we pass?

Like most university set-ups, Mr. Speaker, it is done on a semester basis. You take so many courses, you make so many decisions, and you get examined. Now, by all means, I am not the examiner here, I would like to make it quite clear. That is why it is going to take four years, of course, because we are only dealing with semester number one here. We have about seven months done since October, and we have to wait for the rest to come, as it should be.

My purpose is just - and again, not as the grader, because it is not me. I am not the teacher. I am not the grader. That is the electorate who are looking at this Administration to see if what they have done in their first semester gets them a passing grade or a failing grade. That is the premise on which I am going to start here, and I probably will not get all my comments in today, even once I have outlined that scale of what we would like to use here.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Government House Leader, I am being very, very fair here. I am starting from a very - we have heard all kinds of comments here in the last few weeks. Some people, for example, talking about this Budget, say it is all full of goodies. Some people say there are lots of good things in here, and they have pointed out some of those good things that have been touted by this Administration. Others apologized. It is tough; we apologize for having to make some very, very tough decisions in this Budget, and tough things to do.

Now I use the word tough, but in some incidents it is actually pretty nasty. It goes beyond being tough, some of the things that are in this Budget, and I do not mean nasty of the Buckley's Mixture variety where they say it tastes awful but it treats you good. Not at all. This is not a case of a Buckley's Mixture potion at all. There are some things in this Budget, Mr. Speaker, that are absolutely downright nasty and are no good for you, socially, health wise, emotionally, mentally, economically, and certainly financially.

Instead of taking either one of those two approaches where it is full of goodies or it is extra, extra tough, I would like to try to look at it in a very balanced approach if I could. Yes, we are in tough financial times. Yes, prior Administrations in this Province have made decisions that have been proven to be unwise - both types of Administrations, Tory Administrations and Liberal Administrations. We did not come into the mess, as this government would tell you, in the last twelve years, fourteen years only. We have been here, and this is an accumulation of many, many activities, going back many, many decades, that brings us where we are today.

Yes, we need to care for our present citizens and we need to care about our future generations. All of us here, or most of us here, have children or grandchildren and want to be sure that we do that. Those are some of the yes's. No, Mr. Speaker, the financial situation is not out of control. It is not unsalvageable, as this current Administration would have us believe. No, the former Administration were not wanton and reckless in spending the taxpayers' money, as this Administration would have the people believe. Yes, I am sure there were things done that, if other people had to make the decision, they would have made a different decision probably for different reasons. That is why there are different opinions and different types of administrations and different policies. A lot of the things that were done by the former Administration were not wanton and reckless: new water systems, new health initiatives, freezes on tuition. Many of the things that were done by the former Administration were applauded by the people who sit in this current Administration. They agreed with them, voted for them, actually, because they were indeed good.

No, I am sad to say, this Budget is not the blueprint which will restore the fiscal integrity and the responsibility and stability that it claims to. Nor - and this is my greatest concern with this Budget - nor will this Budget protect social justice or provide social justice and protection to the residents of this Province.

Now, please do not make a mistake about these opening comments, because I do not mean to be cynical either. I am trying to take that balanced approach. A cynic, as they say, is a person who, when he smells flowers, looks around for the coffin. I am not cynical. I am not looking for any coffins here. I believe, in fact, when I smell flowers, I think quite differently. Flowers, to me, bring to mind things that are beginning: new birth, new growth, just like this new Administration, of course, starting off this first semester fresh and full of vim and vigor; new policies and new directions, all, of course, well thought out, well planned, ready for orchestration and implementation, and they are off and running on October 22 to do just that, the beginning of the semester, the beginning of the degree program.

The members opposite, I say again, have every right to put their stamp on this Province. They were entrusted with that right and that responsibility on October 21. The former Administration, for whatever reasons, gave us a failing grade, and said: Move on, move out, and put this group in, to see if their ideas and their plan are any better.

The people are never wrong, and I hope four years later the people on the other side will agree with me again when the people vote and they decide to make their decision again that we will all stand here again and yes, the people made the right decision. No doubt, the report card that they are going to see in the next eight semesters will hopefully help them make that decision in some way.

The excitement, I am sure, of winning, the exuberance of being government, not being in Opposition, and having gone through an election, surely must have been short-lived. It was indeed very short-lived, I am sure, for this new Administration, Mr. Speaker, because, first and foremost it must have been overshadowed by the immense responsibility that went with it.

I know the hon. the Government House Leader who sits here today sat over here in numerous capacities as critics of various portfolios, departments, Government House Leaders and Leaders of the Opposition. Today, he is sitting in a very different chair. The focus, the responsibility and the huge burden that he carries on his shoulders is far different than when he sat on this side of the House. Mixed with that excitement and exuberance, that big dose of responsibility smacks you right between the eyes twelve hours after the polls close - and, so it should.

I have no problem with the group on the other side being smacked with that responsibility factor. I also see a bit of arrogance. I also see some arrogance coming from the new Administration, I say in all fairness, a little, and I am sure it is probably in the old Administration but maybe that goes with being in power too. A little bit of cockiness, but again I just say, I am not the teacher and I am not the lecturer here. I am not trying to pontificate but these are the things that I have noticed. People see these things when they watch these cameras and they see what goes on here in this House. They have seen, as the Leader of the Opposition has alluded to, some hypocritical behaviour. I used that word here in one of my speeches back in the last Administration, being a rookie, and the Government House Leader tore the head off of me. I picked it up off the floor, and I said I am determined and I am going to go back at this again, because I did not think my use of the word hypocritical actually was too out of line. Hypocritical to me means - and always did mean - when you say one thing and you do something else, that means your behaviour was hypocritical. I had great difficulty, albeit he made a very stinging rebuke to me at the time and said I should not be in here as a rookie, up here making these statements and talking about hypocritical behaviour.

I thank him, because I learned from him. He sent me right back to Webster's to find out, in fact, was I right or not right? Did I do something wrong? I do not think I did. I used that word again today, hypocritical behaviour. I do not use it in the nasty sense. I use it in the sense of saying one thing and doing another. That is one of the major criteria that the electorate, the teacher, the grader, is going to look at you with and see, test and pass you on your report card for this first semester. So far, you have not gotten a passing grade.

MS FOOTE: It is a failing grade.

MR. PARSONS: It is a failing grade. I do not know how bad it is, but you have not received a passing grade.

The Leader of the Opposition, I think, and anyone, in all fairness, around this Province who listened to what he said today, has pointed that out. When the Member for Windsor-Springdale says, yes, we are going to have our health care facility and the Budget says, no, you are not going to get it, when the Budget says a project is cancelled in Gander and the Premier says, no, it is not cancelled, when you see these kinds of contradictory statements, the people say: What did I listen to, what did I hear? People don't forget, because as we know and we have seen, albeit we cannot use exhibits in this House, we have seen lots of newspaper clippings flashed around, newspaper ads where people have said: No public sector layoffs. Signed, Danny. Then, all of the sudden we get a Budget: 4,000 public sector jobs shall be gone in the next four years. That is a pretty contradictory statement.

If I were a teacher - not that I am, of course, and I am only going to be one person grading and I am probably voting for myself if I am still at it - but if I were a teacher looking at that, I would say: I have a problem with these students. These people don't learn very well. They told me one thing back before October 21, they have been in there one semester and they have told me something opposite. It is almost like Johnny who goes off to school - and I had three Johnnys who went off to school - who says: No, dad, I didn't have any beer on the weekend. Well, how come your account is depleted? Well, I think there is something going on and maybe dad wasn't given the full account, and that is what is happening over here. On that issue of, tell it like it is, say what you mean but mean what you say and do what you say, the people haven't gotten that yet. You have gotten, definitely, a failing grade on that

Time passes very quickly, as is my twenty minutes passing very quickly. I have lots more of this four-year speech to come back to, but this is just to set the scene today of where we would like to go in grading you in the next four years. That old phrase about times passes quickly, indeed it does. We are here with one semester gone right now.

There is another old saying, and I am not sure if some of the rookies in the administration have ever heard this before. I am sure some of the veterans have heard it, but the rookies I am not too sure if they have heard it or not. The saying is that Oppositions don't win, governments lose. I think that is a very, very true statement: Oppositions don't win, governments lose. You are the government and the question is: Will you lose? If you do, it is because in these next eight semesters, one of which you just finished, you did not get a passing grade. What are they going to judge you upon? One of the things - and I will only probably get time to start on one of them - will be the fee issue.

Just looking at certain things already in seven months they can judge you on, and that is fees. My comment there, as the Leader of the Opposition said, we have had 153 different kinds of fees imposed in this Budget. Everything from the cradle to the grave, and everything in between, the fee has been increased. If you drive a car - well, let's go back and start. If you are born, your birth certificate costs more. If you want any kind of copy of your birth certificate, at any point in your life after that, you pay extra. Your car, if you drive it, your licences - if you need to get a new licence, you want to register your car, all of which is increased. Also, your death certificates. Even if you get divorced now, and you want to get a copy of your divorce certificate, the price of your divorce certificate has now gone up as well. So, there is nowhere they cannot get you. It is not progressive, that is the major point.

Increasing fees are not progressive. You call yourselves the Progressive Conservative Party but there is absolutely nothing progressive about the fee increases, as was properly pointed out. In our taxation system you pay - it is a progressive tax - based upon your ability to pay. The more you make, the more you pay. But that is not what is happening in these fees. Everybody gets dinged with the same fee, whether you make $10 an hour, whether you do not make anything an hour, whether you are a senior, whether you are retired, whether you are a millionaire. That is not a progressive system. It is a user pay system, but a lot of these users are not using them because they are luxury items they can afford or because they want to use them. They are using them because they have to use them. The person who has a car, who has to get it registered, yes, he is a user or she is a user of that vehicle, but, quite often, they must have it because they need it to transport their family. They need it to go to work. So, using this phrase user pay just does not get it right. It is not progressive.

I noticed, too, one little thing about the fees. They did not touch liquor fees. I heard it out there said: Ah, we did not touch the liquor fees. We put up 153 fees in the Province. We never raised personal taxes. We did not touch corporate taxes. We put some on smokes. Well, that is not bad because that is bad for your health anyway. Again, if you are a user of the tobacco, you are going to pay. We never touched liquor. I thought to myself, that is pretty strange. For a government that was so slash and burn, and so nasty - as I say, nasty potions in this Budget. How come they never touched liquor? Then it dawned on me, when I reread the Speech from the Throne, they did touch liquor. I could not find it first, but like the Leader of the Opposition who pays great attention to detail and always one to go back and get his words right. It is on page twelve. "We have asked the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation to identify $5 million in savings over the next four years. We have also asked the Corporation to produce another $6 million in revenue to government this year."

AN HON. MEMBER: The Throne Speech.

MR. PARSONS: No, that is in the Budget Speech.

MR. GRIMES: That is $11 million.

MR. PARSONS: Eleven million dollars; $5 million from savings, $6 million from extra revenues. We were told, and the administration told the people of this Province, that there was no tax on liquor. Where, I might ask, can somebody tell me where the Newfoundland Liquor Board, which is an agency of this government, is going to come up with $11 million if you do not increase the taxes?

Again, it comes back to my comment about telling the people one thing and doing something else. You must tell it like it is. On that issue again of telling it like it is, I am sorry, I have to tick an F. You did not pass on that issue of telling it like it is, when it comes to the liquor boards.

MR. GRIMES: Their senior officials said it would be fifty to sixty cents a bottle.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, and as I understand, that $11 million that they have to save is going to work out, in one year, to about fifty to sixty cents per bottle. Now, whenever I talk about the public, the person who I would call all knowing, who is informed, wants to be informed, Joe public - in my language I would call him Joe chesterfield. In other words, he probably represents a little bit of all of us. The Joe Chesterfields and the Jane Chesterfields of this Province, so far, on the issue of fees, have been absolutely banged over the head. One hundred and fifty-three different kinds of fees you just got tabbed with. We do not care, Joe, if you are on social services. We do not care if you are a retired senior. We do not care if you make $1 million a year. You are getting deemed the same, no matter what you make or what you work at. That is progressive. That is what this Administration, who are so-called Progressive Conservatives, hang their hat on and feel very proud about.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are Conservatives now.

MR. PARSONS: To me, I think, again, it was a big, big dose of the Buckley's Mixture.

The second issue that this Administration are going to be graded on in the first semester deals with the issue of no layoffs in the public sector. I alluded to that briefly, the articles in ad campaigns prior to October 21: There shall be no public sector layoffs.

What did we get? We get a Budget, again, which says 4,000 public sector layoffs over four years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Opposition House Leader that his time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few minutes to clue up here because -

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

Just to clue up here because, as I said when I started, this is a four-year speech basically. It is intended to respond to the first semester results of this Administration, which on the two or three items that I have touched upon today, they have received an F. I am hoping somewhere in here I am going to see a few A's and maybe a B or two, or C, but so far I have only gotten F's.

I probably have at least five or more stand-ups yet that I have to go through before we can even find out if they pass this semester, but stay tuned. I am sure the people in the Province are tuned because I am only the commentator here for this. I am just providing them with the information. I am doing my grading, of course, over here, just my personal tick sheet, but it is the public who are the teachers. It is the public who is doing the grading here. There is no greater or no more obvious case of public examinations than what we have here. We have public exams in our schools but this is the ultimate public exam, so stay tuned. I will be back for the continuation of my comments on semester one, degree number one.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today as the new Member for Humber Valley District to take part in this Budget Debate. I would like to begin by first thanking the residents of Humber Valley for their support, not only on election day but throughout the entire campaign.

Mr. Speaker, as I travelled from community to community, kitchen table to kitchen table, and fish plant to fishing boat, I was truly inspired by their enthusiasm and energetic support to their communities. I assure the residents of Humber Valley, your advice and fond memories I will carry throughout my tenure. My commitment to you is to work hard on your behalf, because you deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, as time went by, the generous people of the twenty-one communities in the district came forward and worked on a very clean, well-fought campaign, and I thank you and congratulate you. My success is your success.

To my family, I know the past few months have been very stressful and I want to let you know it is your unconditional love and commitment that gives me the strength to rise to the many challenges ahead. Mom, Dad, Bud, Ruth, my brothers and sisters, in-laws, Ralph, and especially Jim and Aaron, thank you.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate all Members in this House of Assembly and all the candidates. To those who throughout the campaign called and travelled to my district, your timely support will always be remembered.

Mr. Speaker, one of my fondest memories is when I was being sworn in. I was shaking too much to sign the Roll of Members. The Clerk of the House of Assembly very calmly said: Just relax Kathy, we are all family here. That has certainly proved true over the past six months, and I am very proud to be a part of this team.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the many support staff both here in St. John's and on the West Coast, who provided their expertise over the past several months. You have certainly made my job easier.

Mr. Speaker, this is a pivotal time in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our political stripe has only changed twice since Confederation and each case has meant a shift in direction for our Province. In the past, our government, the PC Party, has responded to the 500,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador by bringing in policies that call for greater accountability in the way we govern. We set up the Public Service Commission, the Public Tender Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Auditor General's Office, and a host of other measures designed to open up government and make it more responsive to the people.

Mr. Speaker, once again, in only a few short months, our government, under the leadership of Danny Williams, has responded to the people. On March 30, Minister Loyola Sullivan, presented a fair Budget which, I believe, will put our Province on the right track again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: When we came into office six months ago, we fully expected to find a serious financial situation. The general public has seen, sometimes, erratic spending over the past few years, and I don't think anyone expected us to ignore the escalating deficit. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect us to put our house in order, and it cannot be done without everyone doing their part.

During the election, we made three major commitments, balance the budget and restore sound fiscal management, expand the economy and create jobs and ensure that our social programs, health and education programs, meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and are sustainable into the future.

What I would like to do for a few minutes is look at the Humber Valley District and place our situation there today in context of what is happening in our Province. Mr. Speaker, I grew up in Deer Lake and lived for some time in Great Harbour Deep. Yes, there are some economic successes, but what I recognize is the need to maximize on the vast wealth of natural resources that our Province and rural communities have been blessed with.

Mr. Speaker, since the election I have had many meeting and enquiries from constituents and groups in my district. As I listened to the Budget Speech, I focused on the initiatives that would positively affect the District of Humber Valley. I know the Cabinet worked through this Budget over several weeks and I congratulate them on doing a great job.

Mr. Speaker, Humber Valley is ideally located on the West Coast and rich in natural resources. I often say I live in one of, if not one of, the most beautiful district of Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe we are fast becoming one of the most prosperous areas in this Province. With our fiscal situation, there are many challenges but there are also many opportunities. In the short term we had to do more with less, but as I listened to the Budget I could see how the path we have taken will lead to better opportunities in the future.

One of the great resources we have in the District of Humber Valley is our tourism industry. Adventure tourism has grown over the past few years, and our government has invested in the future of tourism by committing $7 million to marketing year-round tourism, an increase of $1 million. I see Humber Valley as the natural hub for tourism in our Province, and I will see to it that Humber Valley maximizes on these benefits.

Sport tourism is also a growing industry and our government has granted funding for the 2006 Winter Games to be held in the Humber Valley. I would like to take this time to congratulate the bid committee on their successful bid and congratulate, Mr. Bernard Ball, on his recent appointment as chairman for the games.

To promote our cultural tourism industries our government has allocated $825,000 to augment the $1.5 million in federal funding. Our government has also committed a $250,000 grant to the Heritage Foundation to continue its work on such initiatives as the restoration of the Humber Masonic Lodge in Deer Lake and projects across the Province similar to the Water Front Development in Woody Point. The tourism industry is dependant on small business and innovation and our government has committed a $1 million budget to be led by one of the most successful business people in this Province, Premier Danny Williams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: We have also allotted $1.7 million for a rural secretariat, as a focal point for government to work with local and regional partners to build strong and dynamic communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS GOUDIE: I am also very pleased to announce here today that municipal operating grants for all communities in the district have been maintained, and although funding allocation has not yet been granted from municipal capital works, I can assure you our district will take full advantage of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Funding has also been allocated for the broadband initiative which will benefit the Humber Valley district.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative to tourism that we improve our road structure and we have committed $7 million in additional funds for a total of $30 million for the provincial roads program. Although funding for winter and summer cabins has been eliminated so we can better provide the necessary services, I have discussed with the minister, Tom Rideout, regarding the Sir Richard Squires Memorial Park, and following the labour despite we will be looking at, not only a short-term solution, but a long-term solution.

Winter tourism is becoming one of the most important contributors to the economy in Humber Valley and we have committed $430,000 for a road-weather information system to assist winter maintenance crews.

Mr. Speaker, although tourism is very important to Humber Valley, we have also depended on our agricultural, forestry and fishery industries. Humber Valley is an agricultural region and we, quite literally, have fallow fields in our district that need cultivating. Our government is committed to doing a better job allocating land for agricultural growth and helping producers reap the benefits of root crop and dairy farming. There are way too many empty barns and undeveloped lands in our district. Our government is ready to get down to business and make the necessary decisions to implement the federal-provincial agricultural program.

We have also allotted $500,000 for land development allowing farmers to lease land not currently being used for agricultural purposes, and provided funding for the community pasture in Cormack.

Mr. Speaker, the Humber Valley district has long been an integral part of our forestry industry and we will continue to invest in this industry by providing funding. Seven point three million dollars has been allotted for a silviculture program to help promote sustainable development in our forest resources. Funding has also been provided for forest road construction in Bridgers Pond, Chause Brook and Middle Trout River.

The fishery has long been important to the Humber Valley and our government is moving quickly to implement the recommendations of the Dunne Report. We will also provide $1 million to preserve the Province's contribution to fisheries and aquaculture development. Mr. Speaker, our government will build on our industries so that, in the long term, we can bring prosperity to our communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I have worked as a front-line health care provider over the past ten years. I have seen first-hand the importance of protecting the vulnerable and the need to take measures to ensure the social programs are there for the people when they need it.

Mr. Speaker, the first priority for the people in the District of Humber Valley, and in our Province, is to have access to health care. The people of Humber Valley voted for me because they believed I would ensure our government provides access to quality sustainable health care in rural communities. Since the election there have been many debates in this House of Assembly and in the media regarding health care in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but I want to ensure the people of Humber Valley that it is not the goal of our government to take away health care from them; it is our goal to improve health care services.

As I listened to the debates, the focus of many people in the system have been on the buildings and infrastructure. As a registered nurse, I know that health care is very dear to people and the quality of the care that they receive is of utmost importance to them. That is why our government has begun the process of implementing programs that will see a better health care system to all people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Right across our country there is recognition that our health care system requires reform in order to remain sustainable. After working in the system for many years, I have seen the need for structural change to eliminate some of the power struggles and politics from our health care system, and our government is committed to starting that process now by integrating the health care boards, which will see the best overall approach to health care delivery.

Secondly, we will look at location of services in the coming months to assure people benefit from quality physician specialist health care and well-resourced primary health care providers.

Thirdly, the Province will develop a skill mix framework to ensure that the right mixture of health care professionals is available in health facilities to deliver high quality and effective service. It will also ensure that each health care professional is working in a job that utilizes the highest level for which he or she has been trained.

Mr. Speaker, there are several initiatives in this year's Budget which will benefit the people of Humber Valley District: $4.3 million will be spent this year to implement seven primary health care projects and allow expansion for other projects. Additional funding has been provided to increase the rates for personal care homes, and there are three in the District of Humber Valley. Funding has also been provided to develop a satellite early psychosis program in the western health region.

We will provide an $8.6 million increase in the provincial drug program, including an allocation of $800,000 to cover a new chemotherapy drug to help fight cancer. We will establish a new Chief Nurse position within the Department of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, education is another of this government's most important services. Like health care, there is a need for structural change. The reduction of school boards from eleven to four will see a better allocation of funds and provision of services; $8.2 million is allocated for major maintenance projects. Funding is allocated for the creation of a Ministerial Council on Early Childhood Learning to foster comprehensive programs across all government departments and agencies that will focus on the learning needs of children and their families. We have consolidated two departments: K to 12 and post-secondary education. We are providing $250,000 to proceed with the White Paper on Post-Secondary Education.

Mr. Speaker, the District of Humber Valley, as with most districts in this Province, is a district that contains people from right across the social continuum in terms of age, income, beliefs and the various other social criteria. As of January 2005, we will implement a low income personal income tax reduction program. The program will provide up to $460 a year to those who are eligible. That is nearly $40 a month. We will provide $500,000 for the Kids Eat Smart Program. To assist persons with disabilities to enter the workforce, we will provide an additional $400,000 for support employment. We are providing an additional $100,000 to address gambling addiction, with particular focus on video lottery terminals, or VLTs. We are committing $212 million to core income support programs to assist 28,500 cases throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated here today, our government is working on several initiatives with the federal government. In order for us to truly benefit from our rich resources, we have to negotiate with Ottawa.

We will establish a Newfoundland and Labrador office of federal-provincial relations in Ottawa to give the Province a stronger presence there and focus attention on our concerns about equalization, transfers, resource benefits and the numerous other issues that affect the people and the economy. The onus is on all of us in this Province to set higher goals and cooperate to achieve greater success so we can get our communities growing and our people working. We need to think positively about the opportunities and speak positively about the future.

Politicians, volunteers, media, public sector workers, business leaders, citizens, all of us have a role to play in building a stronger society and setting higher goals. Those who have gone before us worked hard and sacrificed too much for us to surrender forces we have been told are beyond our control. Our destiny is in our hands, whenever we chose to grasp it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I bet you never thought I would be up again today, did you? This is sequel two.

I just made one, big observation while I was sitting attentively here listening to other speakers. I noticed that the Member for Windsor-Springdale is now into damage control with the Minister of Health and Community Services. It was mentioned today by the Leader of the Opposition that there was some disagreement with statements regarding the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. As it was pointed out in the Budget, there was a cancellation of the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. But, we learned after picking up The Advertiser Thursday - when I got home on Friday I picked up The Advertiser, it was dated Thursday, April 15, and there is a big front page, colour story. It says: Hunter confirms PC's commitment to hospital redevelopment in Grand Falls-Windsor. I noticed that today, a few minutes ago, they are in damage control now. The Member for Windsor-Springdale is really concerned that he said something out of line because I have noticed that the Minister of Health and Community Services is having a conversation to and fro. He is going to the media and trying to patch up a news release, and say: No, I did not really mean that. I did not really mean that.

That sounds something like his leader, who came out and cancelled the redevelopment of the James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander, but yet, when he got an interview and a chance to speak in Gander at a luncheon: Oh, no, no. I did not mean that. It is really not cancelled. No, no, no, no. It is not cancelled at all. So, now we have people scurrying around. The leader says one thing one day and something else the next day. Then the members who are in the nosebleed section, of course, they hear nothing. They hear nothing until they hear from the media. They knew nothing about the Budget until they got into the Budget lockup.

When pressed, the Member for Windsor-Springdale, when he got out in his own district and got cornered by the media, they said: What are the PCs going to do with this cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor? Oh, he said, we are committed to the hospital, to the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. We are really committed. Despite what his leader said, he said: The Member for Windsor-Springdale is committed to the hospital redevelopment. He goes on to say: We are going to do the right thing when the time comes, and it is going to be sooner rather than later, and it is going to be acceptable to the public out there. It is going to be acceptable to the public out there. What would be acceptable to the public in Grand Falls-Windsor?

MR. GRIMES: So, he must be going to vote against the Budget. The Budget says it is cancelled.

MS THISTLE: I expect he is going to vote against the Budget. We already heard the Member for Lake Melville today, when during debate, he said: We will see - on if he is going to vote for the Budget. We heard him. The Member for Windsor-Springdale, how can he vote with the Budget after saying this: And it is going to be acceptable to the public out there? That flies in the face of everything this Progressive Conservative government are trying to do because everything they have brought in was with no consultation to the people. So, we have a difference of opinion right within their own caucus and within their own Cabinet. That is pretty clear to see.

The Minister of Health and Community Services said today, when questioned by my colleague, the member -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just heard the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans alluding to the fact that I was out meeting with the minister. Well, I have to say to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, I do my job and if it means meeting with a minister, then I do that.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans is trying to tell the people that I was misleading them when I made that comment to the media. Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. That comment was made because this government and the minister has committed to me and the people of Central Newfoundland that something is going to be done about the health care in that area pertaining to the cancer clinic, the dialysis, the laboratory. All of that is in a project that needs to be done - not the particular one that the members on the opposite side had proposed - along with the health care boards in there. The member knows fully that we are evaluating the boards in Central Newfoundland, integrating the boards and things are going to have to be changed and done in a prudent way, in a fiscally responsible way. I am meeting with the minister on that issue. We are looking at it. We are going to visit the health care facilities next month. We are going to find a way to make this facility better for the cancer treatment people in Grand Falls-Windsor and all Central Newfoundland. The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans knows that. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. I do not know why she keeps saying that I am not doing anything and then when I do make a statement, she tries to make people believe that it is a false statement. It is not a false statement. We are committed to the health care of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are committed to the people of Central Newfoundland. We are going to do something with respect to the issues out there, I say to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest to the Member for Windsor-Springdale that what is right and what is wrong - is the Budget wrong? Would you stand up and tell your leader that the Budget is wrong? Because that is what you just said. There is a cancellation in here for the Grand Falls-Windsor hospital, the cancer clinic, and you are up on your legs today saying that the Budget is wrong. Perfect! Okay, you check that with your leader when he come back. I am glad to hear that the Budget is wrong. There is a lot in this Budget that is wrong. I could be here talking for days.

We have often heard people talk about psychological torture, psychological warfare, but let me tell you -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: It is starting to work on them because there is psychological warfare going on in this Province. Everywhere that I go, no matter where it is, people are saying: What is this government trying to do to the people of our Province?

This government is prepared to pay $1.7 million for a rural secretariat. Now, I saw the letter to the editor on Saturday by a number of specialists in our Province, talking about the need for Alzheimer's drugs here in our Province. Now, instead of putting the money where they promised, to look after patients with Alzheimer's disease -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Well, I think what is happening, they already heard from my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, when he talked about a semester and they have failed this first semester, they have failed it big time. I don't think you would find one living soul out there in the Province today who is happy with the Budget and the way this government is treating the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I talked about psychological torture. I hesitate to say anything about anyone who is making a maiden speech because they have put a lot of time, I imagine, into a maiden speech.

The most important thing on the minds of people in Newfoundland and Labrador today is their health care, and this government has come out on page sixteen and said, "...a fair and equitable approach to locating health services will be established. Rural communities need assured access to well-resourced primary health care centres..." - now here is the clincher - "...rural communities need well-resourced primary heath care centres within a reasonable driving distance from their homes". Within a reasonable driving distance from their homes.

Now this new government has come out and they have said they are going to restructure the entire health care system of this Province. What they have not said is what they are going to do, really. They have not said where the new boards are going to be. They have not said if they are going to close any rural clinics. They have not said if they are going to fund any particular drugs. We know they are not going to fund Alzheimer drugs. They do not look at that as being a very important drug program for our seniors. They are not going to come out and prevent 100 to 120 seniors from going blind. They are not going to take $450,000 and install equipment at the Health Care Corporation in St. John's so 120 seniors in our Province will not go blind. They do not see that as important, but they are going to put $1.7 million into a Rural Secretariat, a doghouse plan, that will carve out three economic so-called corridors in the Province. That is what they are patterning all their plans on.

Look at health care. Where is health care going to be in the future? Is it going to be in the big centers? Is there going to be anything left in rural Newfoundland? I do not think so, because your plan is to have urban health care facilities, and we have seen that already.

The problem with this government is that they are putting out half-statements, which is psychological torture. They do not know. They come out and say they are going to close twenty Human Resources and Employment Offices. They do not say where. They say they are going to integrate school boards. They do not say where. Everybody knows that when you decide to integrate and reduce school boards, who are the ones who are going to be affected the most? The students in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: It is going to take two or three years before you integrate the school boards and you get around to the task of actually teaching and changing curriculums and making things so-called better, as you describe, but do you know something? You have already stated in the media - the Minister of Education - that he has no plans to use any savings from consolidating school boards. He intends to put that on the deficit. So, you are going to consolidate the school boards. You are going to let more children look into a monitor to get long-distance education. You are going to take away teachers from our classrooms, but you are not going to use any of those savings at all to go back into the education system - none whatsoever.

You are going to do the same thing with health care. You are into a massive study. People will be left out there wondering whether or not they are going to have health care services in their own community, and that is a big, big concern to our seniors out there today. There are a lot of seniors out there probably reassessing whether or not they are going to stay in their homes in rural Newfoundland, because if you are going to try to encourage seniors to stay in their homes, you have to do a few things. The most important thing that is on a senior's mind is: Can I get health care? How far am I away from the hospital. Can I afford to get an ambulance if I need one?

You have done a few things here that are going to hurt seniors and going to affect them whether or not they are going to stay in their homes in rural Newfoundland. Number one, you are going to charge more on their vehicle, to actually get their driver's licence renewed, if they need to make that hospital trip. If they cannot take their vehicle, you are going to increase the ambulance fee.

Now, if you were a senior sitting home in a rural community in Newfoundland and Labrador tonight, and you happened to get sick in the middle of the night, you know that to go to a hospital, no matter what distance it is, it is going to cost $115 one way. If you need someone to go with you, it is going to cost $50 to take that person with you. Now, you might be in a hospital in a bigger centre for a week or two, or longer, so you have to get back home again. Then you have to realize that if you are going to need somebody with you it is another $50 you are going to have to pay out for that escort. You are going to have to fork out another $115 to get an ambulance to bring you back home again.

This government had a Blue Book written for them saying that they were going to be looking after seniors. They said they were going to provide, maybe, a subsidy right up to $250 a year for seniors. What did they do when they got elected? They turned their backs on seniors. We instituted, while we were in the Liberal government, a heat subsidy of $100 a year for seniors and low income earners. What did this crowd do? They decided not to help seniors. They escaped giving any heat subsidy to seniors because they said the heat costs were lower last year. We all know that it went down by four cents. That is what it went down by. What have you done with the seniors? You have increased their costs on their -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

MS THISTLE: You have increased the cost on the ambulance if they need one. You have increased the cost of registering their vehicles. The gas is going up. The insurance is out of sight, and you had the nerve not to give them their $100 subsidy for their heat this year. When we were in government we started off at thirty-seven cents a litre for home heat fuel. We were giving them $100 subsidy. This year it is fifty-one cents in February, you are not giving them a subsidy. So tell me, is there any heart for seniors?

Instead of that, you are providing a study to study on aging in this Province. My goodness! Isn't there enough people out there to tell you the needs of seniors around this Province? I think it is ridiculous. There are all kinds of senior resource centres around here. We have a full slate of people working in Health and Community Services. We get advocate groups from all over this Province telling us what is wrong with seniors, but instead of that, you are going to spend more money studying the study and doing nothing for seniors in this Province. You do not care about seniors in this Province because if you did you would provide the Alzheimer's drugs instead of putting the $1.7 million on a ferry ride you do not need or building up a fiscal tiger in your economic development department called Rural Secretariat, that is going to be up here on the eighth floor of the Confederation Building, and another million dollars so the Premier can ride around the country and so-call grow the economy. Well, there is nothing in this book that is going to grow the economy. The only thing that is going to grow the economy is if you mind to sling it in the garbage can you would get a whiff of smoke out of it, or in the incinerator. There is nothing in it.

Now, there is $350,000 set aside to put an office in Ottawa; $350,000. If I had that $350,000 the Member for Windsor-Springdale would not be frighten to death he is going to be killed after the House closes today, and his colleagues tell him he was out of line in making the statement to The Advertiser. No, I would make sure that the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor had the $350,000 so they could make the payment on the cancer clinic instead of swanking around with an office in Ottawa that you do not need. That is what all of that is. What do you want an office in Ottawa for, so you can put Ross Reid up there so you do not have to look at him every morning down here making a blunder with this Budget? Three hundred and fifty thousand dollars for an Ottawa office. Whoever heard of it? We have seven people elected to the federal government to do the job for us. We do not need an office in Ottawa if people are doing their jobs.

There are a lot of problems here. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and Community Services got up today, when asked a question by the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair: Was she concerned about the situation in our senior care homes, when seniors are out there today, ones who have gone to the washroom, the bathroom on their own, are now in a seniors care home and they are put in disposable diapers because there are not enough people to look after? She said: That is all I am answering for now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired, unless we have agreement to stop the clock at 5:30 p.m.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, if you would not mind, I will hold - what I am trying to say is that I will speak again tomorrow. I will leave my time for tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your time is up.

MS THISTLE: My time is up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: See, there is so much to be said about this Budget, how quick the time goes.

Thank you.

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

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

I say to the Finance critic, you had thirteen hours-and-something, but unfortunately for you, based on your response, but fortunately for others, you had twenty minutes on a non-confidence motion and you participated, and I want to thank you.

Mr. Speaker, with that, it now being 5:30 p.m., I move that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

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