May 2, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 14


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Windsor-Springdale; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; and the hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for the District of Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise in this hon. House today to congratulate a constituent of my District of Windsor-Springdale. Mr. Kelvin Kelleher has been a great influence on the district for many years. He retired in 1995, at which time he was principal of Indian River Elementary.

Kel started to chronicle young life in rural Newfoundland as a memento to his two sons, to let them know the games they played and the things that were important to a young person at that time.

I have had the pleasure of knowing Kel for many years now, and his love for rural Newfoundland is apparent in this book for sure.

Ed Smith states that Kel's book Base to Bay is a good read, and I am sure all rural Newfoundlanders will enjoy this trip down memory lane.

I would like all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Kel on keeping the history of rural Newfoundland alive for many generations to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Bruce II Piranha Swim Club and participants for raising a significant amount of donations to be forwarded to the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Care Centre.

The Swim for Hope Marathon was held on March 17 at the Bruce II Sports Centre in Port aux Basques. This annual event raises money for the Cancer Care Foundation and participating Newfoundland and Labrador Swim Clubs.

Mr. Speaker, the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Care Foundation is a registered charitable organization whose mission is to develop, steward and distribute charitable resources to enhance treatment and supportive care programs for cancer patients, fund local cancer research initiatives and provide continuing education opportunities for staff of the Cancer Foundation and affiliated cancer programs in this Province.

Over the last two years, the Foundation has purchased new chemotherapy recliners, chemotherapy pumps, ice machine and water cooler for patients at the Cancer Centre in Corner Brook. During the last two years, the Bruce II Piranha Swim Club have raised $10,000 for this worthy cause.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating the Bruce II Piranha's contribution to the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Care Centre.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to pay tribute to a very distinguished gentleman, Mr. Darrin Reid.

Each year, the City of Mount Pearl, in conjunction with the Kinsmen Club, hosts a banquet in which they select someone from the community as Citizen of the Year. Mr. Speaker, to be nominated as Citizen of the Year is a reward in itself. It is a reflection of a person's commitment to enhancing the lives of others.

Mr. Reid is an active volunteer with the Mount Pearl Special Olympics. He was selected as Male Coach of the Year in the City of Mount Pearl for the years 2001, 2004 and 2005 for his involvement in this association by coaching the Special Olympics Floor Hockey Program, the Special Olympics Swim Team, and developing the Special Olympic general athletic program. His support to the Special Olympic Program is greatly appreciated and acknowledged by many. He was also nominated for the National Award of Coach of the Year for his involvement with the Special Olympics.

Mr. Speaker, Darrin has dedicated countless hours by volunteering his time coaching youth at major events. He is an active supporter in many events and organizations within Mount Pearl and the surrounding area since 1985.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Reid for his exemplary volunteer service, and I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating him on his recent award as Mount Pearl Citizen of the Year for 2005.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the students of Ascension Collegiate in Bay Roberts who participated in the forty-first Graduation of Ascension Collegiate.

On Friday, April 28, 2006, I was honoured to attend the forty-first graduation with those students. Mr. Speaker, the day began with a prom service held at the Salvation Army Citadel in Bay Roberts, under the direction of Captains Roxanne and Terry Feltham.

Following the service, the prom moved to the Bay Arena, where dinner was served to 850 guests followed by the presentation of 221 graduates.

Tahnee Edmunds and Nicholas Giles were chosen as Prom King and Queen for the year. Their theme was, Today's Dreams are Tomorrow's Realities. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that their 221 individual dreams will become a reality right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating all graduates and to say well done to the teaching staff at Ascension Collegiate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to St. Catherine's Academy School community in St. Catherine's, St. Mary's Bay. St. Catherine's Academy is a small school by most standards, having a total student population of 197 from Kindergarten to Level III, but it is a great example of big things coming in small packages. The school has a legacy of providing good athletes but this year, Mr. Speaker, it has surpassed all previous standards.

On April 1, the senior girls basketball team took home the 3-A Provincial Girls Championships. In a small school with only eighty-four high school students, this was a great achievement.

But, on top of that, Mr. Speaker, the boys team went out and won the 4-A Provincial Championships, emblematic of high school basketball supremacy in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The boys basketball team were also winners of the Elite Eight Hall of Fame Cup held at Memorial University in February. One of the players, Steve Singleton, all six-foot-eight of him, is the only high school student to be selected for the under nineteen Newfoundland Cavs team, which is representing Canada this summer at the Spalding Youth Basketball Tournament in Hawaii, a top-drawer event attended in the past by several NBA prospects.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to visiting St. Catherine's Academy this Thursday evening to participate in the ceremonies raising the banners depicting school basketball excellence in this Province.

I ask this hon. House to join with me in congratulating St. Catherine's Academy on their great achievements this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Grand Falls-Windsor residents Ignatius Power and Janice Duder, who were inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Bowling Hall of Fame at the ceremony held in Corner Brook on Saturday, April 1.

Ignatius Power joined his first league in 1946 and has continued his bowling career to the present. One of his fondest memories was being present at the final game ever played at the Grand Falls Club in 1958. The seventy-nine year old inductee has bowled many 300 games and 700-plus triples. Up until 1997, Mr. Power carried a 225 average.

Janice Duder has bowled since the early 1950s and has served on the Grand Falls-Windsor Bowling Association for more than fifteen years where she has held every position except Treasurer. Ms Duder has also spent time as a coach in the Youth Bowling Council where she says she has given the most enjoyment.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Five Pin Bowlers Association announced earlier in March that Duder - bowler/builder - and Power - bowler - would be inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Bowling Hall of Fame, and Mr. Power and Ms Duder were honoured for their lifetime of bowling achievements - the Province's highest bowling honour.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Janice Duder and Ignatius Power.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform this hon. House of a wonderful and invaluable program offered by a non-profit organization in our Province.

Child Find Newfoundland and Labrador is a volunteer based organization that assists in the location and recovery of missing and exploited children, and provides assistance and support to families who have experienced the trauma of a missing child.

Mr. Speaker, last year 275 children and youth were reported missing in our Province - a staggering number that certainly will come as a surprise to many people, as it did to me personally. When I was informed by the Executive yesterday, I had no idea that there would be that kind of a number, 275. So that is basically two-thirds of the year there is a missing child in this Province.

Yesterday, I had the privilege of signing a proclamation for Child Find Newfoundland and Labrador recognizing the month of May as Missing and Exploited Children's Month in our Province.

I also discussed with members of Child Find Newfoundland and Labrador their work, the challenges they face and the successes they have had. I am very pleased to note, that they have joined us today in the public gallery.

Mr. Speaker, last year there were more than 10,000 children and youth involved in a variety of Child Find programs, such as safety education. Child Find Newfoundland and Labrador also provides a twenty-four hour emergency 1-800 number, customs and border alerts and support to law enforcement agencies, along with numerous other important services.

As part of this month of awareness, Child Find Newfoundland and Labrador, in concurrence with its partners across the country, will conduct its thirteenth Annual Green Ribbon of Hope Campaign and will ask people throughout Canada to wear a Green Ribbon of Hope to draw attention to missing and exploited children. As well, May 25 will be the twentieth Annual National Missing Children's Day in Canada.

The Green Ribbon of Hope Campaign started in St. Catherine's, Ontario by students and faculty of Holy Cross Secondary School after their classmate and friend Kristen French was abducted and murdered.

Mr. Speaker, our children represent our hopes and dreams for the future and yet, in many respects, they are the most vulnerable members of our community. Collectively, it is our responsibility to protect our children, which is why it is important that the Green Ribbon of Hope Campaign is one that should be endorsed by every person in our Province. Child Find is an organization that deserves our support, as they work to educate children and adults alike about prevention and safety for children everywhere.

I am proud, on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to proclaim May as Missing and Exploited Children's Month and I ask all members of the House of Assembly to join me in wearing a Green Ribbon of Hope in support of Child Find Newfoundland and Labrador and its important endeavours throughout our Province.

Thank you.

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.

I am pleased to see that government has proclaimed May as Missing and Exploited Children's Month in support of Child Find Newfoundland and Labrador. Certainly, my colleagues and myself on this side of the House are pleased to be associated with wearing a green ribbon today in support of this organization. Mr. Speaker, they are a group of individuals who are, no doubt, there at the most traumitizing and the most devastating times in a parents life. I do not think anyone can fully understand what many of those parents go through when they have a child who is missing, no matter what the time frame may be, minutes, hours, days, only those that have experienced it. Having the comfort of volunteers and an organization like this, that is there on the frontlines to help them through these times is, no doubt, very invaluable in our society.

Mr. Speaker, I know the work of the volunteers of this organization. I have a friend who has served with Child Find Newfoundland and Labrador for some time. I know that it takes dedication and it takes commitment to be able to offer yourself in support of a cause like this and to be able to be committed and dedicated to it.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to, not only acknowledge this particular month as Missing and Exploited Children's Month and support Child Find Newfoundland and Labrador, but we also want to encourage many people out there in our Province to get involved in programs that offer the protection of our children, whether it is a neighbourhood watch group, whether it is having young people in your community do training, such as babysitting courses and so on, that are going to be working around children in our communities and in our playgrounds and so on.

I just want to encourage people to become involved and to say to the government today, that we will certainly wear this ribbon in support of such a tremendous cause in our communities and in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again I thank the Premier for an advance copy of his statement.

I think it is sad to say, Mr. Speaker, that we need to designate such a month as this in our Province or in our country. It should not have to be that way. There are many things that are disturbing about this, when we know that our children are being exploited, being abducted, and thinking that their only option is to run away from whatever they feel is threatening them at any particular time. I think it speaks to a greater issue as well, Mr. Speaker, and that is the social problems that we need to deal with as a society to make life safer for all of us and our children included.

I want to also, Mr. Speaker, thank the workers and the volunteers who are involved with Child Watch and Child Find. I know it must be very stressful for them at times, but I do offer our thanks to them for taking the time out of their lives to deal with problems such as this, because they are very important indeed.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased today to inform my hon. colleagues of a significant accomplishment for Stephenville Primary School. It was recently announced that Stephenville Primary School has received $150,000 from Indigo Books', For the Love of Reading Initiative.

This program is designed to promote a life-long love of reading and learning by offering children access to new books and materials, regardless of their social or economic status.

Mr. Speaker, several months ago, Christine Manuel, Vice-Principal of Stephenville Primary, submitted an application to Indigo on behalf of the school. The application included details on literacy initiatives at Stephenville Primary, ideas for new initiatives, information on the school library and any community information that would be of benefit in the decision-making process.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, Ms Manual received a call from the CEO of Indigo Books telling her that the application from Stephenville Primary stood out and that due to the creative and innovative literacy initiatives presented, the school is one of ten - and the first ever in Newfoundland and Labrador - to receive this grant.

For the next three years, the school will received $50,000. Forty-five thousand dollars must be spent on literacy initiatives. The remaining $5,000 can be used for anything else the school deems necessary.

Literacy is so important to our individual success. It is very encouraging to see such commitment to literacy and learning in our schools, and it is wonderful to see the efforts of Stephenville Primary recognized in this way. I would also like to commend Indigo Books for an initiative that can make a very real difference right in our classrooms.

When contacted, Mr. Speaker, Gerald Morgan, the principal of Stephenville Primary, said, "There is so much we can do with this money. It is definitely an excellent boost for literacy in our school, and for the whole Stephenville area."

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this hon. House, I offer my congratulations to Ms Manuel and best wishes to Stephenville Primary. They now have the welcomed task of figuring out how to spend $150,000 to promote literacy for our students.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for a copy of her Ministerial Statement and to say, on behalf of members of the Official Opposition, congratulations to the Stephenville Primary School, and in particular to Ms Christine Manuel, the vice-principal, for having the initiative to apply for the funding.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House fully support such programs, and a former program that was administered by the former Administration, I should say, the Read and Succeed Program, was a well thought-out program. We want to congratulate this school for having the initiative to apply for this funding. I guess as the principal, Mr. Morgan, has said, they are looking forward to seeing where this will make a difference to the students, not only in their particular school but in the Stephenville area.

I find it a little humourous, I guess, at the end, but I notice the minister changed one of the words there, because on mine it says: They now have the enviable task of figuring out how to spend the money, the $150,000.

I am sure they will find a way, but, if they cannot, there are many other schools and libraries in this Province that would be only too pleased to be able to take part in it, but I think it is a good initiative and hopefully other schools will take part and apply for funding similar to what this school did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to offer congratulations to Stephenville Primary School on winning this award, and the teacher, Christine Manuel, vice-principal, for taking the initiative also in applying for the award.

Mr. Speaker, this is very important for Stephenville Primary, and I think it also speaks to the issue of illiteracy in this Province and the need for government to allocate and spend more money on the public libraries in this Province and in the school libraries, because, as I say, the illiteracy rate in this Province is far too high and it is through eliminating illiteracy that people have a greater ability to fend for themselves in life and be more productive.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last April, FPI announced its intentions of closing the plant in Fortune, and since that time we have heard government talk about a number of scenarios that they could or could not do with regard to getting that plant reopened. Last week, the Premier even went so far as to say that he would purchase a quota, or he could purchase a quota, for the Barry Group of Companies if they were to take over that plant in Fortune.

I ask the Premier: Even if you can purchase quota, why didn't you buy one for Harbour Breton, and why did you wait for twelve months before making that statement about buying one for Fortune?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite may not be aware that we put out all options for Harbour Breton. One of those options at that particular point in time, apart from everything else that we were doing, and even in negotiating with FPI whereby we brought - we asked and we brought, actually, the request from Harbour Breton up from $1.4 million to ten times that. We actually were prepared to have a package of about $14 million that was on the table. Included in that package was a provision of funds to buy a quota for Harbour Breton. That was actually on the table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated publicly that he has a significant problem with the management of FPI, that he believes that it is the management of FPI that is at the root of the problems we are experiencing in towns where that company operates.

I say to the Premier: If you really believe this to be so, why are you entertaining a proposal from this same management group at FPI that will see the company divided and that group of individuals that you say are at the root of the problem taking control of FPI's most valued asset, that being the marketing and secondary processing division? If that is the case, why are you allowing that proposal to even see the light of day when you consider that is exactly what that management committee has wanted for a long period of time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that when this group took over, the board of FPI, it was on their watch. It was while they were there. It was during a period when they were not interested enough to ask any questions. Even during the debate last June, the FPI debate on the Income Trust, the hon. gentleman said, with regard to the board of directors: I took them at their word when they wanted to take over the board of directors, and there was little we could do to stop them.

He basically acknowledged that he acquiesced, he stood back and he allowed these people to take over the board of directors. Now he is trying to shift all of the blame on us. You know, they are hiding behind the fact and they are not being honest with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is, in fact, a public company. This particular company is controlled by the Legislature. There is an FPI Act in the Legislature, but this company is owned by a group of shareholders. This company is not just owned by John Risley and Armoyan. This is owned by the moms, the pops, the Joes, the Janes, the Bills and the Marys out there who have invested in this company. We have a duty, as a government, to act responsibly. We cannot just be interventionists. We cannot just go in and take over control of a company, because if we do that, there is not another company that is ever going to want to do business in this Province. So, we have to act responsibly. We are trying to exercise all options, keep all options open, and that is exactly what we are doing. But don't all of a sudden try and turn back the problems of the management in this company on us because you were the ones who put them there in the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, we told that Board of Directors of FPI that we were going to hold them to their commitments, and we did hold them to their commitments.

I also say to the Premier, FPI did not close the plant in Harbour Breton under our watch. They did not close the plant in Fortune under our watch. They did not talk about laying off half of the population in Marystown under our watch. It has been under your watch, I say to the Premier, that all those things have happened. You should be ashamed to say that you have not done anything for the people in those communities.

Mr. Speaker, a simple question to the Minister of Fisheries: Can the minister tell us when FPI will be charged for illegally shipping unprocessed fish out of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition talks about this watch and the other watch. When was the FPI plant in Charleston closed, Mr. Speaker? Whose watch was that? What about Trepassey, Williams Harbour, Bridgeport, Port Albert, Great Harbour Deep, Cow Head, Rose Blanche, Flower's Cove and on and on it goes, and they talk about that kind of an approach.

I answered that question in the House yesterday. I told the Leader of the Opposition yesterday -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if there is something the matter with - if he has indigestion from lunch - the hon. gentleman for Bellevue is making some awful moans over there.

Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. Leader of the Opposition yesterday that due process is being followed and when due process is completed, he and everybody else will know what the result will be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, we all know you live in the past, but it is a little bit too distant past for me because the plants that you just mentioned closing with FPI happened long before I was elected, I say to the minster.

Mr. Speaker, traditionally, shrimp harvested in the Gulf of St. Lawrence had to be processed on the Northern Peninsula. Today, with shrimp plants closed in Anchor Point and Black Duck Cove, the Barry Group of Companies is trucking shrimp from the Northern Peninsula to Clarenville for processing.

I ask the minister: What impact will that have on employment levels in that general area of the Northern Peninsula and what are you prepared to do to prevent this from continuing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, as a student of history, I believe it is always right and proper to remind ourselves of the past. The hon. Leader of the Opposition, while he might not have been a member of the Legislature, worked for the then Minister of Fisheries though, Mr. Speaker, as his Executive Assistant when those things that I referred to were dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of transporting fish around the Province, the FPI plant in Port au Choix is buying shrimp, it has been in operation. I do not know if it is operating today, but people do have the right to buy and transport fish from various locations around this Province with the exception, I think, perhaps of some restrictions in Southern Labrador, and that has been the case for many, many years, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister would be more intent on listening rather than trying to phrase an answer to another question, he would have listened to the question. I asked him about the plants in Anchor Point and Black Duck Cove, not the plant in Port au Choix, I say to the minister, and it was always the case that shrimp harvested in the Gulf remained on the Northern Peninsula. When did they change that?

Mr. Speaker, my final question to the Minister of Fisheries. Last week he travelled to Ottawa to meet with his federal counterpart, Mr. Loyola Hearn, the federal Minister of Fisheries, to discuss fisheries related issues. I ask the minister: While you were there, did you have an opportunity to discuss the early retirement package with him? If so, what was the federal minister's response?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is awful difficult sometimes, in listening to the Leader of the Opposition, to try to differentiate between faction and fact, or fiction and fact - excuse me.

AN HON. MEMBER: The factions are over there.

MR. RIDEOUT: So, the factions are over there. Where is Jim today anyway, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: Is Jim still pulling out the knives today?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Friday is the ultimatum day, Mr. Speaker. We will all know on Friday.

Anyway, to answer the hon. gentleman's question, after I was able to decipher and get rid of some of the political rhetoric in the question - to answer his question, I did have an opportunity to discuss an early retirement package with the Newfoundland regional minister when I was in Ottawa and, as we speak, there is a federal-provincial officials group still working on that possibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier stated that he had sent a letter to the four partners involved in the Hebron-Ben Nevis project outlining what he understood the position to be of the Province and the position of the oil companies when the recent negotiations broke down. To ensure openness and transparency, will the Premier be prepared to table that letter in the House of Assembly so that everyone in the Province can understand what the positions were when these negotiations broke off and why this project is on hold indefinitely?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Actually, Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear last night, as I listened to the debate, the Leader of the Opposition indicate that he was pretty well prepared to give it away. He was talking last night, and during the debate, that he thinks we should get it done because the St. John's business community is protesting and, really, as long as we do a deal he will do a deal. No, there is not no deal for him; he will do a deal under any circumstances, just like they did Voisey's Bay, just like they were going to do the Lower Churchill. He basically said last night - on one side of his mouth he was talking about saving rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and on the other side of his mouth he was talking about getting a deal done for the St. John's business communities.

That is the kind of nonsense that they get on with over there, Mr. Speaker.

In answer to your question -

MR. REID: How do you know? You weren't here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I was listening to your every word. I had my sleeves rolled up; I was working up in the office. I was listening to you. Watching you lose your mind down here is what I was watching you do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: In answer to your question, there is a confidentiality agreement, basically. When the document was sent to us, it was marked confidential. As I have said before, if, in fact, the other parties are agreeable to release these, we have absolutely no problem. One thing we do not want to do is violate that particular agreement.

It was my understanding that the leader of your party was going to have a meeting with Chevron. If that, in fact, took place and they were, in fact, as lead partner in that consortium, prepared to indicate to him or to the party that, in fact, these were the terms of the possible agreement or if, in fact, that document could be released, we would only be too delighted to release it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair requests members on both sides of the House, those asking questions and those who are giving answers, to keep the preambles shorter so that we can get more questions asked during the process.

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past few weeks, we have been raising questions regarding the breakdown of the Hebron-Ben Nevis negotiations, especially the potential impact that it will have on the oil and gas sector in the Province. The Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier have continuously stated that they do not believe these events will negatively impact development in the Province, especially natural gas.

I ask the Premier: Would he now confirm that indeed several oil companies have approached the government and, in fact, have made written submissions stating the major concerns that they have with the stalling of this project and in particular the lack of development of a natural gas royalty regime?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, let me set the record abundantly clear and straight, and we have been consistent when we began our public consultation process on the Provincial Energy Plan; we are nearing completion of that.

As I said yesterday, I have met with ConocoPhillips who have done 3D seismic work in the Laurentian Basin last year on two specific targets that they were looking at. Husky Energy, we have met with them with respect to the issues surrounding natural gas royalty. Our strategic energy advisor is about to complete their view on natural gas royalty for the Province. We have communicated to the business community generally, both the oil companies and the supply and service community, particularly the membership of NOIA, that all that will be coming when the Provincial Energy Plan is completed.

The fact of the matter is this, and the reason that we have taken that approach, is because, for the first time in Newfoundland and Labrador's history, since joining Confederation, there will be a Provincial Energy Plan that looks way out into the future, that will provide certainty, that will provide clarity for all those involved in the industry, Mr. Speaker. That is the right approach, that is the sensible approach, and that is the strategic approach, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to follow up on that line of thought, the final question I have for the minister, it is obvious that the exploration and development of our offshore region is being delayed while this is happening. Whether it is the right approach or not is another story, but there is no doubt that the development of our offshore is being delayed while we are waiting for it.

The question is quite simple, Minister: When can we expect, as a Province, to see these strategic methods that you have taken clue up? When can you expect that we might see the finalization of the energy plan? Very straightforward.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: To suggest that exploration in the Province is being delayed is an absolute fallacy, Mr. Speaker; it is not true. There are $800 million of exploration commitments that must be made within the next three years. Companies like Shell Canada, ExxonMobil, Chevron, the very partners who were involved in the Hebron project, right now are in discussions for bringing the largest drill rig on the planet, known as the Erik Raude, for drilling commitments in the Orphan Basin. So, to suggest that exploration is being delayed is absolutely false.

With respect to the Provincial Energy Plan, the member knows, as all members know, we conducted a public consultation. I have a couple that we have to get back to because of inclement weather: one in the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair's District; a second one in the district of my colleague, the Minister of Environment and Conservation; and a third one in the district of the member who just asked the question, in his own district, where I have made a commitment to go down and hold a public consultation on the energy plan. When that is complete, then the process - we have had stakeholder process, private submissions as well. We are looking at within the next four to six months, Mr. Speaker, no more than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Paramedics in the Province are still trying to deliver an urgent message to government, that ambulance services are critically inadequate and below the Canadian standard. Now, while some aspects of their requests have been addressed, not all have been. In an attempt to get some solutions, these paramedics have willingly compromised with the Health Care Corporation and agreed to a full review of their services, Mr. Speaker. In the meantime, they have made some demands that they would like to have met in order to ensure safety and stability. In fact, they only want one more paramedic hired for the fifth unit on day service and one paramedic hired and a third unit instated for night operations.

I say to the minister, it is a minimal investment to resolve a critical situation. Won't you co-operate with these paramedics and provide them with the support they need?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the day service, Mr. Speaker: There were four ambulances in place. There is now a fifth vehicle in place which is staffed by a paramedic and, as well, an emergency response person. That particular vehicle is being used to transport people who have either being medically discharged or are being transported from one facility to another. These are low risk patients. Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation and a responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, as does Eastern Health have an obligation and a responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to provide quality services within fiscal resources. Part of being able to provide those quality resources it not putting more than what is needed in a particular area, in order to be able to use those additional resources to put services in other areas where they are needed.

As far as the night services are concerned, Eastern Health has given a commitment to the paramedics that we will look at this over the next six months. To give an example, there are about 260 calls that the St. John's Regional Fire Department responded to last year, which will tell you that there is less than one call per day that the ambulance paramedics are not able to respond to, and therefore they go over to the St. John's Regional Fire Department. There is an average of seven calls per night. Some nights there are fifteen calls, some nights there is only one. There is an ambulance on call -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is aware, on April 13 there were two fires in the city were all ambulances and rescue units were dispatched, and still there were emergency calls coming in, yet no ambulatory vehicles available. Now, this has happened many times, Mr. Speaker, and a full record of the last month of documentation has already been provided to the minister, so he knows this. He also knows that, in fact, there was fifteen times in the last month where first response vehicles had to be initiated because no ambulances were available. This is unacceptable, minister. Your government, in the Budget of 2005, had no problems increasing the fees to people who use these ambulance services in our Province.

When are you going to do the right thing, provide the number of ambulances that are required and the number of paramedics that are required, in the meantime, until this study is completed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, all but one of the issues that were brought to the floor by the paramedics have been addressed, with the exception of the fifth unit. Today they are looking for a second paramedic, which is really in excess of what is required.

Mr. Speaker, I have a meeting with the paramedics 5:00 o'clock tomorrow where I am more than happy to sit down and discuss these issues. That meeting is already arranged. There are two things that I will not do, and that is make a rash decision because of political pressure. The other thing is we will not put additional resources where they are not required. We are prepared to look at the night service over the next six months and if it is demonstrated that there are additional requirements for additional ambulatory services at night, than those will be put in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, no one is asking this minister to make a rash decision. I raised these questions in the House of Assembly a month ago. The minister was going to act on them at that time. Mr. Speaker, today we have paramedics still out on the street, here in the gallery today, because they are not getting the result that they want.

Minister, I want to say to you that the traffic has increased by 12 per cent. Although we have closed the Grace Hospital, although we have closed the Janeway and moved it to the Health Sciences Centre, rehab services have been relocated, still the stats have gone up. The reason they have gone up is because the population of the City of St. John's has increased, the dependency on the service has increased and now it is time for the government to take this responsibility seriously and address it. Give these paramedics the staffing they need, the units they need and let them get on with serving the ambulatory needs of the people in our city.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there was an issue raised three or four weeks ago, there was a commitment made that we would get back to the paramedics. We did. There are four additional dispatchers put in place. There is an additional vehicle with a paramedic and an emergency responder in place on that vehicle. We cannot put resources in every aspect of what the member is asking for on every issue that the member raises in this House almost on a daily basis. If we did, the provincial Budget would be $6 billion, not $4.3 billion or $4.4 billion, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to look at this over the next six months. If we were to do what the member suggested and put these in place and take them away six months from now saying they are not required, she would be the first one on her feet saying that we are reducing services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Minister of Health.

We hear all the time, minister, about Canadians who are travelling abroad to be more into buying extra health insurance. However, in Canada we are all supposed to be covered by a national health care plan, one that is universal. However, residents of this Province are unaware that travelling through the Province of Quebec, if they find themselves or a family member hospitalized and treated, admitted to a hospital, they are told that they must pay for the services that they receive prior to leaving the hospital. On the flip side, Mr. Minister, it is my understanding that does not happen to residents of Quebec who find themselves in hospitals in this Province. This amounts to thousands of dollars, I say to the minister, beyond most people's ability to pay, not to mention the extra stress that is placed upon them.

Will the minister explain why this is happening when we have a national health care program in this country?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the member for his question. There are reciprocal agreements in place between this Province and every other jurisdiction in Canada for hospital services, including Quebec. There is a reciprocal agreement with this Province and every other jurisdiction in Canada, with the exception of physician services with Quebec. So, what he is raising, basically, is that the physician costs in Quebec are billed to the patient and they have to recover those costs through MCP back here. That is unfortunate, and it is a very valid point. I will commit to the member, that at our next meeting of provincial-federal ministers I will raise this issue because it is unjust. I believe the issue is unjust and this issue will be raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. COLLINS: I say to the minister, that it is not only for physician services. It is also for testing that is done, such as x-rays, blood tests and all of the other things. There is a person right now from this Province in a hospital in Quebec who has been told that they have to pay for this before they leave the hospital. I do not know if that happens with every hospital in Quebec. I understand if you are referred from this Province to Quebec, that is not the case.

I thank the minister for saying he will raise this as an issue. Will the minister also commit to raising it with the federal government, who ultimately provides the dollars to provide medicare in this country?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, any services that are billed by the physician are charged back to the patient in Quebec. Medical bills are charged to MCP but any bill charged by the physician are charged back in Quebec, and that is unfair. That will be raised and I will try to resolve that. I think that is an issue that every minister in every other jurisdiction in Canada has to put pressure on the Government of Quebec to develop reciprocal agreements in that regard.

In regard to a national pharmaceutical strategy, I believe was the second issue. That is an issue that the provincial-territorial and federal ministers are working on. We are having talks and, in fact, there will be consultations in the Province, I believe, next month on a national pharmaceutical strategy as part of that framework between the provincial and federal ministers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the last few weeks we have seen fuel prices skyrocket in this Province once again. I ask the Minister of Government Services: Does she think that fuel price regulation is still working in this Province, or will she be revising the regulations in any way to make it work better?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the regulations that we have in place right now come from the former Administration. There has been nothing changed in the regulation. The world prices, that market is a volatile market and it is beyond our control. Indeed, regulations are working for the consumers.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, thank God for us and the world, because there is nothing wrong with that government, it is all wrong with the world and us.

Mr. Speaker, the consumers I speak to on a regular basis are having problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, this Province is an oil producer and government is flush with cash because of high oil prices.

I ask the Minister of Government Services: Doesn't she find it somewhat strange that while the government is flush with cash from increased oil revenues, the consumers are expected to still pay some of the highest fuel prices in North America?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the regulations that we have in place - nothing has changed from the former Administration's regulations. The formula that is used is regulated throughout the Province. The consumers are being protected with the regulations that we have. In fact, if we did not have these regulations, we would see the prices at the pump jump up much faster than what they have jumped up now. But, this market is volatile. Again, I have to say to the hon. member over across, that he knows full-well, being the minister in this particular portfolio, what the prices does. All we did with the PUB is that we brought the pricing under them. We only changed the political appointment that the former Administration had made. We put it where it could be effective right now. The regulations and the formula are still the same formula that it was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, if we are protected, God help us. What a lecture that was, Minister. Minister, it has changed. If it wasn't for George Murphy telling the public what the prices are going to be in a little while, the public would be at a great disadvantage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, one way this government can give consumers in this Province a tax break is to extend the rebate to consumers.

I ask the minister: Given the high cost of fuel, and the impact this is having, is this something government will consider doing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the PUB is currently taking a review of the pricing policy to determine if there are improvements that can be made at the present time.

I will say to the hon. member that our regulations are indeed working for the consumer. Again, I state categorically that we have no control of the world markets when it comes to the petroleum. You know, and I know as well, that is beyond the control of the regulations. The regulations and the formula are now working.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about a group that it is not working for. One of the groups hardest hit by the massive increase in fuel price are those in the trucking industry. Independent truckers in this Province are talking about closing down their business and moving out of the Province.

I ask the minister: Is she concerned about the future of the trucking industry in this Province? If so, what actions will she be taking to see that it is not destroyed by high fuel prices?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the pricing regulations are to ensure that the petroleum prices are justified while providing for the security of supply and reasonable return to the producer, wholesaler and the retailers.

Again, I have to say to the hon. member that I do not control the world market prices of the petroleum.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There is time for one question.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, when the Premier announced the opening of the Ottawa office, he commented on how important it was, but over the past fifteen months you could hang out a line of clothes in the boardroom and it would never be disturbed.

Mr. Speaker, now that the Premier has announced the appointment of a full-time Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, how can the Premier justify an empty Ottawa office costing the taxpayers of this Province $400,000 a year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Hanging out the clothes is better than taking a closer look and seeing a pile of dirty laundry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Now, as -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: As for your request, we will have an announcement for you tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to section 26.(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling two Orders-in-Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2007-2008 to the 2010-2011 fiscal years.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the Wild Cove dump site, a very important issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Minister of Transportation and Works, your department is the one that is keeping the dump on the road over on the Wild Cove area. Why don't you do something about it? The councils are asking to meet with you.

Mr. Speaker, again I rise to present a petition, this time on behalf of the residents of the Town of Irishtown-Summerside, concerning the dump site area. There is a move afoot to extend the life of the dump site by another twenty years, by the City of Corner Brook. The councils on the North Shore of the Bay of Islands have requested a meeting, and I have requested for them a meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Environment and Conservation to sit down with the councils.

What is happening with the dump site in Wild Cove, they are being left out. The councils that are being directly affected by this are the ones on the North Shore of the Bay of Islands. At the meetings that we had they were all there, except Cox's Cove, but they did express their concerns. There were members from the council from Massey Drive. Mount Moriah was there also. The North Shore Development Association was there also.

We see in the media that the mayor, rightly or wrongly, I am not sure, and both ministers can confirm or deny at the meeting, the Mayor of the City of Corner Brook, concerning the dump site: We are in fairly consistent correspondence with the Department of Municipal Affairs, Jack Byrne. That is what the City of Corner Brook is saying out there. The alarm raised by the councils is that the dump site was supposed to close in the next two to three years and have a regional disposal site.

I spoke to the minister personally on this and the minister explained what a regional disposal area consists of, and I explained that to the councils. The councils would like to go ahead with the plan that was presented to the Great Humber Joint Council, that the regional disposal site area be put outside the municipality, outside the boundary. The councils are expressing their concerns to all the people, and there is a petition. Right now there are over 1,000 names from the people on the north shore. I have about 100 of those names right here. Most of these are from the residents of Irishtown and Summerside.

I am not sure if the minister had time to review their schedule to see when they will meet. This is of an urgent nature, because the concern is that the City of Corner Brook may go head and have this dump site claimed again for the next twenty or thirty years before they have any input into it whatsoever. The problem they are having is that they are all left in the dark. They have no idea of what correspondence is taking place. They have no idea at what stage this proposal is to the government. They have no idea what the City of Corner Brook is actually planning. The mayor himself was saying there was a meeting, but there was no such meeting. This is a major -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you for leave.

Mr. Speaker, I will present the petition on the residents' behalf, and I will be discussing this further. I thank both ministers for the consideration for the meeting with the councils on the north shore.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again today, I am standing and offering this petition on behalf of the people of the Buchans area in the hopes that government might listen and be able to provide some money for the upgrades to the Buchans highway. I know I am beginning to sound like a broken record, however I shall continue to do so until we get some action from this government.

MR. HICKEY: You are skipping.

MS THISTLE: The Member for Lake Melville said the record is skipping. Well, I can tell you I am not skipping. I am not going to skip a day. I am going to get on my feet every day of the week -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: - and I am going to let the people of this House know, and the people who might be watching, that government is doing a great injustice to the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I saw the Minister of Transportation and Works last night get on his feet and say he was never up over the Buchans Highways, but yet he sat in his office and made a decision not to put any money on the Buchans Highway. How can you intelligently made a decision? He is putting out $60 million in roadwork this year and he is sitting in his office and making a decision. He is supposed to be touting the government policy to support rural Newfoundland and Labrador and yet he decides, in his own wisdom, or lack of wisdom, not to put money where it is needed. I do not understand the rationale and I will never, ever, be convinced that he had any rationale in making that decision.

I wrote him early in the year and I outlined to the minister how important it was to have good roads so that people who are 100 kilometres from any service of any sort - there is no service station on the Buchans Highway. There is nowhere to turn if you run into any kind of problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the noise is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would ask for members' co-operation on both sides of the House. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is apparent that members opposite have no interest in what I am saying regarding rural Newfoundland. It is apparent they have no interest, because if they had any interest they would be listening, number one, and they would be trying to convince their colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Works, how important this issue is.

Last night I tried, in great vain, to let the Premier know of this situation. I heard him say today that he watches all of these events sitting at his desk. When he is not here, he watches them on his television, so I hope he will (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Just a (inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) seconds.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to let my colleagues here in the House know the importance of this matter, particularly the Minister of Finance, a Cabinet Minister who left $76 million on the table at this last Budget. Can he convince the Premier and the Minister of Transportation and Works to find $1 million to do the upgrade on the Buchans Highway?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Kingston to Western Bay, the undersigned residents:

WHEREAS conditions on Route 70 passing through Victoria and Salmon Cove is badly in need of repair; and

WHEREAS the traffic travelling over this road includes school buses, commercial trucks, ambulances, and patients going to hospitals; and

WHEREAS this route is part of the Conception Bay North Highway and it has deteriorated over the past three years;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon all Members of the House of Assembly to see that this section of road is brought up to proper standards.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, a large number of people participated in having this petition filled out, and it testifies to the number of people who travel from that particular area of our Province to the major centre of Carbonear and onwards to St. John's up the Conception Bay North Highway and Veterans' Memorial Drive.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of road has deteriorated to the extent that every time a truck or a tractor trailer passes over it right now, more damage is being done. This road is used daily to accommodate students from Western Bay to Carbonear, from different parts of the Carbonear-Harbour Grace District to Persalvic High School, small children are being transported in cars and buses. This road has reached a point where it has almost become impassable. The residents complain about not being able to sleep at night because of the ruts in the road, the banging of the tractor trailers in the nighttime, the dumps on the dump trucks and so on.

Mr. Speaker, last year there was a small attempt made, a token attempt made, to patch it, to patch a section of the road, but unfortunately it only has worsened the problem. This road needs to be resurfaced, and the people down there are becoming desperate. They just cannot tolerate the condition of this road any longer.

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a woods road or a secondary road. We are talking about a main highway that connects the loop, as people call it, around Trinity Bay and Conception Bay. We have to spend some time and money and some attention to this particular piece of road.

Mr. Speaker, a delegation from the Town of Victoria went in to meet with the Department of Transportation and Works and they were informed by the deputy minister that nobody had requested funding for that road. Mr. Speaker, that saddens me, because here we are talking about a main highway that deals with such a large number of people and such a great percentage of our population, to receive that kind of comment that nobody has bothered to look for funding. Mr. Speaker, there are two works depots in that area: one in Bay Roberts and one in Flambro Head.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the leave.

I just wish to present this petition on behalf of those residents from Kingston to Western Bay, and to make sure that their concerns are heard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou and Diamond Cove with respect to the possibility of their St. Michael's School closing. It is a K-3 school in the community. There has been an assessment done by the Western Region Board of Education and the possibility exists, according to the board report, that the school may indeed be slated for closure some time in the future.

In credit to the board, they are allowing an opportunity for the residents of that area, and the parents and the PTA associations and so on, to have input into the process, and I do not believe the final decision has been made. They are very concerned, of course. This is a K-3 school and there are about twenty-one students in it at the present time.

As anyone knows, in these small rural communities there are a lot of things you can do without and probably still survive as a community, and God only knows that in our Province many of our small communities are surviving, but there are certain things that, when you remove it from a community, it is the heart and soul of the community, because it is not just a school. This school in Rose Blanche is indeed the heart of the community. It is the social centre of the community, and the opportunity is going to present itself on May 18.

I have sent correspondence to the Minister of Education, in fact, and ask her as well - she represents a district just up the road from that area - I think it would be very educational and very informative to the minister, indeed, if she herself could show up at the meeting. It will not be a shouting, screeching ball game. The people of those communities are very well-organized. They are very patient and they will present a very rational argument as to why the school should be kept open.

We believe, in fact, some of the information that the board has is incomplete, and that information will be, no doubt, updated and the information provided to the board so they will be fully informed. I understand that the Director of Education, Dr. Elliott, will be there with the board on the eighteenth, and the residents will be out in full force to make their points known in a very logical, justifiable manner as to why this school should stay open.

There are a lot of reasons, many of which will be made known to the board. I am sure they already know some of them, but some particular details were not taken into consideration, I am sure, which the residents of the community and myself will be there to make sure that the board is fully informed. We would hope that the decision that is ultimately made by the board will, of course, reflect the facts as will be presented to them.

I have raised this in the House of Assembly, of course. The government pretends, on occasion, that they have nothing to do with the operations of boards any more. We do not interfere, but we all know the truth of that. We know that is not the case. The government will intervene in board decisions if they feel it is desirable. They did so in the Exploits District last year on occasion. I understand now there has been, again, a decision made with respect to Eastport. But, hopefully, it will not come to that, that we have to come back to the House and ask the government to intervene here, but common sense will prevail and the school will, indeed, stay open.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to present a petition on behalf of the residents of my district, especially from the community of Williams Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, the community of Williams Harbour is on an island. It is only a small distance from the main highway connection, which would be to Pinsent Arm now. Back under the Liberal Administration, we did build roads into Port Hope Simpson, into Charlottetown, into Pinsent Arm. The next connection would have been Williams Harbour but, unfortunately, that did not happen. Our hope was, after that, we would get to Norman Bay and then to Black Tickle.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Williams Harbour are very disappointed, because the government would have only had to invest $5 million in infrastructure to give this community a road, to give them access to the outside world so they could get out for medical services and for all the other services that we require in our day-to-day living, but it did not happen. The government, at the time, felt it was not economically feasible. They did not have the money to carry forward with that investment but, boy, they have the money today. There is absolutely no reason that the people of Williams Harbour have to be stranded on this island in the ocean with no access.

This past year, because of global warming, because of the changes in the climate in that area, we did not even have an ice freeze up that would allow them to get out by snowmobile. So they had no access whatsoever. In the one or two attempts they made to get off the island of Williams Harbour to the mainland, there were two snowmobiles that ended up going through the ice. These people were lucky to even save their lives and get away from that incident. So it is very dangerous. It is absolutely a critical piece of infrastructure that needs to be built in Labrador.

I want to encourage the government, on behalf of the people of Williams Harbour, to have another look at this, to encourage the minister. I have talked to the Premier about this and I honestly believe that if the Premier were to go into Williams Harbour to meet with the people of that community, that he would certainly see the real value in investing this money into this community to ensure that they have access to the outside world, that they have a safe road on which they can drive. That is all that they ask.

I agree, it may not be economically viable to do it, but how many roads in Newfoundland and Labrador were actually economically viable to build? I would beg that there are very, very few. When you look at all of the miles and kilometres of highway that has been built to all the different small communities around this Province, it was done because it was a necessity, because it was improving the condition and the standard of living for these people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS JONES: I just have a couple of things to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Request for leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that a lot of these roads were not necessarily economically viable to build, but they were done because there was a need for it, because it improved the standard of living of people that were there and it gave them a safe access to the outside world. That is all I am asking on behalf of the people of Williams Harbour, that government would have another look at building a road to this community and giving them an opportunity to have a safe transportation network that they can use on a year-round basis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: This is Orders of the Day, I suspect, is it?

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you. I wanted to make sure that I was not going to get up on a petition to petition my own government. Normally, I do that at the Cabinet table or at the caucus table, thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move to Motion 4 first. First reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act. (Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act. (Bill 14)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act," carried. (Bill 14)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 14 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act. (Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 14 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 14 be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 14 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 5, under the name of the hon. Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, first reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 20)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999," carried. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 20 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 20 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 20 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 20 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 6, first reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act. (Bill 7)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 7?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

On motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act," carried. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded Bill 7 be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 7 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 7 be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 7 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 7, first reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities. (Bill 11)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 11?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities," carried. (Bill 11)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 11 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 11 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 11 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 8, first reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services Act. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services Act. (Bill 18)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 18?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services Act," carried. (Bill 18)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services Act. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 18 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 18 be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 18 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 9, to move first reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Physiotherapy. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Physiotherapy. (Bill 19)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 19?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Physiotherapy," carried. (Bill 19)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 19 be now read first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Physiotherapy. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 19 has now been read a first time.

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 19 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 10, to move first reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act. (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act. (Bill 16)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 16?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act," carried. (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and second that Bill 16 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 16 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act. (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 16 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 16 be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 16 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 11, to move first reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act. (Bill 8)

It is the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 8?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act," carried. (Bill 8)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act. ( Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 8 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 8 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, for those watching the proceedings, they must be asking themselves: What does on tomorrow mean? when asked: When will it be read a second time?

For those who may be watching, or who may be interested, on tomorrow means, basically, that once first reading is passed it is at the discretion of the government to call it either tomorrow, the next day or the day after.

That is just a quick sort of explanation because I know, in terms of the codes and practices and traditions here, they are not something that you would use normally in your everyday life on the street.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to move Motion 12, first reading, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health and Safety Act. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act. ( Bill 9)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 9?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health and Safety Act,"carried. ( Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 9 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 9 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health and Safety Act. ( Bill 9).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 9 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 9 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 13, to move first reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. ( Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. ( Bill 10)

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act," carried. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 10 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 10 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 10 has now been read a first time. When shall Bill 10 be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 10 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 14, move first reading of a bill, An Act To Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 17)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 17?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 17 be now read a first time.

Is the pleasure of the House that Bill 17 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal Obsolete Acts And To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 17 has now been read a first time. When shall Bill 17 be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 17 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 15, move first reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States. (Bill 12)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 12?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States," carried. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 12 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 12 be read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Convention On The Settlement Of Investment Disputes Between States And Nationals Of Other States. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 12 has now been read a first time. When shall Bill 12 be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 12 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 16, move first reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991. (Bill 13)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce Bill 13?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991," carried. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 13 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 13 be read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 13 has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 17, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, on Tuesday, May 2.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn today at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 2, 2006.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, motion 18, to further move that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, under Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn today, Tuesday, May 2 at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 2, I move this House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to consider the Estimates related to the Consolidated Fund Services, Executive Council and Legislature, part (a). And part (b) Resolution and Bill 5 respecting the Granting of Main Supply to Her Majesty.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters of Estimates in Committee of Supply, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

 

Committee of the Whole

 

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the debate begin with respect to the Estimates on the Consolidated Fund Services.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Committee is ready to hear debate on the Consolidated Fund Services.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Consolidated Fund Services basically deals with the interest and management related to our public debt. Also, it looks after the funding issue for our pension plans, as indicated there.

I am not going to go into details, but I will answer any particular questions. That is strictly confined to dealing with those two aspects, the public debt of our Province, how we manage that, how we service that, our interest associated with servicing that, management fees we pay when we go to the market on issues and so on, on any related costs, and how we manage our supply of cash, whether we do it in T-Bills or longer term issues. How we manage it on our overdrafts: we do it in such a manner as to minimize the interest payments to our Province.

Of course, on our pension plan for government and the government agency employees, we are also responsible for that under the Consolidated Fund Services.

I will leave it at that, and certainly entertain any questions on those.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I notice it was called under Consolidated Fund Services. Are you entertaining the other categories as well under this?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Okay, you are just going to -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Okay, that is fine with me. I didn't know if you wanted to do them all together or just like this, all separated. That is fine.

Under Consolidated Fund Services, as the minister outlined that is pretty forward. Once thing I would like to make note of is the fact that two and a half years ago it was brought into question by this current government that we were at risk of losing our good rating that we had acquired in recent years. I think what is important today to point out to those who might be viewing this House of Assembly proceeding, is that our rating has not deteriorated in the slightest. I think it gives credence to the fact that, in 2003, when we announced our bond rating by the bonding agencies, which was the best then, probably since Confederation, what we said at that time was very true. In fact, we held our ground on that and the bond rating agencies have confirmed that particular issue is, indeed, true.

There are some issues around Consolidated Fund Services that I would like to ask the minister about. That is in light of the fact that, in the past couple of days, the Canadian dollar has soared. The Canadian dollar has soared, the best time ever in our history, I think, in probably the past decade, that we have now approached ninety cents as compared to the U.S. dollar. So, in light of that, I would like to ask the Finance Minister: For some of the borrowings that we now have currently in U.S. dollars, would this be an opportunity now for you to go back to these lenders and see about getting some of our borrowings renegotiated?

I wonder if the Finance Minister would be receptive to that. Particularly, a lot of our investments are in pension funds. Over the years, in some cases we have done well with pension funds, and in other cases we have not done so well. In fact, I do recall a few years back that, in our teachers' pension fund, there was quite a bit lost one year due to the fluctuation of the market. I know that there is a committee that is looking after the investment strategies for investing any of these pension funds, but we do have a lot of our borrowings out in currencies other than Canadian dollar currencies, and I am wondering if this would be an opportune time for the Minister of Finance to be able to give an account of what current borrowings we have in U.S. dollars, and whether or not it would make a significant change to our total debt if the Province were able to renegotiate some of these borrowings.

Are you prepared to answer at this time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure.

MS THISTLE: Okay.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All members of the House received a copy of the Estimates on Budget Day. I think everybody received that. On page 250 of that book, it will show what is in foreign debt. We do not have any debt out there in the Swiss Franc any more. That is long gone. The Japanese Yen is gone. The only debt we have out in a foreign currency is seven issues in the U.S. market, six of which were issued by the former government and one by the former Conservative government back in 1987. The other six were issued under the Liberal Administration. Under these particular ones, they all add up to $1,150,000,000 in U.S. debt. The interest rates vary on these, depending, on the more recent ones, as low as 7.32 per cent and as high as 11 5/8s of 8 per cent.

Can we retire that in terms of the strong Canadian dollar? The answer is, any debt that we could retire and pay a penalty and get refinanced at lower, we would take advantage of it, but unfortunately it is non-callable and the penalties are just as great as the amount that we would pay. So, there is no advantage in doing that whatsoever.

One advantage of the stronger dollar is that we find that, because of the stronger Canadian dollar now, and the closer equivalency to the market, about $1.13 and change, the conversion there, we are paying less interest now because interest is payable as a percent on the U.S. debt. Therefore, because of the stronger dollar, we are going to have lower interest rates to be able to apply because the Canadian equivalent would have a greater value. We would not need as many Canadian dollars now to be able to pay on that debt. So, that is going to be certainly an advantage there.

As to our total debt, if you look at page 250, just while we are on that topic there, I know the member did not ask the question but I will just bring it to your attention, we have payable in Canadian dollars there, to give you a little overview, shown on page 250 in the Estimates. Then also I would mention, because I think it is noteworthy to mention, on page 251, under the Canada Pension Plan, we have a significant amount of funds, and there was an opportunity provided now to keep rolling them over at a one-time for twenty years. Since July of 2005, in the past year or more, in about the past year, we have not rolled over any. We have just retired them as they came due. We have not gone out with any new issue, in fact, on these. There is an opportunity to roll them over, as you can see there, the amount that is there. This year, hopefully, depending on our cash situation, we may be able to retire these as they come due.

In the Canada Pension Plan you can see the varying rates there. They are loans on the federal Canada Pension Plan as low as the more recent ones you can see that we had to roll over back in 2005 and 2004; they are going in at anywhere from 4.91 per cent to 5.75 per cent, the more recent ones. They are coming due every month, so as each month they came due they would be rolled over and the rates, obviously, in the past while were much lower. The rates that they were taking out initially, if you look at the specific year there, 1986, some of the more expensive ones, in 1986-1987, anywhere from 9.04 per cent to 10.17 per cent. The range is there because they are over a period of twelve different months. It came up in one month and it goes back in, on what the rate was for that month. That would be the variation, really, in rates over the period of that year.

That is what is out there in our direct (inaudible) Canada Pension. Then we have our debt, of course, that is out there in debenture markets, the Canadian dollar, and we also have the U.S. market I made a reference to. We do have others there. You will see in the Estimates there, we have other debt out there. We have Treasury bills, for example, and I will just mention that. We have Treasury bills out there that we keep rolling over. They are thirteen weeks, so every Wednesday we have an issue that goes out at $38 million over the thirteen weeks; that comes to $494 million that is out in T-bills. The T- bills would fluctuate. Initially, it was much lower. It averaged about 3.91 on the year. Right now, they are climbing up a little bit higher, of course, because we see the rates have been edging up. Overall, we have performed at, on the 91 day Treasury bills, or T-bills, they are called ninety-one days, every ninety-one days they would roll them back in again. That gives us steady access to cash for cash flow purposes at 3.91 per cent average on the year.

Of course, most of the bonds out there now on the market, the borrowing rates on bonds as of March 31 of this year, at the end of the last fiscal year, on a five-year bond was about 4.4 per cent. A ten-year bond was 4.65 per cent, and then thirty-year bonds were about 4.90 per cent. You can see the opportunity to go to the market now and borrow. Certainly you can do it a lot cheaper, but we did not have to go to the market. In fact, we retired, last year, a $100 million one that came due in September.

If we have to go to the market this year, which we will have to go to the market, and we budgeted to do that, that is rolled out on Budget day, we are looking at, if necessary, we are going to go out and borrow to fix the pension plans there. That is our goal, to be able to do that in this fiscal year. We have made an allocation to do that, also, even if we have to borrow $800 million or if we have to get the money in a cash flow basis, some of that, whatever means is there.

We do manage our cash on a basis, plus we have overdrafts and there are charges when we go over on that, in interest. They are all in separate line items there, if you care to ask either particular question on any of that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I note also, on page 252, that the Province used the exchange rate of 1.1650 for conversion of our Canadian dollar debt. Based on yesterday's and today's high exchange rate for our Canadian dollar, naturally there is going to be incredible savings there, based on our total U.S. commitment.

I also would like to ask the Finance minister, regarding the sinking funds, which is now over $1 billion set aside for our debt redemption: Has any thought been given to the fact that, in lieu of our good financial situation over the past year, of using these sinking funds for payment of our debt? Has any thought been given to that? Rather than keeping them aside for the redemption of debt as it expires, has any thought been given to using the actual sinking funds amount of over $1 billion? Do you understand what I am saying?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes, okay.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess my answer to that, the question is self-explanatory. A sinking fund is a fund established for the retirement of debt. Our law requires that we - there is certain debt that has a statutory sinking fund requirement, which means if we borrow $300 million on the market out there on certain funds, we would have to put aside so much money a year for when that comes due to be able to retire that debt. That is one of the basic requirements out there.

Sinking funds are put there for debt. Let's say we had a $300 million bond out there over thirty years, so that would be about $10 million a year. We might put into a sinking fund, let's say $4 million or $5 million a year and that builds up. We get interest on that and that money generates. So when that comes due in thirty years, we will have sinking funds available to be able to apply to that. You cannot just take sinking funds and pour it on debt. There is a statutory requirement to have that there to offset that debt when it comes due. It is there. We put it in. We get an interest on that sinking fund. When we do our total debt, we take all the debt we owe out there and we back off and deduct our sinking funds because that is cash we have that reduces our debt.

If you had $10 billion in debt and you had $1 billion in sinking funds toward that debt, you would only have a debt of $9 billion. So, those sinking funds are for debt. There are statutory requirements to do that. In fact, the markets out there - if someone wants to give you money and put it out on the market, and we need $300 million. They want some security out there. At least that is a security that assists in setting a certain rate that would be preferential, we would hope, by having a sinking fund attached to a certain issue. So that is what a sinking fund is all about. Sinking funds go toward debt.

Any ones that did not have a requirement of a sinking fund debt, what the former government did, they took all of that and used it as revenue and spent it over the past several years. That started in the mid-1990s with the former government, and they pretty well exhausted all the sinking funds that are not statutory. That money is all gone now.

So, there are statutory requirements there. We are following that and we cannot do anything about it. If there is any debt out there we could retire now and get a preferred rate. We would refinance the whole works of it if we could get it at 4.9 per cent; everything. Who would not retire 6 per cent or 8 per cent or 10 per cent debt if you could get it for 5 per cent? That is what we are in the market for. That is why the Pension Fund investment was a good investment. It gets money out in the market. The actuarial gives us 7.5 per cent that they allow in our projections. It has been performing at close to 11 per cent and sit it in a bank and get 3 per cent. Would you put it to work to get 11 per cent, or sit on it for 3 per cent? That is the type of decision we have been making, positive ones, to generate extra revenues and so on, reduce borrowing costs and enable us to have money available for public services.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

While I understand and was aware of the guidelines concerning sinking funds, of course, being in this Legislature we can make laws and change laws. If our financial situation continues to improve as it has over the past eighteen months, there may come a time when we might be interested in looking at changing the laws and applying those sinking funds, that are not already committed, as part of loan collateral to various lenders directly to our debt.

I want to move on now to another category. Consolidated Fund Services, and that would be the Ex-Gratia and Other Payments.

MR. SULLIVAN: What number would that be under?

MS THISTLE: That would be 2.1.02. on page 9.

This one in particular, I guess, would probably be mainly pay equity - part of it is severance pay. Pay equity was recently announced before the Budget was brought in for NAPE employees, for pay equity for the female gender. However, I am wondering, it has been roughly a little over a month since the announcement was made by the government that pay equity would be given to those who had been disadvantaged because of their gender in the 1980s, and the pay equity roughly amounted to $24 million.

Even though government was willing to write a cheque to NAPE and let NAPE actually distribute the money, I wondered at the time and asked questions in the House and they were more or less snubbed by the Minister of Education at the time, the Minister who is responsible for the Status of Women. She was not at all interested in giving me any explanation regarding how this would be distributed. She said it was entirely up to NAPE and that I could find it on the Web site if I was interested in finding out how the complement was going to be made up.

In addition to pay equity there is also an extra, I would think, probably $13 million there. I asked the Minister of Finance, at the time, during Budget Debate, whether or not there were any plans to have a mass program renewal and an exodus of government employees this current year. I think his answer at the time was no, government had no plans for laying off their employees. But, as late as today, I received a call from the highways depot employees in Bishop Falls, telling me that two people had gotten their pink slips today, and I also learned - I am just speaking of my district alone - that workers' compensation in Grand Falls-Windsor, which looks after the entire Central area, I have now learned that people are now going to have to travel to St. John's or Corner Brook to have an assessment done for long-term permanent disabilities. That is not good enough.

We always had a physician right in the workers' compensation office in Grand Falls-Windsor and, for some unknown reason, his services - we are told that he was no longer required. There is a demand. He has handled close to a couple of thousand inquiries, issues, per year. It is strange that we are hearing that other staff members associated with the workers' compensation in Grand Falls-Windsor, they, too, are getting notices.

What we are hearing all over the Province is that, so there is no rippling or no frustration or no big outcry from workers, a lot of departments are doing it on a rotating basis, passing out pink slips in ones and twos and threes so that nobody is getting a flurry of excitement happening, or there is going to be no protest.

What we are seeing is that there is normally only about $7 million or $8 million a year for the normal rotation of employees who work for government leaving their occupations. There is probably only about $7 million or $8 million a year on a normal year, but we are seeing now that there is close to $14 million set aside, even after pay equity is paid. I wonder, could the Minister of Finance elaborate and let us know whether or not there is going to be a big downsizing of our Public Service.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to indicate that I will preface the question by saying, as a result of this Budget, there will 212 new positions, people employed in this Province directly within government departments, excluding anybody in health authorities by virtue of new services we are providing, excluding people within school boards, school districts around the Province, that could be in the hundreds overall between health, education and other areas. We could see several hundred new people working in our Province as a result of this Budget. Number one, that is not accurate, what she is saying is not correct.

As to Transportation and Works, it has nothing to do with the Consolidated Fund Service whatsoever. The announcement was made about a year or two years ago, using money in depots. Money was going to be used in depots because we had - the former government took everything out of materials, did nothing to be able to maintain our shoulders and our highways and do the work. They put it all into labour, kept people on with nothing to do. We said we were going to go through a process of ‘seasonalization' of these, to use that money to allow us to be able to use more materials to have something to do work with. That is where that question came.

Last year, the implementation did not get the desired result because there had to be a notice period and a payment of that, so a lot of the money did get used up in salary and did not get it. This will be the first year of the operation where there will be more money now available for materials because we have moved into the phase where that has been implemented. That is to provide a better service. Would you sooner have 500 people without anything to do, or 300 people with something to do and see a result? That is the philosophy of this government. It is not to keep everybody on if there is nothing to do, to be able to ‘seasonalize' and get the best result. It is not related at all to this issue, but I just wanted to answer that.

As to the Workplace Health and Safety Compensation Commission, it is independent, arm's-length. It is not on the consolidated financial statements of our Province. Every entity that is supposed to be included, according to the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, that should be included in our financial statements are included. The AG makes reference to it; it is fully included. The WHSCC is an independent arm's-length, it operates, not on a consolidated statement. I am not going to answer questions on the WHSCC that does not fall under our consolidated statement. It has nothing to do with the Consolidated Fund Service here in our Province. I do not intend to be a spokesperson for that.

What the minister stated on severance and on ex gratia or other amounts besides that, we are spending $4 million less than two years ago on severance and other areas. It is down to a normal level, way below what the former government had. It is not $10 million being spent. I will let her know where some of these are going. There were ex gratia payments established back some time ago that are being carried through and being flowed out. There is $931,200 in that. The Hartt Report, that is the retirement plan for the people at the Waterford - we are in contact. There is a program in place that is going through the system for these people in that area who retired. There is $1,164,000 in that amount for those people.

There is $179,400 for widows under a program. There is the WCC, $33,300 under that for those. Of course, there is a redundancy one of $1,002,700. Then we have severance and other areas, ex gratia and other aspects, that has $10 million. There is a total of $13,461,000 in the proposed budget for this year. The reason it went up last year from $13 million to $35,950,000 is because there was a significant ex gratia payment made last year of $24 million. That is why it was increased in the 2005-2006 year. If you look there you will see why it went from $13,642,000 to $35,950,700. That is the reason for that.

There are several other items there and ongoing programs that are running their course. I would imagine the former government entered into, I would assume, some of these agreements. I know the Hartt Report goes back some time, certainly well back, a decade. In fact, I might even be able to find out the exact year that was initiated. In fact, some of these go back - I think the Hartt one was 1991-1992, when that government was in office, when that was established. We are continuing that program because it is an appropriate program and the funding has been provided for it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Last night, in our debate here at the House, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said that the former Ottawa representative was not paid any severance pay. Would you be able to tell me if the severance paid to a former Ottawa representative came under this heading 2.1.02?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

No, I am not aware that it did. Normally what is done for severance and other payments, there is a certain amount of money that is booked within departments. If a department budget is able to accommodate severance, it is paid out of that specific department. They don't normally budget for a particular severance or someone who retires. That has never been done by this administration or the former administration. If there is money as they get to their year end or there is money in an area where positions might not have been filled for most of the year, if they know there are going to be savings in this area - professional services might have been required that weren't used, and there is money there, that money is used within that specific department or head which that comes under.

If a department has a variety of people leaving in any one year and there might be pressures on that department's budget to deliver services, we do have a block of money that we can move out to departments. The Legislative authority is provided for that, that accompanies the Budget, and here in the House to do that and to move it out in block. What went out to a department - if everybody retired in government. There are hundreds every year who leave government.

On the workforce, overall of government, I guess when you look at agency extended out, we are talking about 35,000 or 40,000 people. So, whether that came out of this department, out of a health care corp., whether it came out of Environment and Conservation, whether it came out of the health department, I would not know on every individual what came out. I would have to have a record of hundreds of people who leave on an annual basis from the public service. Some retire, some leave of their own volition, some for a variety of reasons there, and everyone is tracked. I cannot tell you who it was. This is a pot of money to farm out. Maybe it was picked up in that specific department there in that area.

The same here in the Legislature in the House of Assembly. If members leave here, there is severance allocated to them. If the House of Assembly budget cannot carry that, we do a block of money. We will transfer it in, so we do not have to cut an essential service that is being provided here. That has been a standard practice that has been going on since I came in here, to my knowledge. When the member sat as Treasury Board, it happened and it is still happening and it is an appropriate way to do it. Otherwise, you have to have some central pot of money because there might be an inordinate amount of retirements in one department in any given year. Therefore, why should the department have to curtail a service because a good many happened to retire? That is why a central pot of money to feed out to be able to allow that flow there to maintain services. It is prudent, it is a proper way to go, and certainly one that we have been carrying on.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

During the past couple of years we have seen some high-profiled bureaucrats being pushed out the door by this government. Can you tell me if severance that was included in the ex gratia, section 2.1.02., was paid to Ms Deborah Fry and Ms Anne Marie Hann?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: First of all, Ms Hann, to my knowledge, was not an employee of a government department. It is not reflected in our consolidated statement. I understand that she was an employee of the Workers' Health Place, Safety and Compensation Commission. That is not in the consolidated financial statements of our Province.

As to the one she referenced to Ms Fry, I cannot tell you specifically on that, but if the department had the resources to be able to do that - I am sure their questions in the Department of Health Estimates were asked last year. They were asked last year here, over a year ago, in that Estimate. The question was then, and I was Acting Minister of Health at the time, and I did provide an answer, if you go back in the records at the time, is that there was provision. There is provision in every department, funds provided to every department - if there are sufficient funds to be able to meet that within a department.

Some people go out under different arrangements. Some go out under continuation of salary. Some go out under lump sum payments and those things. They are things within the department that I will have to answer on, but I can say under Consolidated Fund Services, the purpose of this is a block of money that goes out to specific departments and farmed out there. What the department uses it for would be included in the estimates of that department. So, you would have to get that information from a specific department. I cannot tell you what goes on in every department in government but I do know the amount of money that is allocated and farmed out. As to what the specific use of every dollar is in there, I cannot tell you. But I will say, if the savings were in the department to be able to accommodate it for anybody, regardless of who it is, it would be picked up in that department. If it would put hardships in meeting budgets on that department, we would be able to transfer it from a central fund in government.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As predicted, I got no answers. In fact, I asked those same questions in Estimates last year and I got no answers then and I got no answers today.

In regards to the Consolidated Fund Services, I am finished that line of questioning on Consolidated Fund Services. I am anxious to move on to the other categories.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, there are a few questions I would like to ask the minister.

Under Equalization, you are showing that last year we took -

MR. SULLIVAN: Point of reference?

MR. BARRETT: It is on vii.

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. BARRETT: Consolidated Provincial and Federal Revenues. It is on page vii.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Yes, but it is not a part of the CFS, but I will answer it anyway. It is a part of the Exhibits that are attached to the Estimates.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but it is part of your department.

MR. SULLIVAN: I can, certainly, answer -

MR. BARRETT: And that is why you are here.

MR. SULLIVAN: If you will get on with the question, I will answer it.

MR. BARRETT: Equalization payments last year were $860,959,000, and this year we are showing $671,500,000. It is quite a difference. About a $180 million difference in equalization payments. So, I wonder why? The minister can tell us the difference.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: There is a difference. There is less.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would say there is a definite difference in Delsey. Is that the commercial on TV?

The reason why is because equalization payments go down when our Province's economic performance and our fiscal capacity increases. That is the reason.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: But because of that, we would have lost $180 million in revenue because our fiscal capacity improved on equalization. Because we struck a deal with the federal government and said our fiscal capacity went up to a great extent because of offshore oil revenues, royalties and corporate income tax from our offshore, and that would have driven up and that money would have been lost to us as a Province - but because we struck a deal with the federal government, called Atlantic Accord 2005, under that deal, for every dollar we lose on equalization we are guaranteed 100 per cent of that dollar will be paid to us under -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If you look further down under Atlantic Accord 2005, there is an amount of $219 million we will get there. There is protection under the 1985 Accord of $109,800,000. Furthermore, except we have a fixed equalization pot this year, and this is the third consecutive year of fixed equalization - last year was the second, this being the third - except for that, our fiscal capacity is up even higher. We would have probably $100 million less and we would be showing $100 million more under Accord 2005. If it goes down by $600 million, the Accord will go up by $600 million. If the $2 billion is gone, they will have to write a cheque for $600 million to us, and that will happen probably in year six of this Accord. In addition to that $2 billion and equalization is down by $500 million, we will be getting a cheque in year seven for $500 million or maybe $700 million, based on all fees in circulation. That is why that is down. We would have lost it except for the Atlantic Accord 2005. That is why it is down. In fact, it is a fixed pot. Next year you will probably see even a bigger difference.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member just said that we went down $180 million -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: I wish the hon. members on the other side would take this seriously.

CHAIR: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Anyway, there was a $180 million reduction in equalization, but if we go down further under the Atlantic Accord 2005, last year we received $322,300,000 and this year we are going to receive $219,200,000. Can the minister explain the difference there?

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Two years ago, the federal government - actually, I attended a meeting with the Premier in September of 2004 and subsequently finalized and ratified, in October of 2004, at a First Ministers' Meeting, we entered into an agreement with the Government of Canada, with all of the provinces, on a new Health Accord and we entered, if you remember, at the same time, into an equalization accord. Under that equalization, the federal government agreed that the pot would be fixed. It would be fixed at $10 million for the 2004-2005 fiscal year. Out of that $10 million, we would get a certain amount based on our fiscal capacity.

In that fiscal year there was about $8.9 million, all they would have had to pay out. They jacked it up to $10 million and they allowed it to get a certain amount out of that pot on a fiscal capacity basis. The following year, in 2005-2006, the last year you will see we increased that to $10.9 billion included in that, and they allowed any incremental amount to be done, half of it on a fiscal capacity basis and half on a per capita basis because of that fixed year. So, because we have a fixed equalization pot for those two years, it did not reflect the appropriate equalization fiscal capacities.

When you have a fixed pot, you cannot equalize everybody up to the normal level. So what we did in that year, you will see the three-something, you will see the two-something. You will start to see, next year, if there is no fixed equalization pot, you will see that amount skyrocket probably up. Possibly, depending on the price of oil, you might see that being $700 million or $800 million next year because we are away from the fixed pot and we are back, whatever the new equalization will bring in. I understand there are meetings in September with the First Ministers and there is going to be something accompany the Budget today, laying out some framework on fiscal imbalance in our country, and we will see over the course of this fall. There will be a series of meetings we will be having in June and later on during the year to establish and get rid of the fixed pot and then you will start to see that this number will start to skyrocket because our fiscal capacity is artificially propped up there now because of a fixed pot. If it was not, our economy generating an increased fiscal capacity, we would be getting less in equalization and getting more under the Atlantic Accord.

Whatever way you cut it, you are either going to get it under equalization or you will get it under the Atlantic Accord 2005. The amount will be the same because we are getting 100 per cent, and under that agreement equalization technically could go down to $1, and every dollar it goes down we will get $1 under Accord 2005; it will go up proportionately. That was the agreement we struck to safeguard and to make sure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - to make sure that, as our fiscal capacity improves due to offshore oil and gas, we will not lose anything on equalization because we will get it offset by a counter-payment made to offset that basis.

That is why you can see there was an anomaly over the three years of a fixed pot. This was an agreement entered, so, if it is left to the fixed pot it does not matter to us, we are going to get it. If equalization goes down, we are going to get it under the Accord anyway. One goes down and the other goes up exactly the same.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The figures that are showing here, equalization went down by roughly $180 million and under the Atlantic Accord 2005 we are getting $219,200,000 which is an indication that we are only benefiting $39 million because of the Atlantic Accord, because we just lost it in equalization.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will answer that.

MR. BARRETT: Okay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will ask him to look at both columns. Look in 2005-2006 under Atlantic Accord 1985, there was nothing. Look in Atlantic Accord in 2006-2007, $109,800,000. Add the two of these together and you will get $328 million. That is an increase, actually, if you want to add up these two.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know that in the Atlantic Accord 1985 it was $109,000,000. What is the different in the Atlantic Accord of 1985 and the Atlantic Accord of 2005?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Under the Atlantic Accord 1985 there was an agreement reached in which a province would be guaranteed to be able to keep a certain amount of its revenues under Accord 1985, based upon its fiscal capacity, depending if it was 75 per cent, or 80 per cent, or 85 per cent of the federal fiscal capacity. That was called Part I, and under Part I of that Accord we could never get less - because our fiscal capacity was below that level, we could never get less than 85 per cent of our previous year's equalization.

Now, there was a Part II to that Accord that started in 1998, that kicked in, and for each year thereafter, after 1998-1999, what you lost under Part I, you got 90 per cent back under Part II the first year, then 80 per cent, then 70 per cent and then 60 per cent, and now it is down to 50 per cent. Next year, under Part I, it will be 40 per cent and 30 per cent. So we got that extended, Accord 1985, to 2011-2012, one year beyond when they said it would expire, and our provision that we built into the Atlantic Accord 2005, we got the protection. What you lose under Accord 1985, we get all those benefits under Accord 2005 to keep us whole, that, regardless of what we lost under equalization in any way on one hand, we were picking it up under the Accords on the other hand.

That is the difference in the two. You look at them collectively, they are both interwoven into calculating our benefit that we would get. We did not take away the protection that we had already. We used that and we piggybacked on that to give us the full protection. They were not going to pay us the Accord 100 per cent and give us the 1985 Accord on top because we would be getting 120 per cent or 130 per cent of it then, or so on, so that is one of the reasons in that, and why you see the variation there.

The biggest thing that is affecting your numbers you look at there is the fixed equalization pot, because it does not truly reflect our fiscal capacity when you fix equalization, and one of the proponents of that - and I will say I am not a believer in a fixed equalization pot. It is wrong. It is contrary to 36.2 of the Constitution. How can you equalize people up to their fiscal abilities when you are giving a fixed pot of money? You have to be able to equalize them up to the difference in their fiscal capacities and then you truly have a true equalization formula. That is something we hope is going to fixed in the equalization formula that is going to serve us over the next year after this year.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to point out to the minister that the total revenues from the federal government, there is a reduction this year of $180 million from the federal government. There is a $180 million reduction in revenues from the federal government, whichever way you look at it, adding on the Atlantic Accord and the 1985 Accord and the 2005 Accord. His figures here indicate that we are down $180 million less than we got last year.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to look up under Provincial Taxation, under Offshore Royalties, there is an increase of $191,600,000 under Offshore Royalties, in that line item. Look under Corporate Income Tax, from $297,000,000 to $288,000,000 roughly.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is coming from offshore royalties, and they are tied in. What we get in our royalties from offshore, we are keeping. While you might claw it back on equalization, we are getting our royalties. While you might claw it back on equalization, we are getting it put on to our Accord agreements and we are getting our revenues besides, so we are not losing anything because of that. We are not losing one cent. We are getting 100 per cent of every penny that an oil company pays in corporate income tax to our Province. We are not losing one penny on equalization because of it, and we are not losing one penny on royalties because of it, because of the protections of these Accords.

You will see the increase go to revenues reflected in our taxation revenue royalties. Over half of those taxes that you see under Corporate is money coming from oil companies too, of which is not going against our clawback on equalization that we would experience. We are getting compensated dollars for that too, because Corporate Income Tax, unlike mining and other areas, is not built into a royalty framework but offshore, the Corporate Income Tax is built in and that is a significant difference to us in our revenues that will go - when you add them all up in two years time, you will see about $1.9 billion coming in in royalties, in Corporate Income Tax, Atlantic Accord 1985, Atlantic Accord 2005. You will see a huge difference that is a significant part of the revenues here in our Province. We would still be hundreds of millions in deficits without having this ability here to be able to keep our royalties.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess the bottom line is that there is $180 million in less revenue from the federal government. We will leave it there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: You should read your own Budget documents.

The Minister of Finance is on record as saying that with the increase in the price of gasoline, the provincial government takes in less revenue because the price of gasoline is going up. In his Estimates here now he is showing that he is going to take in $1.2 million more in taxes on gasoline this year than he did last year. What is his logic in terms of telling the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that every time the gas prices go up, his revenue goes down? There is no indication here that his revenues are going down.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That is not under the Consolidated Fund. I dealt with that in the Finance Estimates, which I appeared in this House here, and I will answer it again.

Last year, the consumption of gasoline went down by 38,000 litres in our Province. Diesel fuel went up by 14,000 litres. Diesel fuel is primarily used by businesses. Most truckers and most businesses use diesel more than the regular recreation driver or people driving back and forth to work who need their vehicle for work. The consumption of gasoline went down. That tells us that the discretionary driver consumed 38,000 less, or the greater portion thereof, which meant that we have a tax that is not an ad valorem.

We have a basic per litre tax, which is an appropriate tax. One that the former government that you were a part of brought in, and I support that. It should be based on a litre and not based on a price. If the price goes up you get more and more taxes. We are getting the same amount of money, whether it is $1.40, assuming you consume the same volume or if it is sixty cents. Last year we had a negative of $4.2 million, based on lower consumption in taxes. Because if it is a consumption tax, for every litre that is consumed, it is sixteen-point-five cents per litre. When your consumption goes down, sixteen-point-five cents on 38,000 litres brings it up to roughly $6 million or $6.1 million, but we were only down $4.2 million because the diesel fuel and so on and others compensated for that. The net difference in revenues we took in was $4.2 million. That is in the Finance Department Estimates there that I dealt with early.

That is why, it is a consumption tax based on litres there. If we had that tax based on price, like was done previously and it goes up, we would be reaping in way more money because it went up, but we are not. We have taken in less money at the gas pumps, less at the tank overall in the Province because the price has gone up. It is believed that when the price is lower, the discretionary driver will use their vehicles more. They might vacation more. They might go on a holiday outside our Province where they would not normally go, or somebody might come in here and use vehicles and all those costs. Therefore, we think it is a deterrent to normal recreation and tourism spending by having a high price and that is why we took in less revenue there because the price is high.

This year we budgeted - the price did drop. It fluctuated significantly at the gas pumps last fall. Earlier it was $148-point-something a litre, now it is in the $1.20 range now. Did it drop in the last day or so? I think it dropped 1.22-point-some. So we are about twenty-six cents below what we were, but we think as it goes down - we should get consumption as it goes up. We might get less consumption. So, these are guesstimates, reasonably accurate. Predicting our revenue in where we are and our Province's performance by departments, especially in economics and stats, PricewaterhouseCoopers said we were more accurate than an average of the five Canadian chartered banks, Stats Canada or the Conference Board of Canada, in predicting what our growth and our numbers are. That is a statement they made, a very reputable company, on where we are.

So, we take pride in being accurate but we cannot control the price of fuel. If it goes up, who knows? If we knew what it was going to be, last year we would not have budgeted thirty-eight. We were told to budget thirty-seven-fourteen and we budgeted thirty-eight. We went above what we were asked to budget on royalties on oil revenue and we still went $1 above. Had it dropped to thirty-five, we would be looking for tens of millions of dollars, basically, on it.

So, it is a very volatile market out there. Nigeria is driving the price. Iraq has an impact on the price. The Chinese economy, the foreign policy, but, in particular, those two trouble spots in the world are having a significant affect on the price and the stability. In the fall, with temperatures up in the Gulf slightly, there is potential for an even higher volatile situation this year. That could impact on the price, who knows. If anybody can tell us that, they would be a great advisor and we could budget exactly what we are going to get in. Last year, it went beyond our expectations. This year we jumped up by $19 a barrel more, we budgeted this year than we did last year. Who knows, if it falls back to fifty, we have trouble.

Terra Nova is the highest significant return to us. If you took the volume of what comes out of Terra Nova and divided it by the amount of money and divide it by the barrels of production, we are probably looking at $14 a barrel. If you did it with Hibernia, about $3.24 a barrel. If you did it with White Rose, about sixty-some cents a barrel because they got to a payout. The one that is on a payout, Terra Nova, was shut down recently. It is getting lower production numbers. We are only going to predict 26 million barrels this year out of the total production. Hibernia is in the seventy-two, seventy-three range. White Rose is going to be up in the thirty-something range. The one that is getting the highest production, the highest return to us, is going to be the lowest in production. They are going to be shut down for - what? - a minimum of ninety days, I think, this year. They have had shutdowns just recently. They have had intermittent production levels occurring.

So, it is a volatile market, even with the production here, not counting the world situation. So, we cannot balance all of them and know what is there. There is not an expert around who could answer that. They could not last year with all the predictions there, nobody was right and it went beyond their expectations. I do not know where it is going to be but I would sooner be slightly off on a conservative side than have money committed to spend that we do not have. That is only being prudent, fiscal, responsible type of action by a government.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few comments on this matter of Consolidated Revenue Services and Consolidated Debt Services and also a couple of questions for the minister.

Of course, public sector debt and the debt of the Province has been a major topic of conversation over the last several years by this government since they have been in office, and also prior to getting into office. We have changed our accounting system considerably, starting in the 2003-2004 fiscal year. We now have the accrual accounting method, sometimes known as the cruel accounting method. But, even with using the new method, and I know the Minister of Finance back in 2003, when he took office, was saying: Look, you know, we have a serious situation on our hands and we are giving ourselves three or four years to get it under control. What he said at the time is what we all said at the time, I guess, it was going to take three or four years to get the cash deficit under control. I guess what I want to say is that not only is the cash deficit under control and gone on the accrual basis, the entire accrual deficit is also gone as a result of last year. We are now looking at a circumstance where, on a fully accrued basis, the Province's annual current account is in a slight surplus budgeted. I think that is a remarkable switch. The minister would call it an achievement. I guess it is an achievement, given the fact that the expectations were that this would take an awful lot longer time to do. Of course, we did not have the situation of the Atlantic Accord on our plate and we did not have the oil prices where they are today. So there has been a remarkable turnaround, I will say that, a remarkable turnaround for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and a remarkable change in our public sector debt outlook as a result of the oil prices and the Atlantic Accord.

Now, I know the minister said that nobody can predict what the price of oil is going to be tomorrow or the next day. If we all had that crystal ball, I suppose, we would not be here; we would be making money on the futures market or something like that. The realistic prospects of world oil prices seem to be that we are going to be at the rate that we are at now for a little while and maybe never go down again, I don't know. We are not going to see $25 oil again, I say to the minister. I guess I am probably prepared to bet a fair bid on that.

We have a really positive situation compared to some time ago, compared to two years ago to three years ago with the public sector debt. What we have - and I look at the public sector debt in three parts - we have what is shown here on Appendix III, Page 252 of the Estimates that the minister referred to. He did not refer to this page, but we have three sections set out there. We have, first of all, the public sector debt, the direct provincial debt, running at about $7 billion. Against that, we have sinking funds, which is like savings, which are required to be put aside to retire that debt as it becomes due, or as particular issues become due, and the sinking funds are about one point three, not quite one point four, but if you subtract one from the other, in other words, the money that we have to set aside to pay against the direct debt, we have about $5.4 billion in net public sector direct debt.

This is just a direct debt. This is money that is borrowed and has been borrowed to pay for programs such as roads and schools and bridges, to pay and look after the obligations to cover deficits of past years, and all of that. This is what I call the mortgage. This is the money that you borrow to do public works, that you have to pay off over time.

That number, by the way, the provincial direct debt minus the sinking funds, hasn't really changed in the last five years. For example, in 2002, that was $6.7 billion with $1.26 billion in sinking funds, netting out at around $5.5 billion. Currently, it is $7 billion less $1.4 billion, netting out at $5.6 billion. That is over a five-year period, and that really hasn't changed very much. In fact, it hasn't grown comparative to the revenues of the Province over the last five years. The revenues of the Province have grown considerably, so therefore we are in a situation similar to somebody who has a mortgage on their house. If you have a mortgage on your house of $50,000 and you are making $35,000 a year, then you have to look after a considerable debt on your house, but if your income goes up to $60,000 a year and you still have a $50,000 mortgage, you are better off. Well, that is way the Province is when it comes to this public sector direct debt running at around $5.5 billion, $5.6 billion, an important obligation but not the end of the world. We have been living with it for quite some time and eventually, maybe, if we get like Alberta, and have the kind of surpluses that they have, we try and wipe it out.

There is also guaranteed debt. Crown Corporation and Other Debt it is called, and that amounts to $2.6 billion. A good half of that is Hydro debt. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has obligations of $1.4 billion which are guaranteed by the government, Mr. Chairman, but we are not paying them off, not the taxpayer. The rate payers are, the industrial users, the consumers. Newfoundland Power, when it pays for its electricity, they are paying and contributing to that debt, and that debt is there as part of the debt to equity ratio of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro; not, I would say, a burden to the Province. Maybe Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would like to have a better ratio, but the government is not going to be putting in money to pay that down or pay it out of general revenues. That is something that is Hydro's business with the government, of course, overseeing it, ultimately guaranteeing the debt, but, in fact, making money on that debt because Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is expected to pay the Treasury a fee for guaranteeing that debt. Now, the minister can tell us what it is. Is it 1 per cent? I am not sure what it is. One per cent - I see the minister nodding - so the government takes in $140 million -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) million.

MR. HARRIS: Forty million?

MR. SULLIVAN: Fourteen million.

MR. HARRIS: Fourteen.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Point one per cent, $14 million, so the government actually makes money on that debt, $14 million, as a fee for guaranteeing the debt.

Obviously, the bond holders, the Dominion Bond Rating agency, Moody's, and all of these fellows who decide how creditworthy the Province is, they take it into account because that is part of the overall obligation to the Province, but I am sure they do not take it very seriously. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is a very healthy organization and has been turning a revenue over expenditure for many years in the past and, in fact, have been paying dividends to the government.

Then we have other debt. Student loans are in there. Now, student loans are being paid by the students. Government is making money on that, too. Obviously, we borrow that money and we loan it to students, and students bay it back. Obviously, it is not 100 per cent recovery and there are some losses, but it is generally awash when you collect the interest. It is not something that we are going to have reach into the Treasury and write a cheque for $200 million to pay off. It is there, government guaranteed.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is a default rate that (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: There is a default rate, yes, that is there, but when you look at the guaranteed debt, there are some of those - there is also municipal debt. Maybe one of the questions I do have for the minister is: To what extent does the municipal guaranteed debt ever become a burden on the Province? I know from time to time the government does a deal with certain municipalities to reduce their debt, but we see that the amount of municipal debt seems to be pretty much a constant over the last five years, in the neighbourhood of $600 million. Some years it is $675 million, $700 million, $640 million. It is now $650 million, but between $600 million and $660 million of municipal debt. That is debt that the government does guarantee because the people who are loaning that money look to a provincial guarantee to get a good rate for our municipalities.

That is debt all right, but, again, it is not debt that the Province directly pays out of its revenues unless there is a default. Maybe there is a default on some municipal debt. Maybe every now and then, I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs, from time to time, is requested to ease the debt burden of certain municipalities. Maybe there is some obligation there that the Province actually meets.

The housing debt, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, $36 million; again, something that the Province is not writing down or writing off. That is being either carried by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation or paid for out of its revenues. That is there as an obligation of the government, no question about it, but it is what is called a contingent liability. The real debt, the money we have to pay back, $5.5 billion.

Then there is another number, a big number. It used to be an invisible number but it is not invisible anymore. That is the unfunded pension liability. The unfunded pension liability is a bigger number and an important number because obviously it is something that does have to be paid back out of the Treasury when the time comes. That time is not coming tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, or the next day but it is coming over the next twenty or thirty years, and depending on the nature of the plan, in some cases coming sooner.

That is covered now on our books as unfunded pension liability. It shows up in another table, not this particular one. It shows up in Statement II, Page V of the Estimates as part of the Province's consolidated net debt and debt summary. What we have seen there is a major change in the last twelve months as a result of that. The government has chosen to take the $1.9 billion and pay it against its unfunded liability, the teachers' pension.

I guess the question I have for the minister in regard to that is: Looking at Statement II here, what we have is a paydown, according to government statements, fo $1.9 billion against the unfunded pension liability. We see that shown here as part of the debt transactions at the end of the period here, showing that $2.109 billion are covering for what is called special payments against the pension plan, $2.109 billion of special payments against the pension plan. I take it that would be the $1.9 billion that the minister announced with respect to the teachers' pension plan and, in addition, the special payments that have been agreed upon with NAPE and CUPE back in 2002, as well as other special payments against the pension fund that government is putting in. What we see here is a decrease in the debt from the beginning of the year of $12 billion, down to $10 billion at the end of 2005-2006, and a proposal for the coming year of another $800 million.

I guess the two questions I have are: If we have here an unfunded pension liability listed as $3.419 billion, why is it that after we pay down the $1.9 billion or the $2.1 billion that we are still showing an unfunded pension liability of $2.8 billion? That is a question, I think, that deserves an answer. I have a feeling, I have a funny feeling, it has something to do with the accrual accounting system, it has something to do with the $2 billion we got from Ottawa. Even though we got it and even though we spent it, we do not record it as having been gotten because this is not the year yet.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) school of thought, never ask a question that you already know the answer to.

MR. HARRIS: Well that is what I think the answer is. It is a bit of a confusing answer but we are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Okay, I will let the minister answer and then I will comment further.

You know, we should be seeing an equal amount of reduction in our unfunded pension liability. If we start off with $3.4 billion and we are paying down $2.1 billion, why aren't we down to $1.2 billion in unfunded pension liability instead of still at $2.876 million in the 2006-2007 year?

Again, while the minister is on his feet perhaps he can also deal with the issue that shows again in Roman numeral v. This is Statement II of the Estimates. There is an $800 million proposed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Roman numeral v, small v, Statement II at the beginning of the Estimates. These are the numbers that I am referring to. It is the statement, Consolidated Change in Net Debt, Net Debt Summary and Debt Transactions. The transactions I am looking at, I guess, are the Net Debt Summary in the middle, which shows the Unfunded Pension Liability and Retirement Benefits Liability, and the bottom part showing the transactions of $2.109 billion for the 2005-2006 fiscal year and an $800 million proposed special payment, I guess that is, for the upcoming fiscal year. I do see that going against the $800 million to be proposed. A special payment in the pension for the coming fiscal year is an $800 million borrowing. I can see that would not change the bottom line any. If you put $800 million into the unfunded pension liability which presumably goes into the pension fund and you borrow the $800 million to do it, it is not going to change your bottom line. Your bottom line is going to stay the same.

Is that the minister's plan? Is the minister saying, we want to get that unfunded pension liability down and we are going to do it by borrowing money. We are going to borrow money to do that and I guess there will be some questions coming from that. I just want to understand, first of all, how it is that the unfunded pension liability is not reduced by $2.1 billion despite the special payments made in 2005-2006.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There were several questions posed. I will start off by saying where we ended up. If we borrow $800 million, we incur a debt of $800 million. We put it in the pension fund, if we have $800 million more, so there are no extra debt, yes. By the same token, we have $2 billion in cash and we take that $2 billion we have in cash, we get rid of it and it is gone. If you put it into a pension fund, it is gone in cash, it is gone into the pension fund, and our debt does not change. That is accrual basis of accounting. Our debt does not change.

Most people report that our debt has changed by $2 billion. Our net debt does not change by putting $2 billion into a pension fund. What has happened - I will use an example. When you look at all basis, accrual and everything together - I will just throw out an example. Let's say we had $14 billion in debt out there - we will forget Sinking Funds in Ottawa, we will just use a number for comparison purposes - if you had $14 billion in debt and you have $2 billion in cash, your net debt is $12 billion. If you put $2 billion on your pension fund, your net debt is only $12 billion now and you have no cash, still a $12 billion debt.

I will start by making this statement: While we put forth a balanced budget this year, if we come in exactly with zero, with a balanced budget, we will have to borrow $219 million for Atlantic Accord 2005. We will drive up our debenture debt this year by $219 million because we have taken $2 billion. We have already factored $322 million. We factored two years into the one. We took $322.2 million we factored in the first two budgets, and in this budget we factored $219 million. When you add these up, you have $541 million that is counted so far into our fiscal framework, in the last two fiscal years, out of that $2 billion. That leaves $1.45 billion.

In other words, while the money is gone technically, if you said it is gone, we have to allow that as revenue over the next number of years until we use it. Even though we have a balanced budget, and if we keep a balanced budget over the next four or five years, we are going to have to go to the market and borrow $1.45 billion, because it is coming as revenue that we do not have and we will drive up our debenture debt by almost $1.5 billion in the next four or five hears.

If we have a surplus this year of $219 million, we will not have to borrow for the Accord money that we are factoring in that we spent. Under the basis of accounting that money was given over an eight-year deal to keep us whole on equalization. So far we will have used $541 million to keep us whole. Next year it is going to jump a lot because with no fixed equalization, I imagine next year we might need $500 million to keep us whole. With a balanced budget next year we could still have to borrow $500 million. Until that money is utilized, the $2 billion is gone, then if we have to draw down for the Accord the federal government has to pay us that money, we do not have to borrow it then because we have taken the money and used it.

Our net debt has not changed. In spite of what anyone indicates out there, our net debt has not changed. You are taking $2 billion out of one pocket and you are putting it into the other pocket. That is why accrual based is the only true method of accounting. It is the only appropriate method, because you might owe it on pension funds if you owe it on unfunded liability. I will get to unfunded liability. Even though $1.953 billion went down on the unfunded liability of the pension plan, that unfunded liability was $4.5 billion starting the year. There was $4.5 billion starting, not $3.some. When you took the $4.5 billion and put $1.9 towards it, that would bring it down to roughly $2.6. The variations would go when it goes in on a part of the year.

Next year, we are projecting to borrow - that is where the $800 million comes in. We are indicating that what we do not have in cash on hand - we would like to fix all of the pension plans. We did it with one. We are hoping to do it with the rest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is a stage we will be going through hopefully over the next while. I look forward to sitting down with the representatives, the stakeholders of those pension plans, to do that and to enter into an agreement. We are prepared, if we do not have the cash - if we have the cash and have a better year than we expect, we might not have to borrow as much - but if we do not have it we will go to the market. We budgeted to go to the market to borrow $800 million more, and we factored that into our borrowing arrangement. You cannot borrow it all the one time. You are not going to go to the market one time. The market can sustain. If we go to the market with probably a $250 or $300 million issue, and so many months later we will go to the market. We factored on borrowing that and factored those costs of borrowing into our expenses under the Consolidated Fund Service. We are prepared to borrow to fix it and bring it up to a sustainable level.

With the Teachers' Pension Plan we brought it up to a sustainable level. In other words, the number I asked when I wanted to put something together for Cabinet presentation - give me a number based on actuarials that will sustain that plan, that we will not see any erosion based on what the actuarial number projects it to perform. The number they project it to be is 7.5 per cent. Based on 7.5 per cent, that pension plan should not erode. If we get more than the 7.5 per cent return, it could become fully funded all on its own performance. We have been getting a performance of almost 11 per cent, almost 11 per cent of performance on it, so anything above 7.5 per cent will reduce that unfunded liability in the TPP and maybe make it fully funded, who knows, based on - if anyone can tell me what the returns are going to be, but they have been pretty strong. This year they have been strong. They have been in the vicinity this year, on an annualized basis so far, probably in the high teens, roughly would it perform this year. Some months they performed three point three. One month it was a negative in October, I think. The other seven months around that, before, I know, up to now, have been positive returns. So, we are getting a good return.

When you have a fund since 1981 that is getting you a return of - it was 10.74 per cent up to last year and it has performed real well this year, pushing 11 per cent, that is a pretty decent return over a twenty-five year period. That means the investors, the representatives who sit on that representing the stakeholders, the public sector unions out there and people from the department, management, they deal with this and they are knowledgeable on this and they do a good job performing on that basis. So, we are interested in fixing that. If we have to borrow, we will do it.

Right now, we have discontinued payments under the Teachers' Pension Plan to $76 million because we put money in to fix that. The other plan, we budgeted to put in. We had to budget to carry in our payments now because there is nothing finalized yet, (inaudible). We gave a contribution of $60 million a year, the previous government committed, forever, and at $60 million a year forever, the Public Service Pension Plan will go down and down and down and down and get more unfunded. It will get even a higher degree of unfunded liability based on $60 million. It is not enough. It is like in a deep hole and you cannot get enough clay under your feet to get out it; it keeps growing. So, in that, the performance, while it is being good now, it has it up in the fifty range, still, when you tell somebody that you have 25,000 people out there, recipients of a plan, some are getting a pension and some are working, that they have a plan that has only half enough money to pay them, if you stop the clock today, that is a fairly serious problem. While not near the seriousness of some of the other plans, it is still a serious problem and you want to have money there to assure them. By shifting this into the plans, it is out of the hands of government. No one can touch it. No one can raid it. It is there for the benefit of people who contributed and the people who are going to be the recipients of that plan in the future, and it is in an area, then, that government cannot shortchange that plan or change things in the future to meet other cash requirements they need here in government. At least it is a commitment, and it is a commitment to a long-term fiscal responsibility to ensure that we are going to improve the financial state of our Province, because we are responsible. Legislatively, we are responsible.

Now, with reference to debt out there, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I think, has a debt to equity ratio of what, 82 per cent or 83 per cent?

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe a little higher.

MR. SULLIVAN: A little higher.

Going out on the market, to be able to borrow on their own initiative, it would be appropriate, you want to get down to probably a 60 per cent level, in that range, I would say, the ballpark there.

Now, we have decided that we have been raiding Hydro long enough. We have taken $50-some million a year, taken out in dividends, the former government has been doing. Last year we did, and we needed it, and we said we have to stop. A whole new outlook for Hydro. We have forgone, this year, $54 million we are not going to take, and next year $50-some million.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not we, them.

MR. SULLIVAN: The government. Well, whatever. The we's and you's, we will leave that out.

What we have said is, you can keep your dividends. We are going to keep your dividends. We will improve the equity of that corporation. We will bring it down to the seventies and into the sixties, hopefully, and down to a level that they can stand alone. They pay us a fee because their rating is depending on us. While they might have an ability, their debt to equity ratio is not that of a company that can competitively do business out on the market on that basis. So, our goal is to have them there, that the debt means nothing to us technically then. It has less risk factor and it is there. That is the goal of doing that, and the Hydro debt is there.

Municipal debt is one thing, and you said something - maybe I mistook it wrong - but municipalities out there, the debt we are carrying on municipalities, municipalities now go out and get their own financing and what we are factoring in is the portion of debt that we are responsible for.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is debt that we have out there, that we are responsible for. The Municipal Financing Corporation has debt. That is our debt. We lifted that from municipalities, some under debt relief. When you finance something fifty-fifty, we take our portion of the debt. They go to a bank based on their credit and they get their money. If they cannot it, they do not borrow. If they can get it on their credit, they deal with the bank on it. We are responsible for our portion of that funding on that. It is a burden to us, yes. We have to pay it, number one; and, number two, we have to pay the interest charges on it every year, on $600-some million worth of debt. It is a cost to us, as a Province. It is a debt that we have to acknowledge, the same as we have a certain responsibility out there for unfunded pension liabilities.

I think I probably covered the points you asked. Hopefully that made it a bit clearer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That answered some of the questions, particularly on the municipal financing aspect, because I had assumed that this was government-guaranteed debt, but what the minister seems to be saying is that is Municipal Financing Corporation debt, that we borrow and contribute to a municipal project for a particular municipality. They borrow matching funds, or something of that nature, and we actually pay off the $600 million as part of our public sector debt, along with interest payments over time. That certainly clarifies that for me.

On the change in net debt, I think there is a significant difference, I suppose, in $2 billion that is either sitting in the bank earning interest - I think the minister initially budgeted $44 million in interest on that before the money was actually spent. The money is now, presumably, in that fund earning a rate of return, as the minister had indicated that there would be a rate of return in the Teachers' Pension Fund. Is that money in there now earning part of that? Is that now part of the Teachers' Pension Fund, put in that fund, or is that still waiting to be transferred as a result of the details of the arrangement with the teachers?

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

No, we moved in, I think, in the first week of March, $1.5 billion. We put $453 million in, I think, on March 29 or March 30, before the end of March. That is in, earning money there. We also had a cash surplus in our operation because the year was a lot better than we anticipated in revenues, so we still have a cash surplus in government. Every day it goes up and down on your cash flows, as you try to manage them. There are days you have - depending if you make payouts to boards early in the month, your cash flows are lower and they are higher, so that is part of management. We do have a cash flow besides that money we put in also.

The money is in, yes. The money is in; it is earning money. It had a good month in March. I think the March performance - we did not get the final numbers yet, but I look on the markets overall and I think March was a fair performing month over all, not quite January, what that was. I think 38 per cent or 40 per cent annualized, I guess, the month of January was. It is in. It is earning money, yes. It has been there now since early March. That was a part of our agreement we inked with the NLTA to have that in by a specific time, so much early in March, and the balance before the end of March.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That obviously will make a big significant difference to the Teachers' Pension Fund, not only this year but in years to come.

What seems to have happened, Mr. Chairman, when the governments across the country - and this is not something unique to Newfoundland and Labrador, but governments across the country - during the 1990s were required to recognize the unfunded pension liability as a problem that governments were required to face. The first I heard of it was back in 1989 or 1990 when Clyde Wells was Premier and started talking about unfunded pension liability as a big train that was coming down the tracks that we had to be careful of.

I know other governments, Ontario for example - and this is an interesting example because it shows what happens over time. Back in 1993-1994, with the NDP Government in Ontario, part of the problem being faced with big deficits and obligations was the fact that they had, by comparison to Newfoundland's problem because of the size, of course, of Ontario and its public service and its obligations, a huge problem with unfunded pension liability. What they did back in 1993 or 1994 is, they signed an agreement or they entered into a plan that would see the Ontario government pension fund become fixed after, I think it was a thirty-five year plan, so many of hundred of millions of dollars to be put in every year to fix the plan based on actuarial evidence over a period of thirty-five years. Well, guess what, Mr. Chairman? In the space of eight years, because of the fiscal performance and the stock market performance and the investment performance in the 1990s, that fund became fully funded by the end of the 1990s, in eight years instead of thirty-five.

Because of the kind of returns that the minister is referring to in the first two or three months of this year, for example, annualized, running 20 per cent, 30 per cent and 38 per cent return on the investment if it lasts throughout the year, that is obviously a remarkable achievement. As the minister has indicated in the past, over time, given the highs and lows and everything else, the minister, I think, is quoted, that since its inception the pension funds earn around 11 per cent of thereabouts. I think we can see that this lump sum may turn out to be a situation where in two or three years there is actually a surplus in the teachers' pension fund.

When you look to the other plan, the Public Service Pension Plan that the minister now says is 48 per cent-50 per cent funded, that $60 million a year that was supposed to, over time, straighten out that fund wasn't exactly adequate, because they didn't actually implement what was put on the table back in 2002. There was another piece of that. There was the $60 million per year that was supposed to be put in every year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forever.

MR. HARRIS: Forever, the minister says. I don't know if forever was the term, but I think it was thirty-five or forty years.

There was also supposed to be added to that another piece which was supposed to increase that by the percentage increase in the total salary budget for the government. If the salary budget for the government went up by 5 per cent overall, then that $60 million was supposed to be increased by 5 per cent.

The actuarial evidence in the discussions, in a deal that was made with NAPE and CUPE, the then Liberal government was such that, that piece was supposed to be part of the deal, but it ended up at the end being left out. If it had been put in, then that fund would not necessarily be fully funded now. It may still be at 48 per cent or maybe at 52 per cent or 54 per cent. Over time, the actuarial evidence was, that fund would be fairly secure and that it would be looked after. If we got higher returns for a period of time, in the next five or ten years, in fact that would be fully funded within a short period of time.

These things have their ups and downs, I say to the minister. The $1.9 billion that the government decided to inject in one lump sum this year may, ironically, have the effect of putting the - if they earn 40 per cent this year, for example, although they missed the first three months, but if they earned 40 per cent in one year on the full amount of fully funded pension funds they would actually be in a surplus position instead of unfunded pension liability.

May I ask the minister: If we had a situation where the teachers' pension fund, instead of being in an unfunded pension liability of $2 billion, was actually in a surplus of $500 million, what would that do to the government's numbers in terms of its overall provincial government debt? Would that be regarded then by the government as, in fact, a reduction of the overall public debt, if the teachers' pension did so well that they got an extra $500 million because of the 40 per cent return on investment in any one year?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just venture my opinion. I am not an accountant, but I will give you my opinion on it. My opinion is that it would not reflect on the bottom line of our Province as a surplus, for this reason. Any accountants, the comptroller general or AD, might have a different view, but I feel here is the reason why.

We are responsible for liabilities in the plan to ensure that it is fully funded. When you get a surplus - and any money goes in to that plan is the property of the stakeholders and the people in that plan. Once you have met your fully funded commitments, that is their money. How can we count that then as a surplus on the Province's books? We have met our commitment now, therefore we are using their money and their return. That is owed to us! It does not work. That is not our money. We cannot reflect that back on the books of our Province, but a liability we owe to meet a commitment, we can. According to legislation we are responsible for unfunded liabilities, therefore that has to be booked as a liability because it is our responsibility. As a surplus, we do not have an unfunded liability. That would be my opinion. Greater authorities than that might want to give an opinion.

I just want to answer another point you made. I did not want to leave with the impression, under the Municipal Financing Corporation, just to make sure - I know, before a lot of money was funded through the Municipal Financing Corporation. Municipalities did not have the ability to pay. I was a mayor of a town that met their commitment. Anytime government financed projects in rural Newfoundland and Labrador they financed them and went through the Municipal Financing Corporation. You might put a million dollar water and sewer in a community. The community that I live in has a full water system and it has a partial sewer system, so the town only met their payments to the Municipal Financing Corporation. I know my colleague will probably agree with me, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that there are certain debts out there where municipalities have not got that financial freedom to move on their own initiative, and still have monies with the financial, that are meeting certain payments, and the Province is meeting payments too. There is probably money coming from municipalities on that. Anybody who served on towns probably would be able to answer that. I have not been mayor of a town since 1981, so that is a while back.

As to most financing now, what government did - and the former government did and I compliment that process - what they decided to do, they said: why are municipalities out there and we are paying so much of the cost? Let's take the debt from those municipalities. I am not sure what we put into it, $40 million or $50 million overall, I guess, went into debt relief over a number of years. In the $40 million to $50 million range went it. They said: if a town has $700,000 of debt and you can only support $250,000, what is the sense of us paying what we can? Let's give you a level of debt that you can carry. If that is $250,000, we will take the $450,000 and we are responsible for this now. You have your level at $250,000 which you can carry.

Some of them went to banks, went to financial institutions, and the banks said, we can allow you to have this debt, and they will do their eight or six or ten year payments on that debt and cover that. That has gone on and they have sort of separated themselves from government with their own borrowing entity and government picked up its share on go-forward basis. I am sure there is debt out there, a significant amount, that is being collected by the old method too. I would not know the specific breakdowns. I am sure Municipal Affairs would have it, but I did not want to leave the impression that there is none there. That is just my knowledge of the situation.

I did just want to mention something on what we did, and I made reference to it. The member made reference there too about getting over 100 per cent funded. I said earlier, give me a number for the pension plans that will get them to a level where they can sustain themselves. Now that level, depending on the plan, was in the 85 per cent to 90 per cent range. The level that we would fund it to make it sustainable, at 7.5 per cent return, would put them up, depending on the plan, anywhere from the 85 per cent to 91 per cent range. That is the range to get fully funded. I should say, the range to be sustainable on a 7.5 per cent return. If the return is 8 per cent, 9 per cent or 10 per cent, that 85 per cent or 86 per cent or 87 per cent could grow to 89 per cent and 91 per cent. In four or five years, depending on performance, it might be up 100 per cent and you might hit an upward swing for four or five years. It could be 100 per cent, 102 per cent or 103 per cent. You might hit a dip in the market some year and it might take several months or a year of losses. It is not uncommon in certain investments in the market to have a loss for a year or two running. They may happen, but unlikely. You could dip to ninety-some and you have to build it up again.

Getting to a level of funding that can be sustained out there is one of the things I have asked. Give me a level of sustainability based on the actuarial projections of 7.5 per cent. That is the number we have been shooting at as a target. We could say give us a number that is going to fully fund them, that would be $4.5 billion. We did not have $4.5 billion. We did have $2 billion and we had some cash flows and we are prepared to borrow a certain amount and so on, to deal with the problem and deal with the respective unions involved. We were open to having discussion which I did last November and December with every single one of the major ones involved in the process, and just put it out to them in general terms there. We have had some more specific discussion, of course, and reached an agreement with one. Certainly, we are open over the next period of time and we have factored that into our framework. That is just where we are, and we very well could be at that level.

That is a good question. What happens if it is 105 per cent and then it dips to 98 per cent? Do we then go back and assume responsibility for the other two, you know, up and down? There has to be a way to address that on a go-forward basis, no doubt about it. If it comes, I am sure, to that funded capacity, that will be a time for discussion of that specific topic as we start to approach those levels.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to say, this, indeed, is a red letter day in the House of Assembly, when the Member for Ferryland and the Minister of Finance has said the words, I don't know. I have been here since 1990. I have been here a little bit longer than the member. The member came in 1992. I have never yet, until today, heard the member say I don't know. That is a red letter day for the House of Assembly, and I have to commend the member for his honesty and for his forthrightness, because every other time the member is asked a question or every time he speaks, he knows, and not only does he know, he knows, he knows, he knows, and he wants everyone else to know that he knows at the same time. Today he said, I don't know. I have to say it is a red letter day in the House.

MR. SULLIVAN: Everything else has to be the truth.

MR. HARRIS: Well, I do not know if everything else is true, but it is the first time I have ever heard him suggest that he was uncertain about something that is important to the Province.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I like his opinion -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: It was my intention, Mr. Chairman, just to make light of it. I was not trying to start a bitter debate between the Member for Bay of Islands and the Member for Ferryland about something else.

The point is, that this is a question. If the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is expected to show on its books the unfunded liability of a pension fund, then surely a surplus in that pension fund, especially if it is of great significance, ought to equally be reflected in the government's fiscal position.

We have had situations in the past - and I know the accountants do not like this - where the Memorial University Pension Fund was in surplus. I do not know if the minister remembers this, but the Memorial University Pension Fund was in surplus for a period of time and the University Administration, the Board of Regents, decided they were going to have a pension contribution holiday for themselves. They took money from the professors and the contributors to the MUN pension plan, but they had a pension contribution holiday for themselves. They did not contribute to that plan for a period of time, as a result of the MUN pension plan being in surplus. I guess if there is a shortfall, they are expected to contribute that as well.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is $6.8 million in this Budget to cover some of that.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, but there was a time in the past when the Board of Regents declared a pension holiday in terms of contribution and used that money for other things. So there is a relationship, I say to the minister, between the over funded or the surplus circumstances and the Province's debt.

I do accept this though, Mr. Chairman, and it may not be something - it may only be theoretical because I do not think we are going to get to the situation where we have a $500 million pension surplus in the teachers' pension fund. I would be very surprised if that were to happen. But, if it did happen, and if the Province needed the money for some other reason, than I am sure ways could be found to ensure that the liabilities of the Province were being met, the liabilities of the fund were bing met and that surplus was somehow whittled away to the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that some way could be found to do that through legislation or otherwise. So, I do not really agree with the minister's answer, but in the short term, I guess if it is 102 per cent one year and 84 per cent the next, or 97 the next, it is not really going to make much difference in the long run.

I think the point of the matter is though, that the pension - because of our fiscal position, because of the deals that were made with CUPE and NAPE in 2002 and the ability of the government and the ability of the Province to look after this pension liability, we are going to be in a situation - I guess this is my further point on the debt. The debt, because of these payments, because of the oil surpluses, because of the plans to put the public service pension - I am assuming that the $800 million is for the public service pension plan, is it? Maybe the minister can explain. There were several plans that might be affected.

MR. SULLIVAN: There are only two other plans, really. There is a new one formed with Justice, but uniformed services and the Public Service are the ones. The MHA will deal with that. That is under (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Yes, that is not going to be fully funded. We do have to deal with the Uniformed Services Pension Plan and the Public Service Pension Plan. Again, there are plans in place and, as the government as said as well, I think this is also interesting to know. By making this $1.9 million contribution, the government is also saving, on an annual basis, the $75 million or $76 million contribution that had been committed in the past. That improves the Province's current account over - is it $70 million that was -

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but that was - borrowing $76 million to put $76 million in was only putting it from one pocket to another to change on that debt. The same as with that 800, right?

MR. HARRIS: So, it is the cash coming from one pocket to another. On an ongoing basis though that is still a revenue number. You still have to generate the $76 million to put into the other pocket.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Assuming the requirement is greater than the cost of borrowing, it would improve your position.

MR. HARRIS: That is something that could improve the position over time, as long as we continue to have budget surpluses or balanced budgets.

The effect of all of these transactions, and the effect of all the to and fro of cash though, is that the actual debt of the Province, after all is said and done, is $10 billion. The debt at the end of the period, according to the bottom line on page 5, is $10 billion. Although, when you add, on top of that, the other financial liabilities, less financial assets, I think we are specifically talking there about the government's guarantees for Hydro and other borrowings.

If you look at the middle part of that, Mr. Chairman, $11.9 billion net debt, that includes the guarantee on Hydro and other debt. The actual cash debt, including the unfunded pension liability, the retirements, the debt, the new borrowing, and all of those numbers total $10 billion, so the actual -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: My understanding would be that it would be $10 billion and, on top of that, there is $1.8 billion which is government-guaranteed debt, again mostly Hydro. Is that correct, I ask the minister?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We do have debt out there. For example, there are two other debts we have to meet. One, we have an interest-free loan from the federal government of $378 million. I will explain it there. I will not have to repeat it, Mr. Chairman; I will just wait a second.

We got an interest-free loan from the federal government last year of $378 million. Anybody whose equalization dropped a certain degree in 2002-2003, below a certain level, they were given, to give them a cushion against the average of the previous four years' equalization, if you dropped in one year, to prevent any dramatic fluctuation in your revenues in one year, the federal government gave loans to provinces based on what it was from what it dropped to, to the average of the previous four years. So we got a loan from the federal government, $378 million, last year.

While that is not a debt out in the market, we have to pay that back over ten years. We are paying them $37.8 million a year over the next ten years. We are paying that back. That is a debt we have to pay, and it is coming out of our revenues. We also have a debt of $1.45 billion that we have to feed into our revenue from our Atlantic Accord. We have used $541 million. We have the balance, which is about $1.45 billion. We have to factor that revenue in every year, even though it is not there. So, over the next three of four years we are going to be recording revenue of $1.45 billion that is not there, which means that we have to borrow. If we have a balanced budget, we have to borrow that $1.45 billion. If we can run a surplus in the next four or five years of $1.45 billion - obviously, we have it in cash to do it, we do not have to borrow it, but unless we run a surplus this year of $219 million, we are going to have to borrow $219 million even though we have a balanced budget. The next four or five years over the Accord, we are going to have to borrow $1.45 billion even if we show balanced budgets for the four or five hears. So, if we do not create any surplus only a balance budget, that is money we have to feed in. That is going to increase our debt by that amount unless we have surpluses over and above, equivalent to the amount we factored in for Accord 2005, if you see that point. Because, under the accounting procedure we have it as revenue, we put it to work for us, but we cannot count it so we have to count $219 of it this year, that is really (inaudible) money, because it is gone and it is factored in, but that is the accounting procedure; we have to count it over this year.

That is a liability, and that is where the difference - people are not following in what is their net public debt. Really, yes, what is out there in debentures is one thing. You might get a loan from the federal government of $400 million and it is not a debenture debt but you have to pay them back, so they are loans that are not booked as debenture debt but they are still bills that we have to pay. That, plus the Accord, is almost $2 billion and that is where the difference - people look at $10 billion and look at $12 billion in debt; we have to pay that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a very interesting discussion, of course, with all the figures and facts and billions of dollars here and there, but I guess what I have been looking for, Mr. Chairman, given all this, given the fact that the minister had $2 billion he got from the feds, and he put $1.9 billion against the pension fund, I am looking for some light at the end of the tunnel, Mr. Chairman, and all I am hearing from the minister is that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. The tunnel is just as dark as it was before he got the $2 billion. That cannot be, Mr. Chairman. That cannot be. We have to be better off.

I hear the minister talk about the oil revenues and, yes, there is a bit of a blip in the Terra Nova revenues because what we see happening, of course, is that they have not been able to produce oil at the rate for that facility. I mean, if that facility is working properly I think it can produce 150,000 barrels a day. They have not been producing that. In fact, they have been producing less than 100,000 a day, but I guess when they fix it - and they are going to take it off to Rotterdam to fix it and bring it back again - when they fix it and get it going again, I guess they will be up in the neighbourhood of 120,000 or 130,000 or 140,000 or 150,000 barrels a day. The revenues on that - the minister says he is expecting 26 million barrels this year. At $72 a barrel, I know the minister used $14 as the royalties on that. I think the royalties are a little higher than that at the present moment. My source, and I will tell you what my source is, now, because it is probably - I don't know if it is as good as the minister's, because he is collecting the money, but it is not bad. It is not a bad source, and it comes from one of the partners in Terra Nova, Husky Oil, because they report quarterly to their shareholders and they give their per barrel costs, their per barrel revenues, and their per barrel royalties for their different projects, whether it be Western Canada oil sands -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) besides royalties.

MR. HARRIS: There is other revenue besides royalties, oh yes. But royalties alone: according to Husky Oil, in the last quarter of 2005 their royalties on the Terra Nova project - and they are not talking about taxes, just royalties - royalties alone per barrel for Terra Nova were in excess of fifteen dollars a barrel, in the last quarter of 2005. That was an average price, I think, of around sixty-two dollars a barrel for oil. That was up considerably over the year before. The first quarter of 2004 it was around two dollars and forty cents a barrel, so obviously we hit payback in 2005.

The most recent quarterly report, which was only out last week, says that: Per barrel, royalties for Terra Nova oil, selling at around seventy-two dollars a barrel, was in fact eighteen dollars, in excess of eighteen, eighteen dollars and sixty-something cents, I believe, or eighteen dollars and forty cents, which is a lot of money. I think anyone will agree.

I have been following that for the last three or four years, and I remember when the price of oil was forty-seven dollars a barrel average for the quarter. Husky Oil and every other partner in Terra Nova was paying royalties of forty-seven cents a barrel. So, we have gone from forty-seven cents a barrel for the Terra Nova project two or three years ago to now receiving in excess of eighteen dollars a barrel of revenue at seventy-two dollar oil.

What I see, Mr. Chairman, is considerable light at the end of the tunnel, considerable improvement in the Province's fiscal position, considerable improvement in the management of the Province's debt, and, in fact, opportunities for greater programs for people as a result of this prosperity.

As I pointed out before, if you compare this budget, these estimates this year, what is projected to be spent this year compared to what was projected to be spent last year, you will see an increase of $450 million which is a very considerable amount of money. I am very delighted to see that, I am very pleased to see that, and I am sure every Newfoundlander and Labradorian is delighted to see that the revenues this government is now receiving are considerable.

I look forward to Terra Nova coming back from Rotterdam and being back on its position in the offshore and producing significant amounts of oil, because that is going to be a real revenue generator for the Province. My guess is at eighteen dollars a barrel for 150,000 barrels of oil, we are looking at close to $3 or $4 million a day. Even with his 26 million barrels, Mr. Chairman, we would be looking at $350-plus million in royalties alone from Terra Nova. I think that is a very considerable amount of money. The minister uses the figure around three-fifty for Hibernia. Is that what the minister says?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I said based on their expected production and expected royalties, it is up around three-twenty-four.

MR. HARRIS: Around three-twenty-four.

MR. SULLIVAN: At $57 a barrel.

MR. HARRIS: At $57 a barrel?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, our Budget is based on $57. I mean, I cannot keep changing numbers out of that, unless -

MR. HARRIS: No, I understand. So your numbers are based on $57 a barrel. We are seeing $72 a barrel oil now.

MR. SULLIVAN: And I said that in my earlier speech.

MR. HARRIS: No, I understand. I do not expect the minister to be totally accurate and I would not him to overestimate it. I would not want him to say we are going to get $75 a barrel oil, spend all the money and come back next year and say: Boy, we spent more money that we did not have. I understand that, but I also understand that we are very likely going to see a considerably higher revenue in oil as a result of the difference between the estimate that the government has and the actual price.

My guess is, and I am going to ask the minister this: Is it his intention, and his government's plan, to see that $800 million that he is proposing to put into the pension plans, is the difference between what he collects and what he is projecting, is that going to go into that by reducing the amount of borrowing? Because the minister suggested, so far, that he had provision to borrow $800 million to put into the pension fund. Is he saying that if I have $300 million more in oil revenue than I thought I was going to have, that I am only going to borrow $500 million but I am still going to put the $800 million in? Is that the minister's plan?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will indicate that I did not say there was no light at the end of the tunnel. In fact, there is about $550 million more in expenditure, I think. The member was probably looking at current account. When you look at the capital, too, there is close to $550 million more that we are spending this year than we spent last year in our Province.

When you look at it, a balanced Budget means we have not reduced our debt. I am saying our debt is holding steady and we are spending $550 million. So that is services we are giving to the people. One hundred-and-eighty million dollars in health care this year out of that; five-fifty extra. One hundred-and-eighty million dollars extra. One hundred million dollars extra in education we are providing this year. Infrastructure in Transportation and Works this year, I think, total infrastructure and expenditure in that department is about $162 million overall on expenditure. Say, $140 million, I think, on roads, counting federal and provincial highways and provincial roads and other infrastructure under Transportation and Works, buildings, et cetera. So, we are providing significant services. We are growing as an economy. Our GDP is increasing. Our debt is staying the same. If you want to get rid of your debt, here is what you have to do. We have to have $250 million a year for the next forty-eight years to get rid of our

debt. That is what we need, $250 million at the end of each year for the next forty-eight years and we will have no debt.

Now, some of that could be generated by increased growth in decreased unfunded liabilities by decreasing by growing. That brings your debt down. Only, this year, we brought down our borrowing. Our borrowing was brought down by roughly $170 million this year and our unfunded liability applied to it. So if it is $170 million less and we spend that in services, it is a wash and we do not improve, and that is what we have done. We have used the drop in our accrual to push it up in our current and capital, therefore it is a wash. We are not increasing our debt. Maybe if we did not have to increase debt for the next twenty years, $12 billion is a lot less significant today than in twenty years time.

The question you asked: Would we do that? That is what I would certainly take to Cabinet for discussion. If we get $100 million, $200 million, $300 million more in revenues than we anticipate, would we go out and borrow? I would take it to Cabinet: Do we borrow at 4.9 per cent or whatever it is when we probably could go in the market and get 8 per cent or 10 per cent on an investment? The same argument I used in putting forth the pension plan issue would still hold here. The logical thing - obviously, we have tried to borrow as little as possible if we have the cash flows to cover those. If the cash flows are there, that would be a logical conclusion, I would say to the member, and the prudent thing to do.

We manage our cash on the best possible basis. You have to be able to have certain overdrafts to allow for high fluctuations, and short, not enough to go to the market and go borrow because you only have a short-term problem for a month. You are not going to go to the market with a big bond then. You might want to ramp up your T-Bills a little and go to the market with some extra in T-Bills or special issues, or you might want to overdraft if it is cheaper. We will weigh these things, but if there is extra cash, what we could do, instead of having to borrow the $219 million that is really - I said fictitious money for the Accord. If we have a $219 million surplus, we do not have to borrow for that now. So that reduces our debt by $219 million because we have not had to borrow for that. So, those types of things we will manage.

If an issue comes due on Canada Pension Plan, $4 million or $5 million a month coming due and our cash flow is good, we will not roll these over. We will just retire these, as we have been doing for the last year. Therefore, that could use up our cash surplus by not having to borrow. Then we might have to borrow for the pension fund, we do not know, but as the need arises and the cash is there, obviously, you are going to get rid of that debt rather than roll it our again in a particular plan. We are committed to it and I feel that we do have a sufficient cash flow that we may not have to borrow $800 million, that is quite possible. If we only have to borrow $400 million or $500 million that will be all to the better, hopefully. It would be great to have to borrow none, but, obviously, that will be a point of consideration, as you mentioned there, and that would be a logical thing to do. That is something that I will take to my colleagues to discuss on that, as we have done previously.

With that, I think that is basically the topics raised. So I will just leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We will now call the subheads for the Consolidated Fund Services.

CLERK: The non-statutory amounts in the subheads 1.1.01 to and including 2.1.05.

CHAIR: Shall all non-statutory subheads from 1.1.01 to 2.1.05 of the Consolidated Fund Services carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Consolidated Fund Services is carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 2.1.05 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The total is carried.

On motion, Consolidated Fund Services, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Consolidated Fund Services carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The Chair reports the Consolidated Fund Services carried.

On motion, Consolidated Fund Services carried without amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I would like to move to Executive Council, debate under the subhead Executive Council.

CHAIR: The Committee is now ready to hear debate on the Executive Council.

Shall subheads 1.1.01 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are talking Executive Council. The Committee is now ready to hear debate or submissions.

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

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

CHAIR: The hon. member on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: This has the Executive Council include the Lieutenant Governor's establishment. I was curious as to whether Your Honour would rather someone else took the Chair so that you could question these expenditures.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions I would like to ask the Minister of Finance regarding Executive Council, because it takes in a whole host of things, including the Cabinet Secretariat, the Economic Policy. It also takes in Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, the Minister's Office, the Executive Support, and things like Women's Policy. It also takes in the Ottawa Office. We have a number of questions, and we can go through them as quickly as we can.

I would like to ask the minister, for example, under Cabinet Secretariat 2.2.01., under Executive Support, it appears that the salaries in that division have been increased by $500,000 this year. I want to know what new hirings are occurring in the department, and I would like to hear the titles and the salaries associated with those.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess over actual last year it was about $300,000, and over budget it is close to $500,000 over the budgeted amount.

Did you want the difference from the revised or totally what is in the Estimates for this year, I guess, over and above what is -

MR. REID: (Inaudible) $500,000.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Estimates are higher due to, first of all, for the 2006-2007 year, positions to support the provincial development plan. Under the provincial development plan we are taking stock of what is indicated to date, identifying various gaps to be filled in the whole development plan for the Province. There are two full-time analysts and one part-time analyst included in that; and, of course, the person responsible for that plan, Dr. Doug House, is included in that amount, so that would be in the development plan.

There is also emergency planning for the Province. There is $127,600 in emergency planning. Also, from the OCIO, an administrative support position was transferred from the OCIO. That amount was $31,200, and there is a 3 per cent salary increase on wages on that amount. That amounted to $34,100, and there was re-profiling from program renewal to cover positions that were previously under the program renewal initiative, and that was $150,000. So, that would be the difference in the totals.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, as the minister knows, this is being televised and there are a lot of people out there in the general public who would like to know, for example, when you are going through these rather quickly and you mention the OCIO, or whatever that is - before you get up to explain what that means, there are some other things, because what you just said to me was about as clear as mud and I have been here for eleven years. What I would like to ask you to do is try to keep in mind that you are speaking to the general population in the Province when you are giving answers to this. What you just said about the $500,000, short of giving Doug House his salary out of that $500,000 - and, having said that, I assume there was no one in the position that Doug House occupies in Cabinet Secretariat last year, so his salary is somewhere in excess of $100,000 and is included into that $500,000. Am I correct?

I would also like to know about this emergency plan that you talked about for $100,000. Tell me what emergency plan you are talking about. If it is an emergency, we would like to know what kind of an emergency it is, and how much you are going to spend on it, who is going to be doing that emergency plan, and where are we going to get it. Because, if it is an emergency, obviously it needs to be done so tell us about it.

We would also like to know what OCIO, or whatever you did say, what that meant, and how much money is going into that, and things like that, but keeping in mind, Mr. Minister, that there are those out there, like myself, who are not familiar with some of these terminologies and would like to know what you are actually talking about.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, if he wants me to answer his questions or if he wants me to talk to the public out there, whether it is televised or not, it does not matter; I am going to answer the question the way I think is correct and right, and I am going to give the same answer whether there are 500,000 tuned in or whether there is only one, because that is the only way that I intend to do it.

Overall, Mr. House, or the executive director, the deputy minister responsible, a certain amount of salary was already factored in for last year so the incremental amount, a certain amount was factored in totally, I think. Last year there was $29,300 factored in. The minister should know quite well that he sat as a minister. There is a Departmental Salary Details book that is provided with every position in government here, what the salary level is, how many of them are in each position. They are all there. I could go through that from beginning to back, to every single one. The member got a copy of that on Budget Day, passed to him. They are all there, the same as anybody else who works in government, the positions. The names of the positions are not, and I do not intend to get up and call out the names of every individual in the positions. I do not know who is in all the positions. There are executive assistants, assistant deputy ministers, intergovernmental affairs analysts. There are several in numerous capacities there. I do not intend to identify names with salaries here. I do not even know them. There are 7,000 people in government. I cannot go out and name who is in every single position; nor do I intend to.

I did tell him, I answered his question. Here is the answer to his question. I will give it to him again. There is $130,700 for the development plan for the Province; emergency planning, $127,600. The former deputy minister, I think, in Fisheries and Aquaculture, who is in that position, is looking at an emergency preparedness plan. That will be coming under the Executive Council, of course. I think my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, would be quite familiar with that, as the current EMO, I think, reports to that minister there on that regard. We have other positions.

I indicated there was an OCIO; that is the Office of the Chief Information Officer. There was an administrative support position transferred from there, of $31,200. There is $31,100 for the 3 per cent salary increase that is implemented in the Budget. I indicated there was a re-profiling from program renewal of $150,000 in that specific area. We will assume all of these add up to the difference in what is there, and the additional ones.

If he wants to know the positions overall, there are salary costs under this item for fifteen permanent positions and for temporary assistants, too. Out of these fifteen positions there, there is: Clerk of the Executive Council, Deputy Minister, Deputy Clerk of the Council, Assistant Secretary to Cabinet Policy, Assistant Secretary to Cabinet Policy, Executive Director, Assistant Deputy Clerk, Manager of Information Services, Secretary to the Clerk, Administrative Officer, Departmental Program Co-ordinator, two of them, Secretary to ADMs, three of them, for a total of fifteen. There is a provision for some temporary, too. That is the total amount that is in there. I would not know whose names to put to a lot of these at all. I am sure the member knows as well as I do who is in a lot of these positions.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know why the minister gets so hostile in his answers. I didn't ask you for the names of all the individuals who work for Executive Council. You are the one who brought Doug House's name up here this afternoon; I didn't. Because you did, I just asked you if the position was occupied last year, if it was a new position, and how much he was being paid, what portion of the $500,000 went towards his salary. I did not mention the man's name until you mentioned it first. In fact, that is the reason I asked you the question, why was the $500,000 allotted there? You are the one who said part of it went to pay Doug House's salary, not me. I just asked you what portion went to the man, and that is the only reason I mentioned his name. I know some of the individuals who occupy all of these positions. I did not ask you, I say to the minister. You don't have to get hostile.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: You gave a half-decent answer to the questions. All I asked you - and you say: I will answer them the way I see fit. You can do exactly as you please, I am just asking questions on behalf of the taxpayers of the Province, and I would hope that you would explain to them how you are spending their money. The OCIO - I am sure no one out there knew what that meant, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, because I certainly did not now the acronym. That is the reason I asked you the question. You still did not tell me what the emergency plan was. I guess you are talking about the individual who has gone up in emergency measures who used to be the deputy Minister of Fisheries. Am I correct?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct.

MR. REID: Well then that is all I am asking you. We don't need to be hostile. I am not in a confrontational mood this afternoon. I was in a rather a bit of a one last night in the House as a result of some of the barbs and the insults that were being thrown across the floor at me.

Mr. Chair, if you were to go to the heading 2.2.03, under Economic and Social Policy Analysis. I am not asking you who the person is and you do not have to get up and name them or the exact salary he is making, but there has been a $200,000 increase in Salaries. Can you give us any specific details as to these new hirings?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Estimates are higher - there is additional funding for a researcher and administrative support for the provincial development plan. That is a total $105,000 for those positions. There is an analyst for work related to the policy co-ordination for (inaudible), Accountability and Transparency and Policy Capacity, for $80,000 and there is $14,700 to allow for a 3 per cent salary increase. That would be the difference in the two there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under that same heading, 2.2.03, it says there was $100,000 spent on Professional Services even though there was no money budgeted last year. Can you explain to the general population what professional services are and why would you spend $100,000 on these services? Who did you hire to perform these services? What kind of services were they to the tune of $100,000 when there was no money budgeted for that in last year's Budget?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Government wanted to ensure that we were getting exactly appropriate amounts out of oil companies in the Province, so government engaged a professional services contract with a company called Navigant Consulting Ltd. to evaluate our economic projections and our accounting policies and the process of oil and natural gas, in particular the Hibernia project. This is an international firm. It has specialized expertise in accounting, in forensic accounting and natural gas. To ensure that we would get the appropriate returns, we wanted to, in other words, have a look at the books of the major companies to ensure that we are getting our fair share, and their calculations and accountings on what is applied towards revenues to ensure that what is counted is appropriate there.

Now, we had anticipated at budget time it would be $100,000. I will say to the member, it looks like the total figure now - this is, I guess, a month and a part later - it looks like the contract will come in at about $57,434. That is the amount it is now anticipated to be. Obviously the public accounts of the Province would, when they close off, actually show the amount expended. It looks like it will be $57,000.

We are dealing with hundreds of millions of revenues, the calculations of costs on projects like Hibernia, and we wanted to ensure that we had an expert in the field to ensure that our Province is getting every penney they should, what is included as a legitimate expense is a legitimate expense, and to ensure, when you are talking about billions of dollar and excessive revenues coming in on the offshore, that we are getting our full piece of that money.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, under 2.2.04, Advisory Councils On Economic And Social Policy, there appears that there was no money -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: I do not know if the minister can hear me when I am speaking here, because I can hardly hear myself speak.

Mr. Chairman, under 2.2.04, Advisory Councils on Economic And Social Policy, there appears to have been no money spent on salaries and benefits under that heading last year. Yet there was $7,500 spent in Transportation and Communication when there was apparently no one working there. Can you explain that to me?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: The reason is that the salary cost was for temporary assistance to provide independent advice to government on economic issues, and there was no one hired to do that, so it did not necessitate a response. Of course, there was no employee benefit as a result of that.

As for, I think, the $20,000 budgeted and $7,500 spent under, I think you said Transportation, 03, the reason for that was the transportation requirements were less than originally planned in that specific area. I think it is 03, you asked. That is the two councils and the telecommunications costs, Advisory Council on Economic and Social Policy, the cost of those councils. There were travel related expenses for those councils. That is the reason. We anticipated it would be $20,000 but it was $7,500, so we budgeted at the historical level then, back at $20,000.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Under Protocol, can the minister give an explanation of what that is and how many people are employed there and what type of work they do?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: The salary cost there provided, the Departmental Salary Details should show that. There are two permanent positions and there was also provision for temporary assistance included in that specific area. It was just down slightly from what we budgeted. There was a lower anticipated requirement like temporary assistance. It was down about $5,500 there and now it is back to $166,000. The reason it is up by that amount this year over last year is strictly the 3 per cent increase for salary allowances that is factored in there. That is the reason it is up over last year. That is $4,700 that 3 per cent came to.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under Public Service Development, I want to know what the people in that division do and why has government spent almost $32,000 or double, $32,000 more than was budgeted for Purchased Services, and what kind of services did you purchase?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: It was budgeted at $16,500 and the reason it was $32,000 is because expenses were more than anticipated. In particular, the main area was the Public Service Award of Excellence. There were more costs. I think we had a fairly significant - I do think it is the one I attended down at the Fairmont Hotel, I do believe. The Fairmont, I think, was where that was held. It was a significant recognition of people working in the public service here, the Awards of Excellence. That was the increased cost there. For next year we figure, with the program being expanded and more costs incurred in the program, to recognize people who do excellent work on behalf of our Province, we figured it was necessary to maintain it at that level to be able to appropriately recognize these people and carry out the event to do so.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Can we move in now to the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat?

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, if I could, just on a point of order.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: You know, I am certainly prepared to attempt to answer in Intergovernmental Affairs, but there was a separate Estimates Committee provided with the minister in attendance who went through a regular Estimates session on that. If that is sufficient, we have already -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, Mr. Chair, I just indicated

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will certainly attempt to answer on that area. The minister is out of the Province, I think, representing the Province, but he did appear before a Committee and did that on the Estimates. If you want to ask questions, I will certainly attempt to give an answer. If not, I will have to defer it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I just checked with the Clerk of the House. Just so members are aware, this part of Executive Council, the Estimates, they were already carried in the Estimates Committee, so the debate is done and over on that section because it was already carried in a separate departmental Estimates Committee process. That is my understanding.

Based upon that, because it is a separate department, because the minister was here, because there were questions asked on every subhead and then it was moved by the Chair and the Committee, of which the Opposition was a part, they have already carried those subheads as part of the Budget. The debate is done.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: I only have a couple of questions to ask on it. I was not part of that Committee and it is my understanding, in listening to my colleagues, that the answers were not forthcoming. I am not trying to embarrass the government.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I am not trying to stop debate, but just so people understand. Then why don't we just open up the whole Estimates procedure and let everyone ask questions on everything that we have already debated? There is a process in place - if members could hear me out - every department comes before an Estimates Committee meeting.

Now, because the Leader of the Opposition was not aware, or did not have a chance to ask questions, that does not mean he was not provided with the opportunity. The Official Opposition appoint their members, and I am assuming that the Leader of the Opposition knows all of his members who are on the Social Services, Government Services, and Resource Estimates. They appeared before this House, every minister, including the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I appeared before the Committee on Resource Estimates, as Minister of Natural Resources.

Frankly, this is out of order, Mr. Chairman, and we need to rule so.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We do not wish to belabour the point here, and I do not think there is any need of getting into who did or did not attend what meetings in Committees. We understand how the process works, but the Leader of the Opposition simply asked the Minister of Finance - we are here under the Executive Council, in the Budget book, and the minister said he would answer whatever questions he could answer. That is acceptable to the people over here. We have no problem with that. I think that is the open and transparent thing to do. Nobody is trying to belabour the issue, beating up on people with rules and whatever.

In fact, if you want to talk facts, the Member for Bellevue attended the meeting and asked the minister, in the so-called Estimates Committee, about this particular issue, and the minister said: I don't know anything about it; the Premier's Office deals with it.

Now, given that comment that came in the Estimates Committee when it was dealt with, and that was the minister's response, I think it is only fair and appropriate that the Leader of the Opposition now be allowed to ask about it. If he could not do it because of that response from that minister, who else is he going to ask other than the Minister of Finance who is responsible for the overall Budget? That is what we are here to do in any case. I do not think we are trying to beat up on anybody about process or whatever. We just want to get on with some questions. Government either wants to answer them or they do not.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Never mind the rhetoric. We have been asking questions here now for two years on the Ottawa Office and have not gotten an answer. All we heard today from the Premier was, stay tuned. We have heard that one before.

Mr. Chairman, I do not care if they want to answer the question or not; I am going to ask the question. This year there is approximately $150,000 in increases under 2.3.02., Executive Support, under Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat. How many new hirings have taken place, and what adds up to $150,000 under that heading?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you talking about under Salaries, Mr. Chairman?

MR. REID: Subhead 2.3.02. (inaudible) a $150,000 increase.

MR. SULLIVAN: Subhead 2.3.02., okay. You are asking in the total under Salaries? The departmental book here would should that there are four permanent and there are temporary assistants also. The permanent employees total comes to $312,475, temporary and other employees $193,400, and then there are permanent and other adjustments to the (inaudible) at $25,575 for a net of $480,300.

MR. REID: You never answered my question, though.

MR. SULLIVAN: You asked how many positions.

MR. REID: No, I asked why there was an increase of $150,000 for salaries.

MR. SULLIVAN: I just named out the positions, why.

MR. REID: So you hired some new people there (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, there is additional cost required for the preparation of the Council of the Federation Conference. This year, the Premier is the Chair of the Premiers' Conference, the Council of the Federation Conference. That is being held here this summer. There are extra costs built in to be able to deal with that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: What you are saying is there is a conference of Premiers here this summer, being held here this summer, and that some of this is going towards the cost of this?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct.

The Premier will assume the Chair this year. There is a meeting here, I think it is late July or August, that is going to be held. It was in Alberta last year, so we are hosting the Council of the Federation. The Premier takes over the Chairmanship of that this year, yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Under that same heading, Minister, it appears that the budget for Purchased Services was $327,000 last year, and this year it is going to be $1,138,600. Why the discrepancy? Why is it going from $327,000 to $1.138 million?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have to stand on process again, because I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition and his right to ask questions but we are at a different stage in the debate. I am told by members of my Committee, and I am sure the members of the Opposition were on the Committee, that all of these questions were asked, I think, for about an hour-and-a-half to two hours just on this issue. All of this has been explained through the process.

If we are going to go down the road that we are now, well, then, let's just say, here is the Budget book, we will throw out the Estimates Committee process from here on in, and we will just bring it in and we can ask questions. Why don't we just go to, say, Environment and Conservation now? I thought we passed the subheads in that. We have gone through Concurrence Debate on each one of these.

Mr. Chair, I would like to have a ruling on whether this debate is in order or not.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like to recess the House for about ten minutes and we will come back again.

This House is now recessed for ten minutes.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

After consulting with the Table Officers, I have come up with the following decision. The questions that gave rise to the point of order by the Government House Leader relate to matters that were available for discussion in the Estimates committees. Members of the committees could have asked questions relating to the various departments of government directly to the minister, or indirectly to department officials.

Following the report of the committees to the House, members engaged in a Concurrence Debate and the opportunity was then available again for members to raise matters that were not previously asked or to repeat questions where the member was not satisfied with the answer. The Concurrence Motions were debated in the House, and the Assembly reached the decision on a vote taken. The references are clear.

Marleau and Montpetit, page 495, state clearly that a decision once made must stand. To quote, "A decision once made cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgement of the House." Thus, the Chair rules there is a valid point of order and that questions which relate to departments, that have been debated in the Standing Committees and which have been decided by the House in a Concurrence Motion, cannot be raised again without consent.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I think we will recess the House for supper until 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR: This House now stands recessed until 7:00 p.m.


May 2, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 14A


The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is now ready to continue debate on the heading of Executive Council.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate an opportunity to make a few comments and ask a few questions concerning this part of the Budget Debate.

I must say we have a far more attentive audience, I would think, outside the confines of this hon. building than we do inside sometimes; and certainly people who want to know the rules. I had three calls during the supper break from people who wanted to know what happened here just before we closed. Why did we take a break, what was this ruling all about, and does it mean the Opposition can't talk anymore now? It is good to see that the public are actually following and interested in what is going on here, and they take the opportunity to find out what is going on. Perhaps that is a signal to some of us that we just shouldn't take for granted what we are doing here and we should actually try to make an attempt to help people in the system in understanding the process that we are, in fact, engaged in here.

No, it doesn't mean that the Opposition have been muzzled, as much as the government might sometimes like to think that we are muzzled. It doesn't mean that this is a test for the Minister of Finance. It doesn't mean that we get to ask him questions and he has to have all the answers at his fingertips. Sometimes he might not have the answer. If he has it, of course -

AN HON. MEMBER: Not our minister. Not our minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Our minister knows the answers.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: It would be very strange if this minister did not have the answer. Either he has the answers or he likes to think he knows it all sometimes anyway. But, in any case, I have always found him to be very forthcoming in his answers. If he has the information he tries to give the information and that is good too because he knows as well that if he does not give it we are going to be persistent and insist that he get it for us if he does not happen to have it. It does not mean that this has to be a question and answer session.

We are in committee phase here, just so the public understands. I can ask a specific question, if I like, of the minister, or because we are dealing with the Budget, which is a financial item, I have the opportunity to make some comments as well, provided they are in the context of and bear some relevancy to the issue that we are discussing.

For example, we are under Executive Council here. There are a whole pile of headings under this Executive Council piece. The Public Service Commission falls there, you have the Women's Policy Office under there, Intergovernmental Affairs is under there, the Premier's Office is there, the Business Office in Ottawa, for example, is there. It is called the Ottawa Office. Of course, the public likes to know not only where the money is coming from, they like to know where the money is going and if it is being wisely spent. And, of course, that is what our questions and our commentary will be directed to this evening because, albeit, some things that government does they have to do. They are mandated and must do it and spend your money in certain avenues, obviously. You cannot have employees unless you pay them, and certain programs that you undertake of course you must fund and you have a health care system that you must put dollars into, but there are a lot of things that happens and expenditures that get made in governments that some people might question: Was it or was it not necessary? Was that the best priority that government could have spent that money on, or was there something else they could have done with it? For example, the money from the Atlantic Accord. Some people think it was a wise decision to pay down the Unfunded Liability, put it in there. Some other people said: No, I don't think that is a good idea. But that is all a matter of debate and relevancy and the government has the right to make that priority decision.

Now, one of the items under the Executive Council here of course is this Ottawa Office, and my questions will be directed towards it. Again, we have to take a serious look at this Ottawa Office. My friend and colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, is going to have some direct questions about: How the position is funded? Who fills the position? Or who will fill the position as of tomorrow because the Premier has told us that, albeit, it has been sitting there now vacant for a year or more, that we are going to have somebody in it tomorrow. We will know who it is as of tomorrow. So, we are all going to stay tuned to that, of course. My comments will be more generally geared towards whoever that person is in that office. What are they going to do in terms of keeping the federal government accountable and keeping the feet of the federal government to the fire? Because it all ties back again to, if you keep the federal government's feet to the fire enough, hopefully there is going to be money, like was mentioned even in today's Budget, that will benefit this Province.

It brings me to the letter that this government wrote to all leaders of the federal parties during the election in December and January. The Premier actually released a copy of the letter that he sent to all of the leaders. It was pretty straightforward. Eight different items I had in there - I saw from that letter the Premier wrote. We heard a lot from this Premier and this government back in 2004, when there was a federal Liberal minority government, about keeping the feet to the fire and making them accountable. Sure, we even had the flags lowered sometimes and taken down and removed from buildings just to prove the point. A lot of references by the government here in the Province to saying: Oh, you have your Liberal cousins in Ottawa. So, surely God, family and all of that stuff, they are going to look after you. You are Liberals, they are Liberals.

We saw the PC government here in Newfoundland had no problems about keeping the Liberal minority feet to the fire, but now we are in a situation where, again, we have a minority government in Ottawa. But, this time it is PC. It is the provincial government's cousins now. This Conservative government we have here in Newfoundland - the Progressive Conservative government in Newfoundland now who got their Conservative cousins in Ottawa. Now, that is a pretty good setup because we saw what could potentially happen when you can have the heavy hand in negotiations. Which brings me to the letter again, which brings me back to the letter that the Premier wrote of all the leaders in the federal election. There were eight points in it. He wanted to know, number one, the fisheries issue, the retirement package. What are you going to do on it? That is what the letter basically said.

I have had meetings with our Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to get updates on it. In fact, he was very good about it. He met with people from my district who had concerns about the retirement package, gave them an update on it, the status on it, told them that a proposal had been put together by the Province, given to Mr. Hearn, the federal Minister of Fisheries, and it is being worked on. That was a month or so ago and it takes some time, no doubt, to assess these proposals. Sometimes they are very complex. It cannot be done overnight. No one would expect it to be done overnight.

My concern is that office in Ottawa. Are we going to use that office in Ottawa now that it is under this section here? Is that one of the items that office is going to be promoting as well, the fishermen's retirement package? I hope it is. I hope we have not forgotten now, just because their cousins are in Ottawa, that they are not going to keep their feet to the fire. It takes some time. I also stressed to the minister when we met, and I have stressed here in this House several times, that on this retirement package we cannot be overly specific when it comes to who would benefit from such a package.

For example, we have had a lot of heartbreak, torment and torture in places like Harbour Breton and Fortune in the last year or so and, hopefully, there will be some resolutions to the problems. Hopefully, there will be. Maybe part of the solution to the problem would be having such a retirement package for people who are involved in that industry: fisherpersons, processors, the plant workers, but it cannot only be for the Harbour Bretons of the world and it cannot only be for the Fortunes of the world and the Marystowns of the world. There are a lot of other persons involved in the fishing industry in this Province who would need to take advantage of any such retirement program. That was the point that we stressed to the minister, that yes, you have a proposal put forward but do not have it so narrow that we miss some people. Keep it very global, broad, that whatever is ultimately done by the federal government - and the Province has put their money where their mouth is. The government said we will pay 30 per cent of the retirement proposal. You come to the table, let's flesh out the details, come up with your bucks and let's get at it.

So, it will be interesting to see how effective this office is going to be in Ottawa when it comes to that issue of the retirement package. It is going to be interesting to see tomorrow - it would be nice to know, for example, the skill sets of that person who is going to be in that Ottawa office. I hope that person is informed about issues such as fisheries, so that when he or she goes back to put together the information that they will require about this retirement package, they are fully informed and they do press the case. I hope we do not see a situation where we are going to have the government say in the future: Well, we are not out publicly taking on the federal government over that retirement package because we have a person in Ottawa to do that. Don't try to pass the buck now and think just because we wrote the letter, we made the proposal and we have to stay out of this now, hands off, pass the responsibility to the person who is appointed in the Ottawa office to look after that issue. It is too big for that. Too big an issue and too important an issue, and the minister himself needs to be constantly, directly involved to make sure that the federal government do pay attention to that very serious issue in the fishery and come up with a retirement package policy program that helps everybody and anybody in this Province of ours who are negatively impacted by the fishing industry.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will return later on to discuss the other seven issues of the all important letter that was written.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, would like to talk to this part of the Budget. My colleague said this afternoon that he had some calls about the confusion that arose as a result of whether or not I could ask questions on certain parts of the Estimates or the Budget here this afternoon. I must admit, Mr. Chairman, as I said before supper, I have been here eleven years myself and I did not know that I could not ask those questions, especially in light of the fact that we have asked questions about certain aspects of this Budget for the past three years and have not gotten a response to it. So, I am going to pick one part of it, and I know I am not going to get the answers across the floor, but I do want to talk about it because it is an expenditure and it is one that I did not agree with from day one. I will take you through the reason why I did not agree with it, and I still do not agree with it today, and that is the Ottawa office that we are talking about.

Two years ago, or three years ago, the Premier decided that he was going to establish an office in Ottawa to carry out some business for the Province in the nation's capital. At that time he picked an individual, Mr. Bill Rowe, to head up that office. He was appointed - and I have the greatest respect for Mr. Rowe, for a number of reasons. One is that he was a parliamentarian himself. He sat in this very House of Assembly. I feel somewhat close to the individual because he occupied the exact position that I have today. He was the Leader of the Official Opposition. He also was elected and was serving at that time the District of Twillingate, and I hold that position as well today. It is no disrespect for Mr. Rowe, he is a very capable individual. What I want to talk about is the fact that I do not think we require that position in Ottawa and the money that goes to pay, not only the position in Ottawa, the individual who takes that position, but also the cost of having that individual in Ottawa when it comes to transportation, communications, telephones. Also, we are renting a building in Ottawa to house this individual. It does not matter who the government puts there because that individual will be hired at the prerogative of the Premier and fired, I guess at the end of the day, at the prerogative of the Premier.

I, and a number of colleagues on this side of the House, disagreed with the position, and I will tell you why. We have seven MPs in Ottawa. We have six senators. According to the Minister of Fisheries this afternoon, regardless of what our population is in this Province, we will always have the minimum of six MPs. We will always have six MPs in Ottawa, regardless of our population, supposing our population drops to 100,000 from the 500,000-odd that we have today. That is because if you have six senators, then you have to have a minimum of six MPs.

Now, I am not the only one who feels, I say to the members opposite, that we do not need that Ottawa office. I know that Loyola Hearn, who is now the Minister of Fisheries for Canada, when he was in Opposition - and he is also a Tory, like his cousins across the floor here - he opposed. I listened to an interview that he gave shortly after that position was filled. He opposed it because he did not see the purpose of having that position in Ottawa. I will tell you why - just picture, for example, there are forty-eight of us here. Just image if the districts that we represent all sent, besides sending forty-eight members from each of the individual districts to this House of Assembly, that individual towns and individual districts decided that they were going to hire somebody and pay them money to come in here and deal with government, too.

I think the problem that the MPs had with it is that they felt that by sending someone to Ottawa it was almost like an affront to those people who were sent there, the elected representatives in the House of Commons and the appointed representatives in the Senate, because they were being paid to do the work which the Premier wanted, to some degree, done by the individual who was occupying the office in Ottawa.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the Leader of the Opposition. I ask members if they would kindly keep their conversations a little lower.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have gotten used to that every time I stand to speak in this House. I have trouble hearing myself think, and I am sure there is no one opposite listening, but I will continue and maybe someone who is listening, or watching this on television tonight, might appreciate what I am saying.

What I am saying is that, if we have seven MPs and six Senators in Ottawa - who are getting paid handsomely, I might add - to do the business for which they were elected and appointed, then we do not need another individual.

I will tell you another thing, too: If you were an MP in Ottawa, or a Senator, you would not want someone appointed and paid by the Premier in Ottawa lobbying government, lobbying Cabinet ministers in back rooms trying to do things for the Province. While there is nothing wrong with it, it defeats the purpose of having an elected Parliament and a Senate; because, I can tell you right now that if I were in Loyola Hearn's situation tonight and I was a minister of the Government of Canada representing - he is our Cabinet representative in Ottawa - I would not appreciate if, for example, my colleagues in Cabinet were out holding private meetings with a representative from Newfoundland and Labrador who is being paid by the Province, because if that position succeeds then every single province in Canada would have someone similar to that position in Ottawa lobbying, and they may very well have it.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries, the point I am trying to make is, yes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, I know, but I do not see the effectiveness of it, because I am quite certain that if the Minister of Fisheries, Loyola Hearn, in Ottawa, wants to do something for this Province, and he manages to accomplish something, he does not want to give credit to someone who is being appointed by the Premier and sent to Ottawa to work on those things.

That is just the nature of politics, I say to the minister, and I think he would feel the same way. I think Loyola Hearn, when he was in Opposition, a Tory backbencher in the Opposition there just two short years ago, expressed it quite well on the radio, and I agree with him totally. They do not want individuals being sent up there by the Premier working around them, cutting deals with different Cabinet ministers and then coming back to Newfoundland and Labrador and taking the credit for some of the work that they have been doing, and I don't blame him for that.

Mr. Chairman, it is just the same as, I am elected for the District of Twillingate & Fogo. There are thirty-nine communities. Can you imagine, if you follow that through to the nth degree, there could very well be someone from each of the thirty-nine towns, if the towns had the money to send somebody in here, working on behalf of each of those individual towns along with me. I think that would create mayhem, not only for the Legislature here but it would also create mayhem in Ottawa, and I can guarantee you that the bureaucrats in Ottawa would certainly put roadblocks in the way of any office like that being successful because they do not want to deal with people who are sent there by the Premier when they have elected representatives to whom they are responsible. I can guarantee you that they certainly would not want to see that system work because it defies everything and it goes against everything that they stand for, and the elected representatives and the appointed representatives in Ottawa.

Mr. Chairman, we have been asking for three years now how much that individual has cost the Province, and the salary that was assigned to that individual. While the individual who filled the position for a year-and-a-half or two years was quite capable, very educated, very articulate and quite knowledgeable not only about politics but all of the issues in this Province, I still do not believe that the position should have been filled. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the position, when it is filled tomorrow, by whoever fills that position, I do not think it is a wise use of the taxpayers' money in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think maybe the Premier originally established the office because he was a Tory Premier sitting in Newfoundland and Labrador and there was a Liberal government in Ottawa. I guess he felt that he was not getting a fair shake, or he thought that he could do better for the Province by appointing that person, but when you have Tory MPs in Ottawa and Liberal MPs in Ottawa saying that the position should not be there and the individual should not be there interfering, then I do not see that office ever working.

I say, Mr. Chairman, we are about to hear from the Premier tomorrow of another appointment, because I do not think anyone else in the Province other than the Premier will have much of a say in who goes to Ottawa, but there are a whole host of questions that we have asked for the last two-and-a-half or three years on that position and have not had those questions answered, like what it actually costs for us to run that office. We have never seen anything on paper or have never had it explained to us what the role of that individual is, or what the role of that individual will be. I have never seen any concrete evidence of anything that the position - who would or will or did occupy that position - the person who occupied that position did. I know that the Premier gave Mr. Rowe a lot of credit for the Atlantic Accord, but I would assume that Mr. Hearn and Mr. Doyle, who sat there in Ottawa, and the Tory Senators who were in Ottawa at -

MR. HARRIS: Jack Layton (inaudible).

MR. REID: Pardon me?

MR. HARRIS: Jack Layton probably did more for the Accord (inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes.

My colleague, the Leader of the NDP, says, well, Jack Layton probably had as much to do with the Accord as Mr. Rowe. Who knows? I don't, because I do not know what the office did.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) had nineteen votes in Parliament.

MR. REID: Yes, the Leader of the NDP said he had nineteen votes in Parliament, and that is true.

Anyway, we have not been given the opportunity to hear the answers to the questions that we raised about the cost and the role, and things like that. Yet, the Premier seems - I guess he is obstinate. Even though he knows that the office cannot be effective, he is still ready to fill that role again tomorrow. I can't wait to see who that individual will be and where he has come from. What I am looking forward to is seeing the results of his efforts in Ottawa.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I don't think it is a wise use of taxpayers' money to have an Ottawa office when we are paying quite handsomely already for senators and elected representatives, MPs from this Province -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his time for speaking has lapsed.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I went to university with a good friend of mine from Codroy Valley, and he had a great saying. He said: Sometimes I sit and wonder and most times I just don't bother. Mr. Chairman, that reminds me of the Leader of the Opposition tonight. Here is what his assertion is: Don't offend Ottawa. For God's sake, don't offend Ottawa. Provincial government, under the leadership of Premier Williams, whatever you do, don't offend Ottawa. Don't put a Newfoundland office in Ottawa because you are going to offend them. If we do it, then many other provinces in the country are going to have to do it too, and it really could hurt us in what we can get from Uncle Ottawa. That is the assertion, and that is the assumption and the argument that he has made.

Now, let's go even a bit further. Here is what else he said: You know, if I were an MP I would be offended because there was a Newfoundland office in Ottawa. I mean, that is my job, because if I was going to do something, then I wouldn't get the credit for it. Now, I mean, really! I have a nine year old son who has a broader mind than that. I have a nine year old son who understands the difference. He has learned lessons on the playground about what cooperation is about.

I mean, let's think about this seriously. Six or seven different provinces have a presence in our national capital. What is wrong with having a presence in the Nation's capital? Maybe we would have done well over the last fifty-odd years had we had a bigger presence in the Nation's capital. Every state in the United States of America has a registered lobbyist or a presence in the Nation's capital.

I am not finished with the Leader of the Opposition yet. That is just the way politics works, he says, that having a presence in Ottawa is going to offend Ottawa, it is going to offend every MP in their job in Ottawa, and it is going to offend every other province to the point where they are going to need to have their own offices there too, even though the vast majority of provinces already have them. The Province of Nova Scotia, for example - let's talk about economic returns for thinking beyond the tip of your nose and if you are going to offend somebody. You go down to Boston today, the Province of Nova Scotia has an office in Boston. Now one might ask the obvious question: What would a province like Nova Scotia be doing with an office, an official Government of Nova Scotia office, in Boston? It is very simple, because they see some opportunities between their market and opportunities in the biggest marketplace in the world, adjacent to -

AN HON. MEMBER: New Brunswick also.

MR. E. BYRNE: And so does New Brunswick, yes. They have had it there for over a decade and it has worked. It has created linkages, it has keep a presence in front of a fairly significant New England State.

AN HON. MEMBER: On the ground.

MR. E. BYRNE: On the ground, influencing, promoting their province in economic returns.

Now that is the thinking that exists in the Leader of the Opposition. I do not know if it exists with all members. We are going to find out if that thinking exists. He says: I want to know what the benefits of having someone up there are? Who is this person we are hiring tomorrow? What is he going to do? The man has not started his job or the women has not started her job yet, whoever it may be, and he wants to know what they are going to do up there already or what have they done.

Look, the approach of the former administration did not work. The people of the Province judged that. Now, we believe that we have put forward an approach to governance, across all sectors, that in the long haul will take us out of where we were and put us on a separate road to where we should be. Now, if we are successful at that, the people of the Province will judge us, and it is our obligation as a government to do the best we can to promote that. Part and parcel of that thinking and that new approach that we campaigned upon was dealing in a different way with Ottawa. Had we listened to the member opposite and his colleagues we would have stopped at $1.2 billion. The Premier of the Province would have stopped there and said: You have enough, take it.

Here is the dichotomy and difference in thinking that shows that there is no centre in terms of thinking or policy direction in that party, particularly in this caucus. We had the Opposition House Leader stand up today, basically asserting that exploration was going to come to an end because the Hebron deal did not go forward. Just get a load of this, on CBC news he was telling the Premier to keep their feet to the fire, before Easter. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot stand up and say, keep your feet to the fire, we agree with your position on equity.

Thanks to the Leader of the NDP did he come like that. I think Bill Rowe said one time of Peter Fenwick that he had never seen someone go from left of Lenin to right of Attila the Hun in such a quick time. I saw it with the Opposition House Leader when the Leader of the NDP put him in his place when he was going after the Premier for being too aggressive, and in a space of thirty seconds - I could read the transcript, and maybe I will get a chance to do that tonight, maybe I will - but thirty seconds later he was advising the Premier: Yes, we support you on equity and you keep the oil companies' feet to the fire. Today he stands up and says: Your approach has ruined exploration. Yet again, an example of: Where is the direction in the alternative government. We have put our policies forward, our approaches forward, and we are prepared to debate them, we are prepared to promote them. Really, where is the consistency of supposedly the alternative government, the Queen's Loyal Opposition?

The fact of the matter is this, the Leader of the Opposition stands up and talks about the lack of benefits and who we are going to offend in Ottawa. We are a little more broad-minded than that. Our view of the Ottawa office is about expanding our influence as a Province in the Nation's capital. It is not about offending an MP, a Member of Parliament, whether it is an NDP MP, a Liberal or a Tory MP, it is about working in concert, it is about the benefit of all of us, it is about enough credit to go around for all of us to take, but it is about influencing the national agenda and part of what we are up to. It is not going to influence the national agenda unto itself, but part and parcel of what we do and what the Premier of the Province does, and what we as individual ministers do, in our interactions with our provincial counterparts. It is about putting in place a stronger, more aggressive, more credible presence in the Nation's capital, not trying to offend somebody, but to get out there and tell our story to influence it for the benefit of the entire Province. If someone else wants to take credit for that, I know this Premier and this government will gladly let them take credit for it if it is successful. The fact of the matter is that is what we are up to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Ho, hum! I have a nine-year-old and a thirteen-year-old. They have probably read every Bernstein bear book, every Winnie the Pooh book, that could be read, but here we go. Eeyore: Ho, hum, it looks like rain today.

The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board stood up today, for example, and gave a very good lesson to the Member for Bellevue who thought that he had uncovered the biggest - who thought that he had uncovered, because he finally picked up the Budget Estimates book and read to the amount: We are getting $118 million less from the federal government this year. What did you do wrong? - immediately was what his thinking was, but he forgot to read down in some of other columns which showed that we actually got about $2 billion more over time.

The fact of the matter is this when you think about - the Minister of Finance stood today and answered questions directly and forthrightly, as he always does, and talked about the expenditures that were announced by this government compared to last year. I think $550-odd million that we are spending more this year, current plus capital expenditures, than we did last year and not one of them stood up last night to support that effort.

Two billion dollars being spent in infrastructure. Money being spent in Labrador like it had never been spent before, both Labrador members would not support it. Cancer clinic in the

District of Grand Falls-Windsor, who supported that? Did the member? Absolutely not. No, so there it is.

I challenge the members opposite, as they challenge us every day in our roles, in our constitutional obligations that we have to the people of the Province in the roles that we play here. Number one, our obligation as a government is to govern prudently, as wisely as we can, putting forward, making the best decisions that we can in the interest of each and every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. That is a tough job some days. That is not an easy job. You are constantly balancing sorts of many different issues and risks, but on the balance of all of that you make the decision with the best information that you have in the best interest of the people of the Province, then our obligation and duty, nonetheless, in my view and in our view, is to go out and promote what we have attempted to do.

Now I spent some time in Opposition. I know what it is like to sit over there more than any other member over there. I sat in those benches for ten years. I have been Opposition House Leader. I have been Leader of the Opposition. I have been chair of the Public Accounts Committee. I have been the critic of probably six different departments. Between myself and my own experience I have more experience in Opposition than every one of you combined over there. The obligation of an Official Opposition is twofold. It is on the one had to hold our feet to the fire and to challenge us on the decisions we make. That is what they are attempting to do. Where I think the public has judged them and found them left wanting is that they also have an obligation to put forward an alternative view and vision. Mr. Chairman, the people of the Province are waiting for it.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not need the Government House Leader to lecture me on what my role in this House of Assembly is, because I have been here for eleven years. I was sent here from -

MR. E. BYRNE: You certainly need someone. (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Oh, he wants to get testy again tonight. He wants to get testy again tonight because he does not like to hear criticism, but what I have noticed about this minister, I say, Mr. Chairman, is that he becomes far more verbose and animated in trying to defend something that his heart is not really into than he does when he knows what he is talking about and he actually believes in it.

That is what I have noticed about that individual in the eleven years that I have sat across the floor from him. He will get up and he will rant and he will tear about something far more greatly when his heart is not really in it, when it is a decision that was made by the Premier rather than himself.

I don't know where he was when I was speaking, but not once did I mention, that I am aware of, that I was afraid of offending people in Ottawa or anywhere else in this country, because I happen to believe, and what I have instilled in my two boys, is that you are as good as anyone in this country. You might be born in the bay, you might be born in Newfoundland, you might be born in Labrador, but we are as good as anyone else in the country.

Believe me, I have travelled to Ottawa and I have travelled to every province in this country on parliamentary conferences and in ministerial meetings and, I am telling you, I know for a fact, or at least I believe, that I could hold my head up and I was just as intelligent as anyone that I was sitting around those tables with. I did not need, I can tell you -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: I tell you, I did not need an office in Ottawa to speak for me. I did not need an office in Ottawa to speak for me, and I am not afraid of offending anybody in Ottawa, and I do not think I said those remarks tonight. All I am saying is that, the way the bureaucracy and the political system operates in Ottawa, they will stifle any efforts made by an individual who is going to fill that Ottawa office, whether he is from Newfoundland and Labrador or he is from the Northwest Territories or he is from British Columbia or Alberta or any other province in this country, because that is not how the system works in Ottawa. The system works in Ottawa based on a parliamentary structure, a democracy, because that is what it is. It is made to respond to the elected representatives and it is made to respond to two classes of representatives in Ottawa, and that is the Cabinet and the regular MP, just as it is made that way in Newfoundland and Labrador. Those who occupy Cabinet positions in Ottawa, like those who occupy Cabinet positions in Newfoundland and Labrador, have more power and have more authority.

Believe me, any attempt that is made by anyone who fills that office - and I already said, when I started, I have the greatest respect for Mr. Rowe, not only in his ability to speak out on the issues for this Province but I also have a great deal of respect for his past, the fact that he was a parliamentarian here in the House of Assembly, and I have a great deal of respect for his education and his intellect. All I am saying is that Ottawa will stifle anyone we send to Ottawa to occupy that Ottawa office and to do what the Premier and those opposite hope that he can achieve.

Not only will they stifle the individual who goes to Ottawa in that position, from Newfoundland and Labrador, but they will also stifle the ones who come from Alberta and B.C. and Ontario and Quebec, because that is not the way the democratic system works in Ottawa, because what you are doing is duplicating expense.

I will tell you one thing right now. As politicians, and we all are politicians, no politician likes to give credit to someone else who had nothing to do with something when you know that you have worked your butt off to accomplish that yourself. Now, you might be gracious when you go and say: Oh, don't give me any credit; you take all the credit.

You have all had that experience and you all know deep in your hear that you do not want to pass the credit off to someone who has nothing to do with it. That is the reason the system will not work.

I am firmly convinced that the Premier put that office in Ottawa because he was dealing with a Liberal government and he represented a Tory government. Well, today in Ottawa we have a Tory government. We have one here in this Province. Now, we are going to fill that office again knowing full well, knowing full well, that the chief politician for this Province, who is Loyola Hearn, the Minister of Fisheries for the Country of Canada, he is already on record as saying that we do not need that office in Ottawa and that he cannot understand the role of that position, of the person who is going to fill that position in Ottawa. He is on record as saying that. Loyola Hearn, when questioned about that office in Ottawa a few years ago, said he could not understand why, or what role that individual would play.

I did not talk about offending people in Ottawa, because that is the least of my concern. I certainly do not care what the people in Ottawa or Alberta think about me. I am going to have my say, and I am not going to be lectured to by the Government House Leader.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, he talks about the role of that office, and what they are trying to achieve. We have stood in this House of Assembly and we have sat in Estimates Committees when we reviewed the Budget of this government, around this building, and we have asked many questions on the role of the person who fills that Ottawa office. We have never heard the answers to the questions. We do not know how much the individual got paid. We do not know what it is costing the taxpayers to have that individual in Ottawa. We do not know the role of the individual, what he does, and nobody, I say to those opposite, has ever stood in this House of Assembly or any committee that I have been on and told me about the great accomplishments of Mr. Rowe and that office, and what he did in that office for the two years.

I challenge anyone to stand up over there tonight and tell me about the accomplishments, and tell me the deals that he worked, and tell me that would not have happened - all of those great things that individual could have gotten for this Province, or got for this Province - tell me that it would not have happened unless we had that office in Ottawa.

I know the Premier got out and thanked Mr. Rowe for all the work that he did on the Atlantic Accord, but that sort of begs the question: If Mr. Rowe was doing all that work on the Atlantic Accord, where is the Finance Minister for Newfoundland and Labrador? Where is the Energy Minister for Newfoundland and Labrador? Where are the fourteen or fifteen Cabinet ministers that he has from Newfoundland and Labrador, who sit around here? If he is doing the work -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: - why aren't you doing it? The same question goes in Ottawa. If we have a Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa who represents this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask members on both sides of the House to show respect when a member has been identified by the Chair to speak. The forty-eight members of this Legislature have been sent here by their constituents, and we all come here as equals. I ask members on both side, when a member is identified by the Chair to speak, if they would show some respect and allow the member to speak for their allotted time, and when somebody else rises they will be identified by the Chair.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciated your support last night, when I was trying to speak in the House of Assembly, and I equally appreciate it tonight.

Mr. Chairman, all I am saying is that we have asked a lot of questions about the role of the individual who fills the Ottawa office; we have never gotten an answer. I have not heard anyone on that side stand up here and tell me what that individual has accomplished. That is the reason why I say to the minister: What does he hope that person will accomplish, who you are about to hire tomorrow? Because we have not seen any evidence, or at lease nobody has shown me in black and white any evidence, that office in Ottawa has accomplished anything in the last two years, but I do know one thing. I do know one thing. We spent a lot of money on that office. In fact, we have had it up there for the past six or seven or eight or nine months with nobody sitting in it.

The Premier gets up today, when asked a question, what happens in that office and how much we are paying for it, and what does he do? Made a joke about it and sat down and laughed and laughed and laughed. That is what he thinks about the taxpayers' money. We asked the question. You are spending money to rent an office in downtown Ottawa. That can't come cheap. We are spending money for communications, telephones and cell phones, and photocopiers and all kinds of other equipment for that office in Ottawa. Who has been in it for the past year? Maybe the Minister of Natural Resources, the Government House Leader, will fill us in on those details tonight. Who has been in the office for the past six or seven months? How much rent are we paying on the building? What is the office used for?

Now they are talking about, after leaving it vacant for seven or eight months - because the Opposition has been asking for the past two or three or five or six or seven months what are you doing with it. Maybe that is the reason you are going to fill the position again, and maybe next year, when we are asking questions about the accomplishments of the individual you are about to hire, all you will have to do is open Hansard and read the rant that you just got on with, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources. Maybe that is what you should do.

I think the people of the Province have a right, considering that not only are they paying our salaries but they are also paying for everything else this government does in this Province that you talk about in your wonderful Budget. If you listen to you crowd opposite, if you listened to the Minister of Transportation and Works last night talking about what he is doing and what your are doing, you wouldn't know but it came right out of his ass pocket. You would not know but the money came right out of his own ass pocket the way he was talking about it: We are going to do this and we are going to do that and you did not do this and you did not do that. Sure, we all know how you accomplished it. You raised every single fee that was ever perpetrated on an individual in this Province, and made up others, including a death certificate.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that his speaking time has expired.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Indeed it is a great pleasure to stand in this hon. House again tonight to represent the great District of Lake Melville.

I have to say, as I sit here and try to listen to the garbage coming out of the Leader of the Opposition, that it is indeed disappointing.

Let me say this: As we look at our Budget here this year and we look at some of the vision that this government has had and the leadership of this government to tackle some of the challenges that were left on our plate because of squander and mismanagement of the hon. crowd on the other side of the House - I can say to you, Mr. Chair, that as I look down through the list of our accomplishments in our Budget this year, not only in Labrador but certainly province-wide, we have made a great investment in this Province. I can say, if it was not for the leadership of our Premier and our Cabinet and our caucus, we would not have done as well as we did.

You want to talk about Ottawa, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. Let's talk about Ottawa and let's talk about the office that was there for representing the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that office served it's purpose.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: That office served it's purpose. I can tell you, the results of that office were in the successful negotiation of the Atlantic Accord. That was where we brought home the $2 billion, Mr. Chairman, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. HICKEY: I say to my good friend, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, don't -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask members to my right if they would be kind enough to allow the member to speak in silence. The member deserves to be heard.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

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

I will continue my comments, Mr. Chairman, but I want to say to the hon. members across the way that this Budget has shown vision, this Budget has shown leadership, this Budget has shown that we care about the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I want to talk about some of the things that we are doing in Labrador this year. I am going to keep talking about it, because I was very disappointed last evening to sit here and watch my good friend and colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, from Labrador, and indeed the Member for Torngat Mountains, as they stood in their places voting against some of the initiatives that our government has put in place in this Budget this year; some of them in her own district, Mr. Chairman, like the issue of the extension on the ferry for an extra month, something that she obviously did not do when she was there, Mr. Chairman. We did it because we knew it was the right thing to do for the people on the South Coast of Labrador and, indeed, for the people of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: She voted against it.

MR. HICKEY: Voted against it. Stood on her feet and voted against it, Mr. Chairman.

The Member for Torngat Mountains, what a member to talk through both sides of the cheeks of his face, Mr. Chairman. He stood up here many, many times and quizzed this government about the auditorium in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and yet stood on his feet last night and voted against it - voted against it! - voted against the long-term health care facility, Mr. Chairman, voted against the facility that is going in Labrador West, voted against a new hospital in Labrador West, a hospital that has been there. They would not look at it when they were in government, Mr. Chairman, a building that is forty-five-years-old and they would not look at it. Our government addressed it when we got elected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people of Labrador West deserve a new hospital. The people of Labrador deserve a new long-term health care facility. The people of Labrador deserve a new kidney dialysis unit so we do not have to send our families down to St. John's or Corner Brook to live, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: The College of the North Atlantic, and I want to talk about the College of the North Atlantic, Mr. Chair. Every college while they were in power got upgraded in this Province except the one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mr. Chair. But, I can tell you again, our government saw the need, they met the challenge, and that is why we are putting an extension on Happy Valley-Goose Bay college.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: And one over in the Member for Labrador West - another building over there for the College of the North Atlantic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: We are doing two, Mr. Chair. That is vision, that is commitment, Mr. Chair, and that is leadership. We are a team over here, Mr. Chair, but I have to say we cannot say that with our honourable colleagues across the way. You are not a team. You are rudderless, you have no leadership, it is absolutely terrible. Your very own leader is coming out and saying that, and you need to get the transcripts of his comments this evening.

I want to quote what he said. He said: A Liberal party does not need a caucus. We decide who the candidates are. I can tell you, Mr. Chair, they are in a state of disarray; a state of disarray.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. HICKEY: I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair: Are you or will you support your leader? Do you stand up and support your leader, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair? I say to the Opposition House Leader, do you support the Leader of your party? Do you? Do you support your party leader?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HICKEY: I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, do you support $6 an hour for students? Do you support $6 an hour, taking them back $6 an hour, Mr. Chair?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chairman, they are an absolute joke as an Opposition. I can tell you, as a rookie MHA-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: - we can see through everything that is going on over on that side of the House, Mr. Chair. In Friday's paper, the joke of Newfoundland and Labrador: The grit Vice-President calls for a review, discontent among Liberals. What is it all about, I say? Let me give you another quote just so that you get the flavour of what is happening here. Let me get you the flavour. Do you think that Mr. Bennett is not the man for the job? I don't know that, because he hasn't given us a chance to know him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HICKEY: That is the Vice-President of the Liberal Party: We don't know the Leader of the Liberal Party.

Let me just continue, Mr. Chairman, because it gets better. It gets better, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hussey is also quoted and said: If you are going to be a Leader of the Liberal Party you just can't do things yourself. I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, who was talking about one-man shows, don't throw your barb over here. You have your own problems and you need to address them for the betterment of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands, on a point of order.

MR. JOYCE: I know the members are a bit testy because it was this time last year that the silver bullet was sent from Houston, so who knows which one is going to be next. I understand why you are a bit testy.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. HICKEY: I say to my good friend, the Member for Bay of Islands, I saw an interesting clip -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: - in today's paper. It is a picture here of: Alice for Liberal leader. It is getting harder and harder to shock the people these days. Then, I heard the Member for the Bay of Islands was down and met with him. I want to know if the Member for the Bay of Islands is trying to recruit Alice Cooper for the Liberal Party of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, they are in a state of disarray.

Let's talk about the serious things. We could talk about that hon. crowd over there all night, Mr. Chairman, but let's talk about some of the good things that are happening in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. JOYCE: Let the Minister of Justice stand up and (inaudible) something serious.

MR. HICKEY: No. I just want to say to the Member for Bay of Islands, and I want to quote to you what your leader just said minutes ago in the press: The Liberal Party does not need a caucus, we decide who the caucus - I would say to the Member for Bay of Islands be careful of what you say because your words are being watched by your leader.

Let's go back to the Budget and let's talk about some of the issues here that my good friends, the Member for Torngat Mountains and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, voted against yesterday. Let's talk about the long-term health care facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the Harry L. Paddon Memorial Home in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is more than thirty years old. It was a facility that -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Lake Melville that his time has lapsed.

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to get into the discussion that we were having a little while ago about the office in Ottawa because I have something to say about that which is a little different than the Leader of the Official Opposition, and it is a little different than the government position too, but I have to say this. First of all, I support the idea of an office in Ottawa. Not only that, Mr. Chairman - and I don't know whose idea it was, I am not sure whose idea it was, but I do know that the Government of Quebec has had an office in Ottawa since about 1911, I am told. I dare say that they wouldn't still have an office in Ottawa since 1911 if they were not getting any benefit from it. All I have to do is look at the way Canada is organized, and how federal government dollars are spent in Quebec versus other parts of the country, and I have to conclude that they probably got a pretty fair return on their investment.

The problem I have with this office in Ottawa, and the budget for it, is not the amount that is budgeted, except the fact that there is not enough budgeted for the office in Ottawa. I said this publicly last year when the office was announced and the appointment of Bill Rowe was made. I phoned Open Line - it wasn't Bill Rowe on Open Line then because he was gone - and what I said was that I supported the idea of an office in Ottawa and I supported Bill Rowe's appointment, because Bill Rowe is a man who knew the mood of the public; he knew what the public wanted. He had been in public office. He had been leader of a political party in this House of Assembly. He had many years of experience. He had a legal background. He had all sorts of associations with different parts of civil society in Newfoundland and Labrador, and he was also an intelligent man who could bring that to the job, but I said on Open Line at the time, and I will say again today, the biggest problem that I saw with that office, when I heard that is was going to be Bill Rowe and a secretary in Ottawa, I said: Not enough. Not enough.

If Bill Rowe had gone to Ottawa and had three other people, I would say three people at the maybe assistant deputy minister kind of level, people with government experience either in Newfoundland or in Ottawa, and could understand how the federal bureaucracy worked, figure out how to make sure who our friends were and who knew the lay of the land, how we could get things done in Ottawa and get things out of Ottawa that we needed....

Do you know something? I am going to share something with you that I was told at the time of the Atlantic Accord, when finally the Newfoundland Government and the Newfoundland people were being given what they deserved, and I was told by people who know Ottawa fairly well. They said: Well, they gave in on that but they are not too worried because they have 100 ways to take that money back every single day of the week without Newfoundland and Labrador even knowing about it.

When I heard that, that is a pretty cynical comment. That is a pretty cynical comment about the way the government works, but I do know that there was a lot of opposition in Ottawa at the senior bureaucratic level to the Atlantic Accord going down the way it did. If they really wanted to get that money back, or make Newfoundland and Labrador pay, they probably did have 100 ways of doing that every day of the week.

I think if that kind of spirit exists, and I fear that it may in some places, we really do need to be more vigilant than we are about what goes on in Ottawa. Because what I have seen in the last fifteen years or so in this Assembly, and it has been government after government, we get a lot of going off to Ottawa, making statements, having press conferences and coming back home again, but what really needs to happen is a long-term, on-the-job, day-after-day type of commitment to what happens in Ottawa, a follow-up on issues every single day. I would see a Bill Rowe in Ottawa, all right, or someone like Bill Rowe, every morning having a meeting with the three or four people that he has, and plan their strategy for the day, making sure they knew who was who, making sure the right people were contacted, having a game plan and working with the MPs.

I understand Loyola Hearn didn't say much very complimentary about this office, but if that is the case that is too bad. When I was in Ottawa, Mr. Chairman - and, in fact, I am probably the only person now in this House who was in Ottawa as an MP. We did have a few more during my time here.

MR. JOYCE: Are you going back tomorrow?

MR. HARRIS: I am not going back tomorrow, but one of these days I might go back. I was certainly tempted last fall to have a go at it. I enjoyed my time in Ottawa, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, but one thing I did find out is that no matter what party you are in, whether it is your party or my party or their party, a lot of people in that party do not know very much about Newfoundland and Labrador. They all have national agendas and they all have their own way of looking at the world, and that does not always include Newfoundland and Labrador first.

When I went to Ottawa with my party, or you, if you are so lucky to go to Ottawa representing your party, you will find out that most of the people in your party have very little understanding about the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador and you would be the one who would have to educate them; but I would have liked to have, Mr. Chairman, back in 1987 when I went to Ottawa, the support of somebody in Ottawa from the Newfoundland and Labrador Government who would be able to tell me what the current issues were with the government, who they were trying to influence, what was going on, and how I could help in some way in my own caucus, because, let me tell you something. When the Atlantic Accord issue was going on, I was in constant touch with the national Leader of the NDP, with Jack Layton, with the caucus, because we had a role to play in that situation. There was a minority government. We had, as I said earlier, and the Leader of the Opposition spelled it out, nineteen seats, nineteen votes. It was a minority government, and how that issue played out in Parliament, and how that issue was working was very important to Newfoundland and Labrador. We didn't have an MP from our party in Ottawa, but I played the role of liaising with our national party and discussions with our national leader, who also had discussions with the Premier, by the way, during that period, because we had supported that issue from the very beginning. In fact, we were the first ones to spell out that issue on behalf of our party in the way that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador wanted, but that office, an office like that - and I don't know what Bill Rowe did. I have never spoken to Bill Rowe, aside from on the air, after he came back. One of these days maybe I will find out what he did or did not do. We haven't seen any report from the government. I am not saying that whatever Bill Rowe did was great - I don't know what he did; I have no idea - but the idea of the office is a good one, but it should have more people, it should have more clout, and it should have more influence, and it should be an asset to Members of Parliament.

I understand that MPs have a role to play, and ministers have a role to play, and the regional minister has an important role to pay, but that is not the only thing that goes on in Ottawa. If that was the only thing that happened in Ottawa, why would you have all of these lobbying firms? How could they make money? How could they operate? How could they be effective? How could they collect money from people for lobbying in Ottawa if the only people in Ottawa that mattered were MPs and ministers of the Crown? Because the reality is, Mr. Chairman, that Ottawa is a very complex place. It has been around a lot longer than MPs. MPs come and go, and Cabinet minister come and go. The bureaucrats are there, and they are quite happy to wait you out, as a matter of fact. You might even be the minister. Ask John Efford. You might even be the minister.

MR. E. BYRNE: That might even happen provincially.

MR. HARRIS: That might even happen provincially, the Minister of Natural Resources says, but ask John Efford what the story is about Ottawa.

MR. E. BYRNE: Of any jurisdiction.

MR. HARRIS: Or any jurisdiction. I am not picking on anybody in particular, but if there is a Cabinet minister in Ottawa, the bureaucracy, if they don't like what the minister wants to do, they can wait him out. We were here before you came and we will be here when you are gone, so they have ways of pushing their own agendas.

That is one of the negative things about government and, in some respects, it is a good thing about government, because you do not necessarily want somebody to come in and change everything if it is going to be negative, but the point is that there is more to the operation of a government than simply the people who are elected having all the say, because that is not the way it works. The bureaucrats are there to protect, in some ways, but also, if they have a mindset that is not predisposed to, in this case Newfoundland and Labrador - because they were not, the bureaucratic mindset in Ottawa was not, predisposed to Newfoundland and Labrador on the issue of the Atlantic Accord. They were dead against it. They had their mind made up that we were lucky to be getting what we got, that we lost the court case. That was their attitude. We lost the court case back in 1984, we were not entitled to anything, we are lucky to be getting a share. That was the mindset in Ottawa, and that had to be overcome by an awful lot of persuasion and an awful lot of activity.

I do not know what role Bill Rowe played, and I am not going to play politics about that, who did this or who did that. That is irrelevant. The fact of the matter was, at the end of the day, the Newfoundland cause won out. We got something that means an awful lot to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It means an awful lot to our budgetary position today. It means an awful lot to our ability to start making decisions about how we are going to improve the lives of people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and not figure out how we are going to pay the bills that we already have, and I think that is a very positive thing.

This office, if it costs - I think the budget there is $350,000. If you look at the Budget, look at the Estimates, you don't have to look very far beyond that office to find money - God knows what it is for. I mean, when I look at the Executive Council here and I see the Office of the Information Commissioner, or information services, or whatever it is called, and I see $79 million for software, I do not know what it is for. Does anybody here know how much software is worth, and why we need $79 million worth of software or hardware to run information services of the government? I can't dissect that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

By leave?

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. HARRIS: I am not criticizing the budgetary expenditures for the Office of the Information Commissioner. I understand there is a lot going on. In fact, I would like to ask somebody to explain that because I hear lots of rumours about the building that used to be NLCS being taken back, and I hear all kinds of things about the contracts that were let not being renewed.

I remember having a debate here six or seven years ago about the privatization or the sale of NLCS for an amount of money that I disagreed with totally, an organization that was a Crown Corporation that was showing a profit being sold for about five times the annual profit, and a seven-year contract for $50 million to go with it. Apparently, that is quietly being changed. I would like someone to explain what is going on. What I hear does not sound all the bad. What I hear is that there is a consolidation of information services within government. I hear that it is being done in-house, as opposed to contracted out, so government employees will be doing it on a salary as opposed to spending some hourly rate to hire somebody else to do it. It sounds like it might be all right. I am only hearing rumours, but I still see $79 million for information services. So, if you can spent $79 million on hardware and software for collecting information and data, surely we can spend a reasonable budget to carry on a proper office in Ottawa that might accomplish something.

My fear, and I have to say this, my fear, as someone said - I think it was the Leader of the Opposition, and he is quite right - the Ottawa system is quite capable of stifling a single person. I am sure you can invite him to a cocktail party every single day, and invite him to a meeting and a briefing, and keep somebody busy year-round, but I think if you had a determined office with an agenda, with a group of two or three people with knowledge of how the system works, that can build relationships over time for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to have our -

MS JONES: Jack, you are looking for a job now, aren't you?

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair says I am looking for a job. In fact, I have heard some people say, well, maybe that is me that is going to be appointed. Well, I have news for you folks, I ain't going anywhere. If I go back to Ottawa, it will be as a Member of Parliament.

MS JONES: Or a Senator. They are going to be elected.

MR. HARRIS: A Senator. Well, if they are going to be elected maybe there is room for me there, I don't know. I don't think I will be appointed, I have to say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

Very seriously, this is an important debate and I think there is room for disagreement, obviously, but I think if we are going to do it we should do it right and give the person, whoever it happens to be - I wasn't here for Question Period today but I gather, from the discussion, is someone going to be appointed tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I have no idea, I don't know anything about it; but, whoever that person is, I would suggest that some consideration be given -

MS JONES: Andy Wells.

MR. HARRIS: Andy Wells. If it is Andy Wells, he might have to be a lot more rehabilitated than he was last week down at City Council, to go to Ottawa. One apology is not enough for that.

All joking aside, Mr. Chairman, this is an important office, an important role that can be played for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think consideration should be given to providing a greater level of support for the person there, not in terms of administration but in terms of people with a policy analyst background. We have had people in Intergovernmental Affairs here who know the Ottawa system. We might even have people who have worked in the political system who understand how the system might work, because Ottawa is a pretty complicated place and it would be good to have people on your team there that MPs could use, that could have an influence on what happens and how the files, as they like to call them these days, how the files move in Ottawa, particularly those that are of interest to Newfoundland and Labrador, because they can be moved along, they can be addressed, and if we have a competent group of people there to do it under strong leadership then I think something could be accomplished.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You would love to know, wouldn't you?

MS JONES: You don't know, do you? (Inaudible). You don't know.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, don't worry.

I was going to answer the question from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I think he asked a question. I was in the caucus room. I rushed in to get a chance to get my supper - I didn't get a chance earlier - so I had to rush out again when I heard the question. If he could repeat it, I think he asked something about $79 million.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess I was looking pretty hastily here at $79 million. That is for the total of the Executive Council, but I see that the Office of the Chief Information Officer has a budget of his own of $52,478,000, Estimates for this year, an increase of $15 million, and that money is going for Administration, Strategy and Policy, Application Management, which I gather has to do with computer systems, that is hardware and software, $20 million for Salaries, Transportation, et cetera, another $9 million for the development of the government's computer system, and another $4 million for Infrastructure Services. Quite a hefty amount of money, $52 million, for the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

What I have heard, Mr. Chairman, and I will repeat that again, what I have heard is that there are a lot of changes going on within government in terms of the administration of all this activity. I have heard that the building that used to belong to NLCS, that was leased to xwave, is no longer leased to xwave, or their lease will expire or has expired, that there are government employees going to be doing work that used to be done on contract at an hourly rate. I have heard a few little rumours, I have to say. I haven't heard any great detail. Perhaps the Minister Responsible for Treasury Board and for these services, I presume, can fill us in on what exactly is going on here and exactly how much money the government is actually saving as opposed to increasing the budget by $15 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was in the caucus room having supper and I heard the question, $79 million, and I turned and said to a colleague: He must be off his head. That is not this year's budget he is talking about. That might be next year's, or the year after. Anyway, he did say that was the total Executive Council.

The reason why, overall, one of the things this government has done is try to take all of the support, all of the IT in government, all the technical support from the Help Desk and everything and roll it all under one department with expertise in that particular field.

One of the aspects we tried to do - we are providing a fair amount of service in government here. Some is contractual and some is otherwise. What we can do here with our own expertise and can save money on, whether there are service level agreements, we can bring them in-house and do them or whatever, we are in the process of doing that.

One of the reasons for the big increase, too, is that we had significant services in here that we did not have the emergency backup on some of the information. The system crashed. We were out in the cold. We had gypped putting money into IT for a number of years, and we spent significantly last year in IT. We spent significantly this year in IT, not only in software, not only in hardware, in human resources, in those areas, too, because we want to build it up and be more efficient, better serving.

Overall, when you change systems, I mean, just to bring in the drug plan, for example, there are significant resources needed to be put in, to get that up and running; IT support which is scheduled to come in, in January, for low-income people. Every system has technology attached to it, from payment systems, from payroll systems, to something goes wrong with somebody's BlackBerry, somebody's computer, and those services. We have agreements with outside groups, too, and we also try to do as much as we can efficiently within the scope. An office has been set up to give that expertise, rather than scattered all around in every single department and you are allocating so much to health, so much to education, and so much here and there to service one of these, to have the big global look at it, where the expertise is, and to be able to filter it all through one specific area, I think, is a positive aspect. We have had significant improvements in our technology over the past number of years.

Initially, it used to report to me and to Treasury Board. Of course, we changed the Treasury Board structure to a Public Service Secretariat, and we moved divisions there, which is not in this specifically but it is impacted here and you will see it in a full year now because we made that decision post-budget last year. We moved, for instance, the budget division. That was under Treasury Board, and that is now under Finance. We move the insurance division of Treasury Board into Finance. All the ones that deal with human resource issues and so on are under the Public Service Secretariat, whether it is collective bargaining, whether it is classifications, organization, management, learning and development, Opening Doors, all these programs you will see here now under these, you will see there under the Public Service Secretariat as opposed to being under the umbrella of Treasury Board.

The Treasury Board Committee of Cabinet still stands, and there is a Committee of Treasury Board to deal with Treasury Board issues and we meet very frequently, sometimes every week, sometimes every second week, depending on the need.

Overall, if you have any questions on any of the line items there, rather than give you an overall view of every one, I will certainly go through it. If there is any one that jumps out at you there in a specific area, just make the reference there and I will get up and answer it, rather than stand and run through the whole items from the first to the end there. It will save probably some time in the process, too.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My understanding was, the ruling today was that you could not ask questions of a minister that you could have asked in one of the committees of the House

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there is Question Period, too, you know. That comes up every day.

MS FOOTE: Yes, but I understood that the ruling today was that you could not ask questions if you were involved in a committee of the House. So, I do not understand what has transpiring here this evening. I think that seems to be a little different.

Anyway, what I will do is, I won't ask questions. I think what I will do is take my time and just make some observations on one aspect of the Budget here, since we are in a Budget Debate.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Just for clarification, the Committee is debating Executive Council. Members on both sides of the House should feel free to have a flow of conversation back and forth and ask questions for anything that is covered under Executive Council.

When somebody rises to take part for the second time, if there is nobody else standing, the Chair has no other choice but to recognize the same people.

I say to members on both sides that we try to go back and forth and give everybody a chance to take part in debate.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: That is right, exactly. That was my -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Yes, please.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: You are absolutely right. The only point that was made prior to the ruling here was that anything that has already been passed by a committee of the House in an Estimates procedure, we have passed it.

We are in a debate on the Budget, which allows fairly free latitude with expenditures of government to talk about basically anything, or observations. If you do not want to ask questions you can make a ten-minute speech about some of the points that may be important to you as an individual member. That has been the standard practice, tradition and procedure of the House.

It was just on a procedural point that we needed the clarification before, but that does not prohibit or inhibit anybody from talking about the Budget from any aspect.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Back to my point, Mr. Chair. I will make some observations about the Department of Business, if that is okay, and I understand that it is.

My point, I guess, tonight, I am glad that the Minister of Business is here. I did not realize he would be here, but I am glad that he is, because obviously this is a department that I would expect would be very important to government if it carries out the role that it was meant to carry out. I guess he walked in at a time when he did not realize that this was going to be on the discussion tonight.

With respect to the Department of Business, I am glad to see that the minister is here, the minister who happens to be the Premier. As a member of the Resource Committee, I guess we have tried since the Department of Business was established to actually get the minister responsible to attend the Resource Committee hearings where we could actually ask questions of the minister with respect to the department and what has evolved since that department was put in place.

I guess, for the time that the Department of Business has been in existence, the minister, who is the Premier, has refused, for whatever reason, to appear before the Resource Committee of the House and answer questions that may come from either side of the House, whether it is the government or whether it is the Opposition. For those who are listening tonight, the various committees of the House are comprised of members from both the Opposition and the government.

It is always an opportunity to put questions to the various ministers about their departments, about what is happening, about what their plans are, how the expenditures are being spent, and what they see happening in the coming year with respect to their budget.

With the Department of Business, I guess, when you are having a budget of $1.2 million - I look at this and I wonder how that money is being spent. I look down through and it says you are talking here about Executive Support, Strategic Planning, Communications and Business Attractions, which you would find in any department when you look at their Estimates. What I find questionable, I guess, is, of course, what is really spelled out here in this one is that you are talking a permanent staff complement in the Department of Business of five individuals and the budget for the permanent five is about $360,000. Then, when you go to the Department of Business overall, and you look at the complete funding activity for that department, you are talking $1.729 million. If you look at the number of positions that involves, it is twenty-one positions.

So, we have five permanent positions and sixteen temporary positions in the Department of Business. Now, I do not know about anyone who is watching this evening or anyone else in the House of Assembly tonight who knows what is happening with that department, but I can tell you that any time we have attempted to ask questions on the department in the Resource Committee of the House of Assembly - I guess on both occasions or three occasions now - that the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development has, in fact, been the one to come to that and take questions on behalf of the minister, who is the Premier. On more than one occasion when we put questions to her about the department, she has had to admit that she really did not have the answers. That is unfortunate because when you are - you want to get answers when you come to these Resource Committee hearings and that is why, of course, the committees exist. When you have a minister who is filling in for another minister, and even though they have officials with them, they really do not have all the answers. I guess it is hard for an alternate minister to have all the answers when they are concerned about their own department as well. So, that is understandable, which is why it is so important that the minister responsible actually be there to take the questions with respect to his or her own department.

So, I guess the question has to be: What exactly has the Business department been doing? I do not know. All I know is that when I look at the money that has been allocated to that department - it is a fair amount of money, but maybe it is warranted. I do not know, because we have not been able to get the answers. As I said, the Premier, as the minister responsible, has not appeared before that committee. You have had an alternate minister sit in who really does not have the answers and admitted to not having a lot of the answers, which I said is understandable, which again goes to show why the minister responsible should in fact sit in on those committee meetings and respond to questions that are put to him or her.

When I look at the Budget here - you know, if you are talking about twenty-one positions or you are talking $1.7 million, in excess of $1.7 million, you are talking about - it averages out to about $90,000 a position. So, again, it begs the question: Who is filling those positions? What are they expected to do for that kind of money? What does the job entail? You have five permanent positions - I guess I am really interested in the sixteen positions that are there, the sixteen temporary positions and what they are doing.

When I look at the Summary of the Budget for 2006/2007, Salary Funding by Activity, you are talking Permanent Employees, Executive Support, it is $245,000. Actually, it is closer to $246,000. Then I look at Temporary & Other Employees, and that is $125,000. Then you look at overtime costs. Then it says: Permanent & Other Adjustments. I am not sure what that means, but for Executive Support for the Department of Business the total comes out to $492,600. Then you look at Strategic Planning and Communications in the Department of Business. Again, just looking at the amounts that have been allocated here, when you add it all up you are talking a total of $740,000. Then Business Attraction, you add up the amounts there that are being spent by the Permanent Employees, it is $53,781. But when you look at the Temporary & Other Employees, and I do not know what Other Employees means, I know what Temporary employees means, it is $442,500, for a total of $496,300.

So, you are talking some money here, and we are not quite sure how it is being spent, what it is being spent for, what is being achieved by the Department of Business. Those are questions that we would have liked to have been able to put to the Premier as the Minister responsible for Business during the Resource Committee hearing when time is allocated. In fact, you can take as much time as you want in that kind of process to question the minister responsible, put whatever questions you want to him or her and get the answers. It is a good process and it works well I think for both, not only the government, but for those in Opposition as well because I think there is a responsibility on the Opposition to ask the pertinent questions of a department, to find out exactly what is happening within a department and then, of course, it provides the government with an opportunity to explain what that department is doing, what the taxpayers' money is being spent for, and what you hope to achieve as a result of that expenditure.

So, it is a good process. It is a good opportunity for both sides involved. It is unfortunate that the minister responsible, who happens to be the Premier, has chosen, since I have been in Opposition anyway and a member of the Resource Committee, not to take questions from the members of the Resource Committee of the House. It is unfortunate because, again, I think it is an opportunity lost for the government, but it is an opportunity lost for the Opposition as well because it is a good opportunity.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: I say to the Minister of Finance, it does not mean that because it has never happened that it should not happen. What I am saying is that it should happen and that is my observation, which I am allowed to make in terms of this process and who I think should appear before the Resource Committee. That is my observation and I am entitled to that observation as a Member of this House of Assembly and as a member of the Resource Committee of the House.

Again, when I look at what is happening in rural Newfoundland in particular, and I know that it is difficult sometimes to identify opportunities for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but I would like to think that this Department of Business is, in fact, front and center when it comes to trying to identify opportunities for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I really do not know if it is because we did not have the opportunity again to question the minister responsible on if that is part of the strategy of this particular department.

For instance, I do not know if it was the Department of Business that has been involved with Mr. Barry or his understanding of Mr. Barry's interest in acquiring the assets of FPI. Or was the government involved in that at all? Was the Department of Business involved at all in trying to find someone - knowing that FPI is going down the tube quickly, it would appear, in terms of certainly what they are doing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If, in fact, the Department of Business had any involvement in encouraging Mr. Barry or encouraging the other party who is interested in the assets of FPI, whether or not the Department of Business had any involvement in that kind of activity? I would like to know. I would like to know if that is what the Department of Business is doing with its twenty-one employees. Have they been out scouting around to see who would like to buy the assets of FPI now that we know they are for sale? FPI have acknowledged that they are entertaining proposals. So, I guess we would like to know if government was involved somehow, through the Department of Business, in bringing together interested parties like that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Bank that her time for speaking has expired.

MS FOOTE: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know I will have another ten minutes later on and another ten minutes after that if I need it.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure this evening for me to offer my comments on Budget 2006, the first opportunity I have had to do so. It is always a pleasure to comment on good news, and this is very good news, this Budget that was brought down by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board a few weeks ago.

Mr. Chair, I said in my inaugural speech in this House - I prefer to use inaugural speech to maiden speech, it has a better connotation - that timing is everything in politics. I think the timing of my entry into politics, the timing with this Budget, is certainly very, very fortunate for me.

I met a constituent the other day, an old friend of mine, and he said: My son, you did some good for yourself. Did you do well? I said: yes, boy, I did all right. He said: You brought down some budget. I said: Yes, sir, and I was only here a month.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: You got to love it. You have to love it, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, when we were locked in the caucus room on Budget Day my colleagues looked at me and said: If you had been here three years ago you wouldn't have that smile on your face. Again, I guess timing is everything.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am the new kid on the block on this side. I have been called the new kid on the block, the rookie. I will take that any day at my age. I am not yet into the banter of exchange in the House. I spent thirty years in education and when I pounded the desk it was to get somebody's attention, but it is the opposite in the House here. I am getting into it and I have been able to throw out a scattered hear, hear every now and then, but I have a long way to go before I can catch up with my esteemed colleagues from Mount Pearl and Lake Melville. I have a ways to go before I can catch them.

I just wanted to say that there are so many things to talk about in this Budget. We have ten minutes. I have a twenty minute presentation because I had hoped to speak on the Budget earlier. So I have to condense it down now to ten minutes. I want to focus in on a narrow area of education, if I may, because I spent thirty years in education as a principal, as a superintendent, school board coordinator, teacher and so on. Most of my friends are educators and I still have a lot of contacts in that field. I want to talk specifically about some narrow aspects of education.

I retired from education in the early 1990s. I came into education in the early 1960s, a long time ago. I know what you are all saying, he looks so young. I met a good colleague of mine in the airport in Halifax in the mid-1990s, Eric Norman from Gander, the late Eric Norman from Gander. He was a great educator, a great Newfoundland. The history of education in Newfoundland will pay him tribute. We were comparing notes because we both had retired around the same time, it was the mid-1990s. We were saying how we had the good times in the 1970s and 1980s in education in this Province. That is when the good times were in education. We were lamenting the fact that things were changing in the mid-1990s. There was a malaise setting in, a stagnation, a low level of morale, downsizing of activities on teachers, a general lack of motivation and lack of movement, a lack of anything positive in education. You go into a big restructuring period and there was administrative chaos in schools. As a result of that, there was nothing very much positive to say about education in the 1990s. Education was very much in the limelight, but for all the wrong reasons: for protests, for student protests, for parent protests, closing of schools and so on, lack of resources, class sizes increasing, declining enrolments, lack of support services and so on. All of this contributed to stress on teachers and educators that was really starting to show.

The main conversation in boardrooms and at staff room tables was how long we had before we could retire. That was the main - my colleagues in the House who are former educators would remember that. I have only two years to go, three years to go, five years. When you heard ten years to go, well, you knew there was something wrong. That was the situation in the 1990s, and it continued up to early 2000.

When the Throne Speech came out the other day, and the Budget reflected it, what a breath of fresh air it was for educators. They were so pleased with the Throne Speech, with the emphasis on education, the emphasis on youth, the emphasis on the future of this Province, it was reflected - I had a lot of quotes here I was going to use, but obviously I do not time to use them all tonight.

Lana Payne, most people recognize that name, I am sure, has never been any great lover of this government. On March 31, 2006, she said: I think the investment in education is much needed after a long drought.

That was it was, a long drought from 1990 up to about 2003 or 2004, a drought, a lack of morale, a degradation, in a sense, in the school systems, and it was readily observable, but the Throne Speech and the Budget set a new life in education.

The response, Mr. Chair, among my educator friends, has been amazing, has been very positive, because this government has sent a strong message to the Province, particularly educators, that this government has listened to them, has listened to the parent groups, the school councils, the teachers, the educators and so on, and has recognized the burdens that these people have worked under, recognized that if education is our future, if youth is our future, then we must invest in our future, and this government has come through big time.

In such a short time since the Budget I have talked to a lot of my colleagues in education and they are all saying the same thing: Finally, somebody has listened to us. If I can quote Kevin Foley, who is the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, he says: The fact that education is receiving greater attention in the provincial government is good news indeed. He goes on with a lot of good positive things to say - and this is the Teachers' Association talking about this Budget.

I can quote Denise Pike, President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of School Councils, who says she was dumbfounded and pleased with the Budget's focus on education and the elimination of school fees. I am really glad to see that they did not just say, hey, let's eliminate school fees and not put any extra funding. When it comes down to what government is doing, it is bearing the brunt of the elimination of school fees and not parents. It is good news.

Why are the educators so excited and so positive about what is happening? Well, just let me touch on a few things. The $6.3 million, or close to it, to eliminate school fees, that is big stuff among parent groups and school councils. I just quoted Denise Pike; she was dumbfounded that happened. That not only eliminated school fees but it eliminated one of the biggest sources of discrimination in our schools.

My colleagues here who have been involved in education will realize that the classroom is one of the most discriminatory areas in society. Kids have an awful great way of discriminating against each other. Where the classroom is emblematic of disparities in financial capacity of students and teachers, that is where discrimination occurs. This eliminates that discrimination, and that is what is key here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: The $9.1 million annually to retain 151 teaching positions, I talked to a principal who has twenty-seven teachers on their staff and stood the possibility of losing three. With that loss of three, she had to double up two Grade 1 classes, she had to offer students the option of giving up core French, music or art in the high school.

Students should not have to make that choice of what they give up in this day and age. She was delighted when she found out that she could keep her extra three teachers.

There are a lot of things I could say about education, Mr. Chairman. I have to cut it short because, as I said, I had a twenty-minute presentation here and never got a chance to give it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) interrupt you.

MR. F. COLLINS: One other thing, too, Mr. Chair, I should say, I have gotten hard of hearing in the last few years and it serves me in good stead in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: The return of those 150 units is great news.

Of course, the government is revisiting the teacher allocation formula. The number-based system is no longer relevant and educators are very, very delighted with that.

There is $2.2 million to provide laboratory safety equipment and teacher training. The sciences are so important in our schools, our high schools. They are the background, the basis for post-secondary training. This influx into science equipment is tremendous news for the science programs; $1.5 million to school boards for adequate staff and resources in order to effectively deliver services to support the individual schools.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, the Department of Education had curriculum co-ordinators at the department level in mathematics, in science, in music and art and so on, and school boards had co-ordinators on these levels as well, and a team of co-ordinators at every school board. They delivered in-service training to teachers, monitored programs, developed programs, and that sort of seemed to disappear in the 1990s because the organization was based on functional administration, and the curriculum development thing sort of got out of it. Now, we are putting more money back into curriculum development, back into delivering services to schools.

Two point eight million for course development and the purchase of equipment. That is why teachers are excited. One million for phys. ed. equipment at elementary schools. The core of our schools are our physical education teachers. They are the heart and soul of our schools. They spend countless hours after school, and coaching weekend trips. They are delighted with this announcement, $1 million for phys. ed. equipment.

One of the my principals told me the other day the thing that she was really happy with was the fact that there is $2 million put there now for the technology integration programs that puts those pre-trades school courses back into the high school, and she is delighted with that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. F. COLLINS: (Inaudible) with the minister's announcement of the skills trade development. It is going to be a great basis for that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. F. COLLINS: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: To finish up.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Three hundred thousand dollars for a senior high school course in Newfoundland history. It is about time, about time, a great announcement. We need to know from whence we came. Great news for educators.

So, little wonder, then, at this uplifting of spirit among educators. Little wonder. People like the late Eric Norman from Gander would be delighted. He was (inaudible) in his conversation when he said: Look, we had the best of it. It was a renaissance of education in the 1970s and 1908s. Maybe we are on the verge of another one.

Now, I am not going to get into investment in post-secondary education. If I had time I would, but I am thrilled to see the emphasis on skilled trades development. For some reason or other we have this mindset, as parents, that our kids have to go to university. We are disappointed if they do not. Well, university is not for everybody. In these days, university is not for more and more people all the time, and I was delighted the other day. My own young fellow, my youngest, graduated from high school five years ago and he tried every post-secondary training institution from here to Montreal but he has finally decided to go and do a trade. He is working in a metal fabrication company in Alberta. He is going to be trained to be a welder and fabricator, hopefully, please God, so one of these days I can stop sending money.

The trades were not the favorite destination for our students; they had to go to university. Well, hopefully now, with the emphasis on the trades, with the pre-trade skills courses back into high school, with the emphasis on trades, on skill development again, maybe we are headed in the right direction.

All of this augurs well for education. That is why teachers and educators are so happy. That is why it is a great day for education in this Province, a great day for our youth. It is why this Throne Speech is a breath of fresh air for this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR (Harding): The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just say a few on the Budget and the Rural Secretariat in the Province.

The member had a great speech, but too bad he doesn't travel outside of rural Newfoundland and Labrador to some of the areas which are affected.

Here you are talking about the schools. I just want to give you a good example about the school. The Minister of Education was out in Corner Brook, if you want to talk about schools, when they were putting the super school together in Corner Brook. It was approved back in 2002. They had to do a few conditions which were not met at the time, before the schools were supposed to be put together. The committee got together in Corner Brook. Some educators and other people, concerned parents, got together, went out and had protests. They met with the Premier and the Minister of Education; they came out the next day.

You want to talk about how good schools are doing, and talk about how all the information is not put forth. The Premier stood up, out in Corner Brook, and here is what he said: (inaudible) the $10 million reconstruction of Herdman Collegiate will eventually house all of the city's high school students has been already commenced.

Mr. Chairman, that is not true. The part that is done in Corner Brook is the gym part only. The $7 million for the school was only announced in this year's Budget, so the Minister of Education could walk out in Corner Brook and say: Oh, yes, we can't cancel that now because the project is already started.

It is just not true, and you know it is not true. The Premier knows it is not true, and the people in Corner Brook now know it is not true.

MR. SKINNER: Because you said so.

MR. JOYCE: It is in the Budget, I say to the Member for St. John's Centre. It is in the Budget. The $7 million for Herdman, for the reconstruction, is in the Budget. What is being done now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Oh, no, I am not grumbling about the $7 million. I am talking about doing things properly, do a social impact study. Ask the member who just spoke about a social impact study when you get a super school - kids are on the borderline. How many of those kids will fall through the cracks? That is the concern. It is not the students who are high average and the students who are going - they are going to make it anyway, but the borderline students. That is the ones we are concerned about. That is the ones who will fall through the cracks. If you look at any report whatsoever, they are the ones who are going to fall through the cracks in the system in Corner Brook. That is why there was supposed to be a social impact study done before the super school was approved. It was never done. The Member for Humber East, the Minister of Justice, is well aware of it, that this here was not done.

We talk about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I have always tried to live up to certain things that I say. If you say something in politics you try to live up by it. In the election of 2003 there were a lot of commitments made, a lot of commitments. I was always a firm believer that if you make a statement and if you make a commitment, you live up to that commitment.

I will take Stephenville, a prime example. I know a lot of people out in Stephenville. We were out there two weeks ago. I know a lot of people. When the Premier was out there in 2003 he met with the union and said: This will not close on my watch.

MR. E. BYRNE: We had an agreement with them.

MR. JOYCE: You did not have a full agreement.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, we did.

MR. JOYCE: When I was in Montreal -

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Every time a member of the Official Opposition, or anyone else for that matter, stands up and says we did not have an agreement - and here is what he says: A full agreement with Abitibi - they are wrong. We entered into an agreement with Abitibi, signed by both parties for energy costs at the Stephenville mill, over a fifteen-year period at three-year intervals, that could have seen up towards $150 million to $170 million go in to offset the power costs. Any time that any member opposite says that was not true, I am going to stand on a point of order and correct it, Mr. Chairman. That is not true what he just said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: I did not think there was a point of order because the minister is well aware that once you sign an agreement, when there are three parties, you have to have a third party in agreement in saying, going to the union: you go fight up with Abitibi now. It is up to you guys to fight it out. There was no full agreement with the three parties to keep that mill open. There was no full agreement. If there was, the mill would still be operating. The mill would be still operating if there was a full agreement among the three parties. There would be a full agreement.

When I got the call up there, when the minister and the Premier were out in Stephenville and I said: Who is at the press conference? They said, it is the Premier and the minister. I said: Oh, why wasn't the union at the table? Oh, there is no agreement with the union. The union and the company do not have an agreement. I said: Oh, there is going to be no agreement there. There is no agreement there whatsoever. The union going back and saying they want it.

I ask the Member for Stephenville East: How many times were the union members told we have a plan B for Stephenville? How many times?

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't know.

MR. JOYCE: Yes, you know. Tell me how many times. How many calls were made saying we have a plan B for Stephenville? Where is the plan B? Absolutely, no plan B for Stephenville. When you want to talk about rural Newfoundland and Labrador - and in our minister's own words, there are over 900 direct and indirect jobs affected out in the Bay St. George area. That is the minister's own words.

When you want to talk about how rosy - let's talk about Harbour Breton. Let's go down to Harbour Breton. Let's ask the people of Harbour Breton: Are they better off now with the Atlantic Accord? We gave the government credit. I gave the Premier credit. I gave everybody credit for the Atlantic Accord. Sure, it is a great move. It is great, but is Harbour Breton any better off?

I spoke to a young fellow just three or four nights ago about his parents who had to move from Harbour Breton and look for work up here now because there is no work in Harbour Breton. Is Harbour Breton better off because we have the Atlantic Accord and how the government is using the money?

The Burin Peninsula, is the Burin Peninsula better off right now with the Atlantic Accord funding and the way it was spent by the government?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: You are saying it is. You are saying now the Burin Peninsula is better off. The member for the Burin Peninsula is going to stand up and say the Burin Peninsula is better off now. The member for the Burin Peninsula is saying that it is better off - with the 1,200 people who are down there laid off by FPI is better off, with the shipyard not working is better off. I just cannot wait to see the explanation for that. I just honestly cannot wait.

Mr. Chair, we look at the roads, we talk about the roads - and I heard the minister yesterday. Fine, I may be in Opposition - I wrote the minister three times asking him for a meeting, three meetings. I have the quote that the minister made on CBC, and I could not believe it when I heard it. It was: I'm no poster boy for safe driving. Then here I am - I have the date and time and the quote, and I will bring it to his attention, that down in the Bay of Islands where there are gabion baskets, the baskets are actually destroyed and there are people now - and the minister knows himself because I wrote him personally about people who are hitting large boulders in the middle of the road because these gabion baskets are not fixed. You are talking about you are not a poster boy for safe driving, and you have the opportunity to go down and fix that? I mean, that is just unbelievable! I know, I was speaking to the staff out in Deer Lake and they are trying everyday to get it fixed. They are actually calling me and asking me what can I do because people are at risk. People are at risk. This is a serious concern, a very serious concern, and I do not know what I can do.

All last year when - I wrote the former Minister of Transportation at least three times. I spoke to him at least twice. I went to the media about a road out in McIver's and the minister had the audacity to get on Open Line and say: I never heard about it. He never heard about it. It is just unbelievable. I am not talking about some luxury, I am talking about safety. I am talking about safety on our roads, that individuals can drive on the roads and when they drive on the roads there are safe conditions. This is not a luxury, asking for some curb and gutter in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This is an actual life and death situation that I know last year the department had in their priorities to do in the Bay of Islands. Not only the Bay of Islands, Mr. Chair, it was a priority they had for the West Coast. That is how serious that problem was, it was a priority for the West Coast. I already wrote the minister again. I spoke to the minister several times that this road is bad again. It is dangerous. It is back again to the condition that it was last year. There is nothing you can do only tear up the road and put in the moving ground that is underneath. That is the only way to fix it. Going in and putting a bit of gravel without levelling it off, it is going to go again. It is a safety concern. Going over that road with the heavy transport trucks that are coming out with full loads of fish from Cox's Cove, if one of those loads ever shifts - if they shift, Mr. Chair, there is a serious accident that could happen. The potential for a serious accident could happen.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Bay of Islands that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. JOYCE: Just to clue up, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave to clue up?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, ten seconds.

CHAIR: Leave has been granted.

MR. JOYCE: Okay, that is all right boys, I'll remember that.

AN HON. MEMBER: We just gave you leave, boy. What's wrong with you?

CHAIR: Leave has been granted.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Leave has been granted. I want to give the opportunity to the Member for Bay of Islands. If he wants to speak, he may do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is, indeed, a pleasure for me to stand here tonight. I will respond to some of the comments made by the member previous, but in hearing my colleague from Placentia & St. Mary's in talking about the post-secondary education and how we are, kind of, looking to give students alternatives and move away from, you know, just everyone has to be university bound to looking at a trade. I do not know if his son and my son, Mr. Chair, were not hanging around together, but my son went to university for a year-and-a-half. It cost us about $15,000, and I say to people jokingly, after a year-and-a-half, boy, he is real good at playing pool because that is what he apparently did for about a year-and-a-half, but thankfully, like my colleague, he is gone into a trade and doing quite well.

The Member for Bay of Islands asked if the people on the Burin Peninsula have benefited from the Atlantic Accord. Mr. Chair, I would be the first to say that the people on the Peninsula right now are going through a very difficult time. One of the things they can be assured of is that they have the support of this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: The second thing, Mr. Chair, is that I have faith in the local union leadership, in people like Allan Moulton, that they, working through with the company and with the government and, hopefully, FPI will be in the mix here in the end, will find a solution. But, if the member opposite thinks that the people on the Burin Peninsula did not benefit from the Atlantic Accord or that the rest of rural Newfoundland did not benefit from the Atlantic Accord, Mr. Chair, he has been hiding somewhere.

In this past year, on the Burin Peninsula - I would ask the Member for Grand Bank if the renovations to the Blue Crest home and the building of a new clinic in her district is not going to benefit the people down there?

I tell you, Mr. Chair, that those people who heard the announcement of the dialysis unit for the Burin Peninsula are very pleased -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: - with things that resulted from the Atlantic Accord. We can go to the education. These things are all benefits to the Burin Peninsula. Look at the announcement in July of a CT scan for the Burin Peninsula. These are all benefits that are there for people in my district. I thought for my ten minutes what I would do is focus on rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to be a part of a government - and I jotted down a couple of words that I think exemplify the people on this side. One, is credibility. Secondly, responsibility, fairness. Look in the Budget and see where the announcements were made. Are they made for all of the people on our side? Certainly not! Look to Labrador. Look to some of the other announcements and see where they have been made.

Accountability is another word. We are very accountable to the people, very open to the people. I am very pleased and very proud to be a part of a government who does that. We are doing things because they are the right things to do, not that they are politically popular. We are doing them because they are the right things to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, let's run through a couple of things. Right from my department, $3 million for caribou management. I do not see those animals running down Water Street. No, they are out in rural Newfoundland. We want to ensure that they are there.

One of my colleagues in a meeting today said this about the caribou. What has happened to the fish - we cannot count the fish in the water, Mr. Chair, but we can count the caribou that are in the woods. We want to ensure that they are there for the future of our youth and the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Let's take another one, the inland rivers. I do not see a lot of people fishing salmon in Rennie's River, not yet. They may come back there. Hopefully they will, but the enforcement - where are these rivers that people are looking to? Rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Look at the million dollar commitment that we put into parks. Look at the million dollar commitments to parks. These are providing jobs. It is attracting people to camp in the outdoors. Again, Mr. Chair, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chair, as well, we are putting over $500,000 into sustainable development and the Natural Area Systems Plan. What are we doing that for? We are ensuring that what we have out in the rural parts of our district, the pristine areas, and the things that we enjoy so much and we treasure as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that we keep these things into the future.

Mr. Chair, I have to rise above the doom and gloom. I have to live in a climate where there has to be a future. There is going to be a future in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Some of it may change, but we, as a government, are making investments to ensure that these things sustain us into the future.

Mr. Chair, just take a look at health care. Forty million dollars is being invested in the health care sector in capital construction. Just look at the list where the projects are: in Corner Brook, Clarenville, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, we have long-term health care facilities; the Grand Bank health care centre, a health care centre in Labrador City, we are going to renovate the hospital wing at the James Paton Memorial Hospital, a cancer centre in Grand Falls-Windsor, Blue Crest Nursing Home on the Burin Peninsula, and the Humberwood Addiction Centres.

Mr. Chair, I would ask the members opposite, where are these projects? All in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. So, for the people across the way to sit and say that we are not committing to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, people across the Province do not believe that. They do not believe that. People across the Province are recognizing the difficulties that we are facing in terms of world markets, the Canadian dollar, and the Chinese factor when it come to fishing.

I had a young fellow in my office today who has come back from Labrador looking for work, and his comments to me were: Yes, we know we are facing rough times in the Province, but he is genuine when he says that he believes that this government is moving in the right direction.

If we were to go one step further, as my colleague mentioned, in education - before entering politics that was my profession, and I can tell you one thing for certain: when you speak about a $5.2 million investment to retain 151 teaching units, teachers are receiving that with the highest of praise.

Look at the second one, $5.3 million to put into the busing system. Probably one of the biggest ones that teachers are pleased about is the review of the ISSP Pathways model. What they are looking at there are children with exceptionalities. We hear reports on the radio about children who are experiencing difficulties, and we have the behavioral problems and the learning disabilities. This is exactly what this will address. It was the number one issue that came out in a consultation process that took place just shortly after Christmas. It was the number one item raised by teachers, even above the teacher allocation model. To see that this is going to be reviewed and subsequent recommendations made, this is receiving the highest of praise from teachers out there.

The $1 million investment in physical education again this year, we recognize the incidents of obesity, and the increase in child diabetes and those kinds of things, so, again, another investment aimed at the future of the youth in our Province, another important one within education.

The student councils, or not the - the school councils, I am sorry, Mr. Chair, have been in place for a number of years. There have been some issues around that, and in the consultations as well this was a topic that came up. Therefore, people like Denise Pike, referenced by my colleague from Placentia & St. Mary's, someone like Denise Pike who heads up the school federation, will tell you that this will realize major improvements in the relationships that exist between parents, schools, and can only ultimately improve the lot of students in our Province.

Mr. Chair, if I were just to review quickly the things that I have mentioned here from within my own department, from the caribou management to the rivers, and then we move into the investments in health care within the Province, for the member to get up and say that we are not committing to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, as I said, no one is believing it. Our investment to the people of this Province, to the services of the people of this Province, speaks volumes to what we have done. For him to say that we have not benefitted from the Atlantic Accord, it is almost laughable to a degree.

There is no doubt, Mr. Chair, as I have said, we are facing challenges, but I have to operate in the atmosphere that there will be a future in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and that this government will take the lead in ensuring that the services are there and, as the other sectors kick in, we will see developments related to the offshore that will come to the Burin Peninsula. We will see that things will work out in the fishery.

As I have said, I can only commend people like Allan Moulton in his leadership down there, and Lonas Mayo, who is working in the fish plant in Burin and leading the people through this difficult time, that we will see positive results from those kinds of things; but, Mr. Chair, the thing about this is that anyone who has looked through this Budget, and as all of my colleagues, I would say, can attest to, and as we travel to our districts and hear what people are saying in our districts, that -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Minister of Environment and Conservation that his time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. JACKMAN: Just one minute.

Mr. Chair, there is no doubt about it, the people in our districts, in my district, are commending us on the initiatives being taken in this Budget.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can't believe what I just heard from the Member for Burin-Placentia West, who represents a significant portion of the residents of the Burin Peninsula.

The Burin Peninsula is in a crisis, and the Member for Burin-Placentia West stands up and talks about the salmon in the rivers, the caribou herd, that they are not running down the street, on Water Street. He talks about the Natural Areas System Plan, whatever that is.

Now, the problem we have here, Mr. Chair, is that we have people who are leaving this Province in droves. We have people on the Burin Peninsula who do not know how they are going to put food on the table. They have tears in their eyes when they are talking to me, as well as to that member, because they do not have any idea where their next dollar is coming from.

The Member for Burin-Placentia West stands up and talks about, acknowledges that yes, there are problems on the Burin Peninsula, but then he goes on to talk about the salmon in the rivers, and the caribou herd, and forgetting about people who would love to have salmon to eat but probably cannot afford to buy it, would probably love to have caribou to eat but cannot afford to buy it.

The people on the Burin Peninsula are hurting, and they need to hear from the Member for Burin-Peninsula West who, by the way, the Premier put in the Cabinet because he was to represent the Burin Peninsula; he was to make sure the Premier knew and Cabinet knew about the problems on the Burin Peninsula. Well, if what he had to say tonight is any indication of what he is telling the Cabinet about what is happening on the Burin Peninsula, I make no wonder we are in a crisis down there, because the Premier and the Cabinet are not hearing about what is happening down there if they are expecting to hear it from the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

He got up and talked about the wonderful initiatives of this government, talked about the health care facility in Grand Bank, the redevelopment of the Blue Crest, and the money for the health care centre. Well, guess what? That was all approved by the previous government. It was this government that cancelled it, that put people through torture for two years, didn't know whether or not anything was going to materialize. When it did, it was nothing like what had been approved by the officials in the Department of Health and by people in the know, who knew what was needed down there and approved it, and that the money had been budgeted for it. What was approved by that government was nothing compared to what the previous Liberal government had approved.

What is happening down there now, Mr. Chairman? I will tell you what is happening. They are taking down the steel. They are taking down the steel structure that was erected down there for that particular health care facility that was going to combine the health clinic and the Blue Crest. Why? We do not even know yet what is going to go there. All we know is that they have approved something, but nobody has seen plans.

You know, we talk about - well, you went down. You went down with the Premier when the announcement was made.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: You are darn right I did, but I asked the people in my district first what they thought of it. Do you know what they said to me? Well, I guess we had better take this because we do not know if we will get anything else. If they cancelled what the previous government had approved, if we do not take this, how do we know we will get anything? It was out of fear that nothing would transpire down there, that they accepted what the government had to offer. It was budgeted for by a previous government, by a Liberal government.

The CT scan was approved and budgeted for by the Liberal government. If you want to stand up and take credit for those, you go right ahead, but the people on the Burin Peninsula know differently. They know differently. They know only too well how this government has treated the Burin Peninsula.

Look at what is happening in Marystown. Marystown is in the Burin-Placentia West District, and in Marystown today we have people leaving because they really do not know what FPI is going to be doing with the plant down there. They have no idea. They are looking for work. They have families to support and we have people leaving, and when June comes you will see that many more going, whether it is to Alberta or to the Northern Peninsula or Northern B.C. You will see people leaving this Province in droves, more so than they have already.

Marystown, I don't know if the Member for Burin-Placentia West heard the Mayor of Marystown, Mayor Synard, but he was out on the public record saying we are not dancing in the street over what is being proposed for Marystown. We are certainly not dancing in the street about a proposal from Bill Barry. We really do not even know what that entails.

So, how is it that the Member for Burin-Placentia West can stand here tonight and talk in glowing terms about what is going down while you have the Mayor of Marystown, you have the mayor of other communities, saying things are in serious trouble down there.

There is nothing happening at the Cow Head facility. Where is the ferry? Where is the new ferry that is going to be built for the Province? Is the Member for Burin-Placentia West, who represents the Burin Peninsula in Cabinet because the Premier brought him in because he said he needed to hear about the woes of the Burin Peninsula - well, maybe he should bring in a member who represents a Northern Peninsula, too, the Member for St. Barbe, because we all know there are serious issues on the Northern Peninsula. Maybe the Member for Bonavista should be brought in, because we all know that the people from Bonavista cannot get a meeting with FPI about the future of their plant.

You know, it is one thing to take the Member for Burin-Placentia West and elevate him to a Cabinet position because, as the Premier says, he wants to hear what is happening on the Burin Peninsula, given all the troubles that they are having down there, but if you do not have a member who speaks his mind, says it like it is, tells the Premier that we need support on the Burin Peninsula, then what is the point of putting him in Cabinet? What is the point? What I heard tonight was that there was no point. There was no point.

I know he is the Minister of Environment and Conservation - I know that - but when you have what is happening on the Burin Peninsula and in other parts of rural Newfoundland, so serious, and that minister would get up and talk about salmon in the river, the caribou herd, the Natural Areas System Plan - good initiatives, but what about what is happening on the Burin Peninsula? What about the thousands of people who are leaving the Burin Peninsula? What about them? Don't they count? Don't you want to talk about them like you want to talk about salmon? Don't you want to talk about them more than you want to talk about the caribou? These are people who are in dire straits.

I have people in Fortune, in Lamaline, in Point May, in Point au Gaul, in Grand Beach, in Grand Bank who really do not know where to turn. They don't know where to turn. We have people in Marystown, in all of the communities surrounding Marystown, who are finding themselves in the same boat because of a company called FPI and a government who has failed to hold that company accountable.

All I can say to the Member for Burin-Placentia West is that you are going to have to start speaking out and speaking up and being heard and representing the people on the Burin Peninsula. You are the minister in a government, who happens to be the government of the day, who has the say and who can influence and do things to make life better for the people on the Burin Peninsula. I am imploring you tonight to stand and talk about or to tell the Premier or please tell him that things are serious.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: And, yes, I have implored you before. Yes, and you have acknowledged it and you can say it with a smile, but yes, I have. I have begged you, as the member in the government, the minister in Cabinet for the Burin Peninsula. I have actually begged you to speak out and support the people on the Burin Peninsula. I am doing it again tonight, and I will continue to do it until I see some evidence that you are doing just that.

What is happening on the Burin Peninsulas is sad. It is sad. We have people leaving. We have people who do not know where the next dollar is coming from. People who want an early retirement package and there is no indication that they are going to get it. There are people who really are looking to their representatives in government to really help them get the point across and I am one of them, certainly from my district, but I have also been contacted by people in other parts of rural Newfoundland. As much as you want to stand up and talk about that your government is committed to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the evidence says otherwise. You can go on the Northern Peninsula, you can go on the Bonavista Peninsula, you can go on the Connaigre Peninsula, you can certainly go on the Burin Peninsula and you can see the proof - and the Port au Port Peninsula.

In fact, we were out in Stephenville, and I can tell you that the stories we heard out in Stephenville were enough to really break your heart; whether it was people who were impacted by what has happened with Abitibi, or whether it was people who were impacted by the flood, or whether it was people who, no matter what, they are just seeing businesses closing. So they are losing their jobs as a result of businesses closing. By the way, it is happening on the Burin Peninsula, too. You have people losing their jobs because of FPI, you have businesses that are closing as a result of that -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: - and you have people moving out who really need their member to stand up and take notice that the Burin Peninsula is in serious trouble.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: I cannot resist it, Mr. Chair. I just cannot resist it. I cannot let it go unchecked. I think she has implored me a few times before, but I can assure you one thing, Mr. Chair, the solution for the Burin Peninsula will not be found with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: The solution for the people on the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Chair, will be found from this side. It will be found from this side.

Mr. Chair, she talks about out-migration. She is talking about the people leaving the Province. She is talking about people leaving in droves. She don't need to speak to me about that. I have five children, two of them are not in this Province and there is nobody who would love to have them back in this Province more than I would. I assure you, Mr. Chair, again, if there is a hope that they will be back in this Province it will be with this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Let's just look at Statistics Canada. From 1996 to 2000 some 59,000 people left this Province. I would not say, in the history of this Province, there were as many people who would have left this Province as there were under their watch.

Mr. Chair, what she should also realize is that - I cannot live with the drone that comes out of that, that kind of speech. I have to operate - I have always operated that we can find the best when we have the best people working together. We will find the solution. For the people on the Burin Peninsula, I would say I am probably getting more calls from people from her district than she is. Maybe they are not getting the responses, but I can assure you that I am getting calls. Not only that, Mr. Chair, I am returning them, as I am returning the calls to the people in my district. We have the concern. There is nothing surer than that. Anyone who thinks and can speak ill of the Minister of Fisheries and how he is committed to this entire process to find a solution to Fishery Products, there is no one who cannot speak that this man is not putting his heart and soul into it, nor can they say that about the Premier.

Maybe I should inform her of some of the discussions that are going on with Kiewit in the local area. That myself, the Minister of Natural Resources, and Innovation and Trade have met with Kiewit on several occasions to position them for some of the projects that are coming out from the federal government - refit work, so on and so forth. So, these are initiatives that are ongoing which will ensure that the future of the Burin Peninsula is a bright one. It is a bright one, and I would think that - she commented on my comments about the caribou management. There are people from her district who hunt caribou. As the former Minister of Industry, she should probably realize that the outfitters are very much impacted if we do not look after the herds of caribou in our Province. I believe it is something like $40 million a year that comes in from the Outfitters Association and every opportunity that is in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. So, is she suggesting that we should not look at the broader picture here? Maybe the problem in the Province, Mr. Chair, is that their previous focus was so narrow that we have seen the downside of it.

Mr. Chair, while she talks about the health care centre in Grand Bank and the CT scan and the dialysis, the dialysis unit was announced, I believe, about a month -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. JACKMAN: I think so. I think the initial announcement was made like a month before an election. We are not into that, Mr. Chair, and while she may have promised it, we are going to deliver. We are going to deliver on it, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: She can rest assured on that. I believe, Mr. Chair, it was from the very first time that we came into the House she got up on several occasions and she implored that I make sure that government get representatives, that the people on the Peninsula get representatives and that there would be a CT scan come there. She implored that we, as a government, invest in the facilities in Grand Bank, and she implored that we invest in the dialysis. Well, Mr. Chair, imploring seems to work and I am on the end of delivering it for her. I have told people on the Peninsula that we would have the CT scan and we would have the dialysis, and two-and-a-half-years into our mandate those things are there. I can indicate to the people on the Peninsula -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, yes, these things, she attempted to deliver them but she did not. In fact, she attempted to leave but she is back here again and those are the things that we have to deal with. I have never been and I never will be involved in those kinds of exchanges, those petty exchanges. All I can say to her is that she need not worry about the representation, my representation, in the government. If that has not proven true in the last two-and-a-half years, with some of the announcements on the Burin Peninsula, she is very mistaken.

Secondly, Mr. Chair, as I have said, the people who are involved in this know where government is in terms of FPI. We will find a solution on the Peninsula. The fisheries will continue and, in her own district, some of the things we are looking at is something like Cooke Aquaculture coming into Fortune, in her district. Wouldn't she agree that a $10 million investment in aquaculture might benefit her district?

Take it from a government who does things fairly that, if we can see the opportunity, and if we can see it through Cooke Aquaculture, to support the people in her district, in Fortune, she will not have to worry. We will be there for them, as we will be for the people in Marystown and as we can be to the extent that we can be in Harbour Breton. She has no worry about where we, as a government, will be for the people on the Burin Peninsula and on the Northern Peninsula.

If she thinks that our investment - if I should not get up and rant and rave and sing the praises of our government for what we have placed in health care, a $40 million investment in health care across this Province, if she thinks that I should just sit on my laurels and not bring praises to that, she is sadly mistaken. People in the Province are giving us praises for investments such as that, and we would hope - we are seeing that. You know, I don't know, she didn't vote to support the initiatives last night?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. JACKMAN: I mean, you know, I run across people in her district. The Burin Peninsula is not a big region, so I run across people from her district occasionally. Maybe we should do a poll and just see what people in her district think about our announcement for health care in her district. She may be a little bit less than 100 votes next time, Mr. Chair. She may be.

Mr. Chair, I will close by saying that she need not worry about our support for the people on the Burin Peninsula. She need not worry about how I will represent them. I will take care of that. Mr. Chair, finally, we will not make promises to the people in the area without keeping them. She can be assured of that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few comments to make but, before I do, I would like to respond to some of the comments that my colleague across the floor, the member for Marystown, just made.

He talks about taking calls from other people's districts. I can tell the member, and I can give him names if he wants, there is not a day that goes by that I do not take a call from Marystown, from people who are concerned about their livelihood and their future. Some of them have gone so far as to ask me should they leave for Alberta or should they go up in Northern B.C. somewhere cutting bush, cutting lines, or should they wait to find out what is going to happen with their plant?

I have had calls before Christmas concerning the future of Marystown. They called me before Christmas, and I told them I didn't want to go public with it before Christmas and make statements that might have the effect of ruining Christmas for some people, but we heard what was going to happen to Marystown and, after Christmas, we did start to talk about it and we were accused of fearmongering, that we did not know what we were talking about. Every time I stand up in this House of Assembly the Minister of Fisheries says that about me, that I don't know what I am talking about, but what happens is, what I say comes true in a lot of cases.

Mr. Chairman, I had the occasion, just after Christmas, of going down to Marystown because there was a demonstration there of over 1,000 workers, or 1,000 people on the Burin Peninsula who were protesting because the plant in Fortune and the plant in Marystown was not open. I had the occasion, if the minister wants to talk about it, the member who represents the district of - what is the name of the district?

MS FOOTE: Burin-Placentia West.

MR. REID: Burin-Placentia West.

I had the occasion of an individual who walked up to me - because the minister said it tonight, not me. He said that the people of that area, and the people in this House, have faith in what this government and those people over right there are going to do for them. They have faith in those people. I had an individual who walked up to me in Marystown, on the wharf in front of the plant, and looked at me and put out his hand and introduced himself. Now, you talk about having faith in that government, he said: Mr. Reid, I am the first cousin of the Member for Burin-Placentia West. He said: I voted Tory once in my life, and that was for him, but I will tell you something right now, I will never vote Tory again.

If that is any indication of the faith that the people of the Burin Peninsula have in this government, I suggest that the man go visit them.

The other thing he talked about tonight is the number of his family that have gone to the mainland, and he is talking about out-migration. Well, I will tell you what I was doing this morning at 5:30. I was at the airport, taking my son to the airport so he could go to work in B.C. That is where I was at 5:30 this morning. So, we have this problem.

Mr. Chair, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Government House Leader, stood here tonight and talked about his children. He talked about the books and fairytales that they read. I am beginning to think that someone wrote that group across the floor a fairytale and that they believe it and they are living in it.

I cannot believe that thirty-five individuals, many of whom represent rural districts in this Province, can stand day after day and criticize us because we are being negative, and talk about everything that is positive in this Budget and everything that is positive in this Province.

I am beginning to think that maybe I should have been on the plane with my son this morning because I am beginning to think that I am living in a fairytale, living in this Province. I honestly believe that the Premier wrote you a fairytale and you have read it. I also think that none of you leave the confines of this House. I don't believe that you leave the confines of the House. You can't. I don't believe that you read a newspaper. I don't believe that you listen to the radio. I don't believe that you look at the news, because, if you did, what would you find out? What is happening out there?

All you have to do is turn on the radio in the morning and listen to reporters talking about the exodus from this Province, talking about the devastation to rural Newfoundland and Labrador and criticizing us, the Opposition and the NDP, for not addressing the issues of the problems in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what I have to listen to. That is what I have to listen to, that we are not being negative enough. We are not presenting the issues to this government to talk about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask you: Where have you been? Where have you been, I ask?

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: You know, Ladies and gentlemen, all I am asking the Member for Lake Melville - I know that he comes into this House of Assembly and he flies back to Goose Bay. Maybe, I do not know - I have been to Goose Bay sometimes, a few times, not very many times, I say, and I doubt - he is over there criticizing me for not, but I do not say you have ever been to Fogo Island or Change Islands or Twillingate Island or New World Island, have you?

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Have you? Well, get up and tell me all about it when I sit down, but I would appreciate it if you would, at least, give me the decency tonight to talk about what is happening in this Province. Pick up the phone in your own offices. I had a call, numerous calls this morning from the Northern Peninsula, from the Member for St. Barbe's district. I did not call those individuals. They called me to tell me that the fish plants in Black Duck Cove and Anchor Point are not open and haven't been open this year. The shrimp plants have not been open. There is no one working up there. There is no one working in the shrimp plant in Anchor Point and Black Duck Cove. I take great pride in the fact that - according to this crowd we did nothing - we reactivated a dormant licence in Black Duck Cove and we had people employed there for the last couple of years. Now we find today that there is no one processing shrimp in Black Duck Cove or Anchor Point when the rules -

MR. E. BYRNE: Why is that?

MR. REID: I will tell you why, Mr. Chair. I will tell you. The Minister of Natural Resources says, why? Because the fish is being trucked out of those towns to other plants in this Province. If you do not believe me, pick up the phone and call Mr. Dwight Spence, a well-known fisherman on the Northern Peninsula. Call the Ginge's up there. Ask them why.

I always thought there was a regulation that said fish caught in the Gulf had to be processed in plants on the Northern Peninsula. That is what I always thought, but where is it being processed today? Call them. Ask the Member for St. Barbe, because I asked: Have you discussed the issue with your Member for St. Barbe? He knows what is going on he said, but we do not hear about it. Will you raise it for us in the House of Assembly? That is what I did this afternoon. I raised questions on Fortune because the people of Fortune called my colleague and called me. I raised questions from the cousin of the member who represents Marystown, and it is not just those areas. It is not just fish. That is not what it is all about. Talk to the woman that I talked to on Fogo Island this morning who cannot find a job. There is not one to be had because of the state of the fishery on Fogo Island. Talk to the people on Change Islands who call me crying. Talk to me about the young lady on Fogo Island who had managed, when we were in government through every single program, both federally and provincially, to open a youth centre. There are only thirty-five or forty students or kids on Change Islands. There are no businesses out there. There is one convenience store out there and when they wrote the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development last year to ask for a few dollars to keep the youth centre open, the response came back from the minister - and I will bring you a copy if you want. Do you know what the response from the minister was that came back? I am sorry, we do not have any funds for such programs. Why don't you go and talk to your local businesses? Now, on Change Islands, a population of 300 people with one convenience store. Now go and talk to your local businesses about giving you some money. I can stand here tonight, I can stand here until tomorrow night, and talk about examples like that.

No one working on the Northern Peninsula and fishermen getting thirty-five or forty cents for shrimp this year. I am not saying the price of shrimp can be attributed to the government. No, I am saying that it is not, but who is talking for those people? Because all I am hearing from you and the Minister of Transportation and Works who represents St. Anthony, and the minister who represents Marystown, and the minister responsible for the Burin Peninsula, and the minister responsible for Stephenville, is everything is rosy. Everything is rosy. That is all I hear from these people and it makes me sick -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: - that no one stands up for the people that they represent anymore on that side of the House. Nobody!

I asked the fishermen from the Northern Peninsula today: Why isn't it that your member will not stand up for you and speak on your behalf? Do you know what his response was? I will tell you what his response was. They are frightened to death to speak up because they only had one in there who had the guts to stand up and speak for the people in his district, and where is he today? He was flicked out the door, and luckily the people in this Province saw that at least he was a man who would stand on his own two feet and now he is in the House of Commons in Ottawa representing the people of Avalon district. That is what I say to those of you who think that you are going to hide behind Danny Williams and his coattails are going to drag you into power the next time around. That is what I say to you. Why don't you look at yourselves in the mirror and stand up for the people in your own districts instead of letting the Premier say that if you speak you are gone.

What other district do you want to talk about? Go down to Stephenville and talk about the 900 people who lost their jobs, direct and indirect jobs because of the mill closing. Where are they going now? I can tell you where they are going. This government, one of the bright ideas - I might say, concocted probably by the Minister of Education, the minister who represents Stephenville - is to establish a manpower or a clearing centre right now. A few months ago the people in Alberta used to come down and hold a job fair. Well, they have been told: No need to come anymore. We will set up a committee in Stephenville and we will look after that for you. We will recruit -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: - and we will send you those people so you do not have to spend your money to come down here to recruit them. That is a sad scenario, I say to the minister responsible for Stephenville, that the only claim to fame that she has is she is the clearinghouse for people on the Port au Port Peninsula.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his time has expired.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chair, I understand why the Leader of the Opposition is angry and I think it has little to do with what we are debating in the Budget tonight, to be frank about it. We have just been blamed that people who were involved in the shrimp industry are not going to be -

MS FOOTE: No, you weren't.

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Grand Bank, I listened to you. I listened to you intently. I never interrupted you like you interrupted my colleague. I sat there and listened to you. We have been blamed tonight, and by members opposite last night, that the troubles with respect to shrimp and crab this year are the government's fault. In 2001 -

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am not going to sit here - and I have no intentions of interrupting him like he did with me last night, but I am not going to sit here tonight and listen to that gentleman across the floor accuse me of blaming the government for the price of what is happening in the shrimp fishery. I said in my speech just two short minutes ago, I am not blaming this government for the price of shrimp this year. I never said that, I say to the hon. gentleman opposite, and I do not like for you to get up and change my words and concoct your own ideas and say that I said them because I did not.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Then he attacks members on the opposite side, saying you are not representing your district. Who is speaking in your opinion? I say to the Leader -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: You know, Mr. Chair, I think that the display by the Leader of the Opposition speaks for itself so I am not even going to get into that and deal with the absolute venom and bitterness that is being spued from the member. Nobody in this government, nobody -

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Grand Bank, when you start attacking people, individual members in the House, saying that they are -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: When you are starting to attack individual members in the House making personal accusations about them saying nothing, doing nothing for the people they represent, that is not real and that is not passion. That is venom and that is bitterness in the world that I live in.

Mr. Chair, it is as simple as this, nobody here, nobody in this government has ever stood up and said that there are not significant challenges that face particular regions of this Province. Anybody who wants to suggest otherwise, that we have not acknowledged that, are not trying to work our way through it to the best we can, to the best of our ability, looking to strive for each and every solution for the benefit of the people in the regions that are impacted, in my view, are doing not only themselves a disservice, but the Province generally.

I have listened on several occasions tonight, as I have heard on many nights, they actually went ahead tonight, some member opposite and said that we went ahead and made an arrangement with the Abitibi group, particularly for Stephenville, because we knew there was not going to be a deal anyway.

Now, when you think about it, Abitibi announced last July - we spent six months in negotiations with them. They announced last July they were idling the mill. From the middle of July, until we had a deal some time the latter part of September, the entire summer was spent. I know myself, as lead negotiator for that on behalf of the government for that arrangement, that we actually reached an arrangement that was agreed to and signed off on by the company and by the government. Yet, fifteen years, on average $10 million a year, the Leader of the Opposition at one point said there is more to the story than that. Members opposite, including his colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, condemned it, said we should not be giving companies like that any money. Yet, when we reached the arrangement, and they know it, and a deal was struck between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and a corporate citizen in this Province, they will stand up today and say: the Premier said it would not close on his watch, but it closed.

The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador entered into an arrangement and showed leadership for that region. The fact that Abitibi left Stephenville had nothing to do with this government, I say to members opposite. Now it is absolutely sad and a tragedy that they did, and no, they should not have. In our view, we have dealt with them in good faith. We do not believe necessarily that they dealt with the people in Stephenville or, for that matter, for the people in Grand Falls, or with the government in good faith, but that does not stop us from trying to put in place an arrangement and a process that involves the community leadership, that involves the union leadership.

Even last Friday - for the last two years we have been meeting consistently and regularly with the union, myself, the minister and the members involved. Even last Friday, as we normally do, to try to find significant solutions for that area. I can tell you, it does not come overnight. You do not close a mill one day and the next day return it and take 200 more jobs out of your pocket, paying on average $80,000 a year and put them back and say we had that anyway. It does not work like that, but that is what you are suggesting. If there is a fairytale that anyone has been spinning, that is the one that has been spun.

Let's talk about the fishery, Harbour Breton and the Burin Peninsula. Let's have a chat about that, the most significant issue that is facing Newfoundland and Labrador today, acknowledgeably, by people in this government, acknowledged by the members who are representing districts in this government who are going through significant challenges. If you listen to members opposite, you wouldn't know but we were the ones who are conspiring to make it happen.

They stand up every day and talk about, we have a plan for regional hubs - when the minister herself, when the Member for Grand Bank, herself, in 1998, on April 26, acknowledged that was their plan. She said, you can't put anything in Lamaline or Lord's Cove, or places like that, because it does not have the infrastructure and, more importantly, she said, the people do not have the skills.

That was in 1998, when she was the minister responsible for the development of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Those were your words, not mine. Our view is quite different than that, I pointed out, because of the investments in infrastructure, because we believe you are not going to attract investment capital unless you have the infrastructure in place to do it. That is why we put in place a $2 billion infrastructure fund. Facts. Facts.

In the Leader of the Opposition's own district, in Fogo, last summer - you never hear him talking about this - for the Fogo Island Co-op, $1.4 million provided to that Co-op.

MR. SULLIVAN: And a $2 million guarantee.

MR. E. BYRNE: And a $2 million guarantee, for what purpose?

MR. TAYLOR: To keep their doors open last summer.

MR. E. BYRNE: Exactly. My colleagues have said it right, so that Co-op in Fogo Island could keep its doors open last summer and continue to employ the people that it employed.

Now, you never hear the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo get up and talk about what this government tried to do. I could really, really care less if he does. The fact of the matter is that it was a decision that we took because it was the right decision to take, and that is where we are headed.

In Bellevue, when the fish plant in Arnold's Cove was experiencing difficulty, for the first time in our history, I might add, as a government, a provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador actually bought a fish quota. Ten years from now, or fifteen years from now, or, depending on how the market is, even sooner than that, what we picked up that quota for and what it may be worth could be a significant difference. The fact is, we own it. We own it. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians own that resource. The first time since 1949 that a government had the vision to buy a fish quota and attach it to a plant. Why did we do that?

MR. TAYLOR: Twenty-five percent of the offshore allocation of Northern cod.

MR. E. BYRNE: Here it is. The Minister of Transportation and Works, or the Minister of Fisheries at the time, puts it in this perspective: 25 per cent of the offshore allocation for Northern cod belongs to us now and forever, so there is a potential big upswing to that, a potential big upswing, but it is about trying to have a greater say in the development of an industry for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

In fact, last night I listened to the Leader of the Opposition stand up and talk about the wood supply analysis, and all the cuts to the wood supply on the Northern Peninsula. If there was something that angered me last night, that was it; because, in fact, there has been no cut to the fibre supply in the western region, or on the Northern Peninsula. As a matter of fact, there was an increase in Kruger's fibre supply by 10.2 per cent, but that did not stop the Leader of the Opposition standing up last night and leaving an impression with the people on the Northern Peninsula and the western region of the Province that there was a significant cut in the availability of fibre on the western region. Not true.

Here is what we did a couple of weeks ago when we announced the fibre supply. There were significant challenges in three districts: in District 4, in District 6, and in District 8. What did we say up front? We said: Here is the fibre supply for Newfoundland and Labrador. Generally it is going to remain constant, which speaks to the investments that we have made, and speaks to the investments that we are going to continue to make, in silviculture. Five years from now, it is my prediction, if we continue on the path we are continuing on, we will actually be increasing the fibre supply on every region in the forest management districts, potentially.

What did we do? We said, there are three districts where we have significant problems. We are going to work with the loggers, we are going to work with the communities, to mitigate those areas. We outlined why there was a cut, because of environmental protected areas, further alienation of land for buffer zones. What are the things that we need to do? We need to invest in, for example, more forestry road construction to reach harder to access areas.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Government House Leader his time has expired.

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

I will be back up, as soon as one of them speaks, to finish my speech, but I am not going to stand up and listen to the rant of a bitter MHA in this House of Assembly any longer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words again on this Budget Debate which, of course, tends to be very wide-ranging and can cover a whole multitude of discussions and so on. I guess everybody, from time to time, can get emotional in here and, depending on the heat of the topic that we are talking about, people tend to say things that maybe sometimes you wish you did not say. That is not unusual, I guess, because you are in a very heated situation and people obviously take sides in a debate and things sometimes get out of hand.

I do not think, in my short time here since 1999, I have ever gotten personal with anyone. As far as I am here, and as long as I am here, I do not intend to. In fact, this is a job that one has to do and we all have to do. I have been accused of a lot of stuff here, from lecturing one day to being silly another day, and we all do our cat calls and whatever else, but the bottom line is - and it comes from both sides; I am not suggesting that it does not - comments come across the House to the effect that, you know, someone thinks like an eleven-year-old, and stuff like that. I don't care how you want to classify that; that is being personal. That is calling someone childish, and that is uncalled for, and that is personal, put it in any kind of can you want, or any light you want, and I do not intend to go down that road. Enough said on that topic.

I also like an opportunity - democracy is a great thing - we get an opportunity to explain something when somebody says something about you, or what you did or did not say, and they do not give the full facts. It is very important that people have the full facts.

The Government House Leader here stood up earlier tonight, in one of his comments, and he talked about - on one hand, by the way, you can ask a question. You ask a question and they say, well, that is a stupid question. If you do not ask a question, they say you are stupid for not asking. So, it seems like you are in a rock and a hard place here. If you ask, they say you should not ask because we are not going to tell you anyway. So, it is kind of hard to figure out what we are supposed to do, if that is the case, but I thought, as an Opposition person here in this House, we have an obligation to ask some questions.

Maybe the government does not always want to hear them, and maybe the government does not always want to answer, and that is fine, too, but as long as I am here and I have the right to stand up in this House and ask questions, I will ask them.

I refer the Government House Leader back to the comments about an interview I did on CBC. He started out saying one thing and, by the end of the interview, the Opposition House Leader had flipped to say something else.

I did the interview with the Leader of the NDP. He made his comments and his points about how we felt about how the Premier handled the Ben Nevis deal. I happen to think the Leader of the NDP was soft on the Premier, but that is up to him to take his approach. I happen to disagree with him. I do not agree with everything he says, either, and I am sure we will not in the future, but I would like to explain what my point was about the Ben Nevis deal, and that is where it comes back to asking the questions.

I have been in this House now since April, I guess, when the Ben Nevis deal struck. Here we are now into May month and I believe I have asked something to the tune of fifty-seven questions in this House, of the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources, about the Ben Nevis deal. It is to the point now where we are being told today: Confidentiality, can't give you the letter, confidentiality.

Ladies and gentlemen, confidentiality wasn't the issue when the Premier first broke the news that the Ben Nevis deal was off the rails. Actually, it was broken by the company on a Monday morning, saying that it was off the rails, and the Premier confirmed it. It wasn't Kelvin Parsons or any member of this House, other than the Premier, as I recall, who went to the media and talked about the refinery, what some of the elements of the deal were. It was the Premier who said: Well, we asked them for a refinery, but we know that is a no go.

It was not anybody that I know, other than the Premier, who talked about an equity position for the Province in the Ben Nevis deal. It was not anybody but the Premier who talked about the royalties issue as part of the deal. It was not anybody but the Premier who talked about whether we were or were not going to have a gravity-based structure, and where would it be built.

Now I do believe, going back to that first week of April when it was put on notice that the talks were off, that it was the Premier of this Province who made mention of these things in the media. So this member, being the critic for Natural Resources, said: Just a minute now. You have floated out these four items, talked about refineries, benefits, fabrication, royalties, equities. Can we get some details on that?

All of a sudden we are told no, no, we are not allowed to talk about that. So, which is it? Do we have an open, transparent government who feels that whenever it is necessary to go out and talk about something they can do it, but the minute an Opposition member asks about it we are told we cannot talk about it. We can't talk about it.

I would like to know, for example, on the equity piece: Someone says, from the government side - the Premier or the Natural Resources Minister - that we had initially sought an 8 per cent stake. We wanted to own 8 per cent of it. Then the word comes out that we were prepared to accept 4.9 per cent. The Premier said that in answer to a question here one day. So, I thought it was a pretty logical question: Why are we moving from 8 per cent to 4.9 per cent? Is there some reason that we are moving? Why would you start off, if we were a deal maker and we were driving a bargain here and you want 8 per cent and all of a sudden you agree to 4.9 per cent, do you mind telling us why? We do not know. The public does not know. I am assuming that, when they put this package together and the Premier asked for 8 per cent, he knew why he wanted it.

Now, I understand the reason he had to go back from 8 per cent to 4.9 per cent was because there is an agreement between the partners in the consortium which says, if you go above 5 per cent you are then into management-making decisions; you have to be consulted on operational management-type decisions.

I am sure the people of the Province did not know that. All of a sudden we get that explanation, but it still begs the question: So what? Does that mean we still have to accept 4.9 per cent? So what, if part of the deal is insisting that we still want the 8 per cent and we are still going to have a role in operational management decisions? But you cannot ask those questions.

What about the fabrication at Bull Arm? What was it going to be? How many people were going to be employed? How many do you expect might be employed? What was the project going to be worth? Were there any problems anticipated with getting the skilled labour back that we need for it? Asked all those questions. I do not think that is top secret stuff that you should not be talking about.

How does the Ben Nevis deal compare with the White Rose deal in terms of percentages? I understand 83 per cent of the benefits that could come to the Province came as a result of White Rose. Going back to Hibernia it started, got a better deal later on with Terra Nova, a better deal, again, with White Rose, and the Premier is striving for an even better deal with Ben Nevis. So, the question was: How far above and beyond, in terms of percentages, if we had included the Ben Nevis deal, would we be better off than the 83 per cent that White Rose got?

I do not think that is a wrong question. I do not think that is a bad question to ask the Premier. This is a person who talks about being a good deal maker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Accountable.

MR. PARSONS: Accountable.

What is wrong with asking these tough questions?

We hear about the fallow field piece. What is that all about? People out in my district didn't know but we were talking about a field up in the Codroy Valley somewhere. What is this all about, this fallow field stuff, Kelvin? Use it or lose it. What are they talking about?

People ask questions, the same as there are people out there tonight listening, and they want the answers to that. I do not think it is a stupid question. You cannot, on the one hand, look up, as a government, and say you are not being a good Opposition, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition; you are not asking any questions. The minute we ask questions, we are told: Whoa, we can't give you any answers. Confidentiality. Sorry.

Well, I beg to differ. I think I am still entitled to ask, and I will ask. Do not inquire of this government. Do not ask questions of this government.

On the fallow field piece, the Premier comes out one day and says - and you talk about who puts it in the public domain to be talked about. I believe it was the Premier who talked about it. Use it or lose it. The Premier comes in the media and says: We are going to ask the Prime Minister for his help on that. Good idea. Good idea. The Prime Minister comes to town the next day and says: Whoa, hands off. I am not getting involved in this. This is a commercial deal. Whoa, can't do it.

So, I say to the Government House Leader, I ask questions. It is not a case of being wishy-washy in an interview on what you said first and what you said later. I still am not in a position to decide whether what was on the table in Ben Nevis was a good deal or a bad deal, because I do not know the details. I have been four weeks here trying to get some details so that I would be in a better position to determine and make up my mind if this government did the right thing.

I am not condemning government because the Ben Nevis deal is off the rails, absolutely not, but I am certainly entitled to ask questions so that I can get as informed as possible to be in a position to make that decision. So, do not, when somebody asks these questions, think you are just asking because you want to be critical. We are asking because we would like to be informed so we can be in a position to either say yea or nay to the proposal. We can talk all we want in this House about, it is off the rails and nobody is hurt.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is an honour and a privilege for me to be able to stand here today representing the great people of Humber East, in the historic District of Humber East, to take part in the Budget Debate and to announce my support for a Budget that, in one felt swoop, eliminated the deficit, reduced our public debt by $2 billion, and has triggered economic growth that leads the country. I think that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are extremely proud of the Budget that the Minister of Finance for this Province introduced in this House some time ago.

There is a lot of talk about budgets, both here in Newfoundland and Labrador and also in Ottawa. During the dinner break, I had a chance to pick up on some of the key points that were announced in the federal Budget tonight, particularly as they effect the Department of Justice because, Mr. Chair, as the Justice Minister, I think the correspondence that I get the most and the calls I get the most from people all over Newfoundland and Labrador are calls for additional police presence and additional police officers in their communities. This goes back, Mr. Chair, to the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 when the government of the day, because of the financial difficulties in which it found itself, in one felt swoop again eliminated approximately seventy police officers from Newfoundland and Labrador at one time. Then, because of that, they had to direct the police, especially the RCMP, to come up with a different model of policing, something called the district model of policing. From the people who come in to see me, and write me, they indicate to me that model means less police presence in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I was therefore pleased tonight to note the federal Budget that will provide an additional $161 million for 1,000 additional RCMP officers and federal prosecutors who will focus on such law enforcement policies as drugs, corruption and border security, including gun smuggling. Those police officers will be warmly welcomed throughout the country, and in particular in our Province. In addition, the federal Budget announced $37 million to extend the RCMP training depot in Regina, Saskatchewan, in order to accommodate these new officers and to build the capacity to train more officers in the future.

It is also interesting that this federal Budget - and I know there are a lot of people in this Province, particularly those of the John Howard Society, who will be pleased to note that the federal government set aside funds to expand Canada's correctional facilities to house the expected increases in inmates as a result of changes that are anticipated in sentencing rules.

Certainly, we look forward - and I will be going to Ottawa on May 15 to speak with the federal Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day. I intend to speak to him about our needs for additional RCMP officers in Newfoundland and Labrador, and also about the state of our prisons, particularly the prison in St. John's. I am looking forward to that discussion. At the same time, I will be meeting with the federal Justice Minister, the federal Attorney General, Mr. Vic Toews. We will be discussing legal aid, and we will also be discussing expansions to Unified Family Court in this Province.

The police officers, as I said, Mr. Chair, will be warmly welcomed. Of course, in our own Budget we also heeded the call as best we could for many communities within the Province for additional police officers.

With respect to the RNC, Mr. Chair, twenty-six new officers will be hired this year. This is part of the police officers recruiting program. Twenty-eight officers - sixteen women and twelve men - were hired last year, and they have made a tremendous impact on the morale and (inaudible) in the RNC. It has been mentioned to me that they have exceeded the wildest expectations of the management of the force, and they are a credit to the force. So, there will be twenty-six new officers.

The Budget also announced an additional nine RNC officers that will go in the system this year. There will be five regular officers - I am sorry, there are going to be nine new officers in addition to the twenty-six. I notice there was an ad in the paper recently calling for applications for eight new RNC positions. Five of these will be regular positions; three of them will be drug awareness officers. It is obviously important that we expand our drug enforcement officers across the Province, because the RNC have indicated to us that most of the crime that we are experiencing in Newfoundland and Labrador is drug related, or drug instigated. There will be three new drug awareness officers: one in St. John's, one in Corner Brook, and one in Labrador West. In addition to that, there will be a K-9 unit with a new officer in Corner Brook.

That is a total of thirty-five new officers in the RNC this year. In addition, there will also be five administrative clerk positions and there will be four civil dispatchers. These arise out of recommendations that were made by the Attorney General in his report, who indicated in the report that some of the positions down at the RNC were staffed by police officers and these positions could be well performed by civilians, thus freeing up the police officers for operational duties. We have heeded the advice of the Auditor General and these new nine positions, I am pleased to see, were in the Budget.

On the RCMP side, I think most people know that we have two police forces in this Province. We have the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary that police St. John's, Corner Brook, Labrador West, Lab City and Wabush, as well as Churchill Falls -

MR. HARRIS: And Conception Bay South.

MR. T. MARSHALL: And Conception Bay South, yes. My understanding of the East Coast was never that great.

MR. HARRIS: Flatrock.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Flatrock.

The Leader of the NDP has corrected me, and I stand corrected.

We are very pleased to see this expansion. The other police force we have, of course, is the RCMP, who serve this Province under contract, and that contract will be coming up for renewal in the years 2011-2012.

I can tell the hon. House and, through this House, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we have started the negotiations for that new contract. I am looking forward to having discussions, as I indicated earlier, with Minister Stockwell Day to see if there might be some new cost-sharing arrangements under that new formula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Right now, for RCMP officers, for RCMP policing, this Province pays 70 per cent of the cost and the federal government pays 30 per cent of the cost. I will repeat that. I always repeat that number, because everybody thinks it is the opposite. Everybody thinks that the feds pay 70 per cent and the Province pays 30 per cent but, in fact, we pay 70 per cent of the cost of the RCMP. The RCMP is a world-class, first-class, police force, but they are an expensive police force.

I am pleased that over the three years that the Williams' government has been in office we have seen fit to increase the number of RCMP presence in this Province. In the first year eleven new officers came into the system, every one of them in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: That is in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Chair.

Last year, there were six new officers. Apart from the officer with the National Sex Offender Registry in St. John's, the other five officers were in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, in Trinity Conception and in Marystown.

This year, with respect to the RCMP, we are very pleased as a government to announce that there will be - we announced eighteen new officers, but the good news is that there are going to be nineteen new RCMP officers in Newfoundland and Labrador, building upon the seventeen officers that came about in budgets 2004 and 2005. There will be four new positions, one at Deer Lake district, one at Trinity-Conception district, one in Grand Falls-Windsor district, and one in the community of Nain in Labrador district. They will be most welcome.

In addition, there will be five officers, three of whom will be in the highway traffic division. This arises out of the recommendations of the OxyContin Task Force; I am sorry, the Crystal Meth Task Force.

I attended a Justice Ministers' meeting in the Yukon. At that meeting, the other Justice Ministers told us about the concerns they were having in Western Canada with this drug called Crystal Meth, how it is coming our way and that we had better be ready for it. What we did, at that time, that is over a year ago, we instituted the officials working group of the OxyContin Task Force to make up a new task force so that we can be proactive and get ahead of this Crystal Meth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, the officials completed their report, and in terms of the policing section the recommendations were instituted in Budget 2006 so that we will be ready.

There will be three highway traffic officers. One will be in Traffic Services eastern, in Holyrood, to match the highway traffic officer who went there last year, and two highway traffic officers will go with Traffic Services West and will be located in the Town of Deer Lake.

There will also be two RCMP drug awareness officers to match the three RNC drug awareness officers. Before the Budget, the RCMP had two drug awareness officers, one in Labrador and one in St. John's. In Budget 2006, we announced two additional drug awareness RCMP officers in Central, and they will be located in the Town of Gander. Also, one in Western Newfoundland and that officer will be located in the Town of Stephenville.

In addition, there will be two operation communication centre specialists in St. John's. There will be two half-time public service employees, one in the community of Forteau in Labrador and the other in Mary's Harbour in Labrador. I know the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair will be pleased with that news.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Member for Humber East that his time for speaking is expired.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

Let me say it is a pleasure to be able to stand this evening and make a few comments with regard to, I guess, items that we are debating with regard to the Budget, but also to touch on some of the comments I have heard over the last evening and again this evening.

I have to say, Mr. Chair, I guess being involved in the political arena, it goes back with this hon. House to 1989, in some capacity, and many years before that with a keen interest. I have to say, I do not know if I ever saw a display in this hon. House like I saw last evening. To know that members on the opposite side, the Opposition whose duty it is to ask questions not only in Question Period but also to be able to stand and debate and put forth what they are hearing from their constituents and all residents of this Province, as far as I am concerned to be given the respect that was received here last night is nothing but despicable.

Mr. Chair, I have to go back to the hon. Member for Burin-Placentia West who is the member for an area that, I guess, was my hometown for a few years. I was born in that area. I have to say, with all due respect - and I have the greatest respect for each member in this House - but I have to say that the hon. member must be living in a dreamworld. We know that there are good things happening on the Burin Peninsula when it comes to the changes that came about with the health care issues. I have to say, for someone to stand in this hon. House and to be able to say to the people of this Province, through the media of television, that everything is fine on the Burin Peninsula, I cannot understand where he is coming from.

Mr. Chair, I hear from people on the Burin Peninsula, relatives living in some of the smaller communities, and all that I hear is how many people are packing their bags and leaving the Burin Peninsula for other areas outside of this Province. Just take Marystown alone: businesses are closing in Marystown. I am not blaming everything on this government, what is happening in Marystown, that they caused it all. Neither is it the fault of the former Administration. Unfortunately the government opposite are in power today and I believe that you have to stand, like someone said there a little while ago, shoulder to shoulder with the people on the Burin Peninsula. Just to see them packing their bags, boarding their trucks and leaving this Province is just not good enough. I know the member said that they have a plan and they are going to try to do what they can, but I say to the hon. member, there will be very few people left on the Burin Peninsula when the time comes if you have it corrected.

I cannot help but mention - and I guess we read articles from time to time with regard to what is happening in rural Newfoundland and we are being accused of saying everything is doom and gloom. No. There are bright points around this Province, no doubt about it, Mr. Chair, but I have to say, one has to wonder what is the plan of this government when it comes to rural Newfoundland. Many people, not only in my area because we are fortunate enough to be living in close proximity to St. John's and the greater Avalon area, but many people today are calling it the modern day resettlement.

Mr. Chair, the Premier of this Province last year, when he was talking about rural development, stated very clearly what he was referring to in his terms as regional hubs. I heard the hon. Member for Burin-Placentia West last year in debate, whether it was about the various units that we are fighting for on the Burin Peninsula - dialysis I think it was- when he said it is only a short drive to Clarenville. I have to ask the hon. member and other members opposite: Is that the hub for the Burin Peninsula, that the people on the Burin Peninsula are going to consider Clarenville as a hub? I have to ask, when it comes to my area: Is St. John's going to become the hub? Because I can assure you, ladies and gentlemen, there are many services in that area and we are very fortunate compared to the Burin Peninsula and other areas of rural Newfoundland.

I have to ask: What happened with the closure of the HRLE offices just taken totally away from that area? What about the depots that have closed? We have not heard too much about that recently. Here we go again to the Harbour Lodge, the Alzheimer's unit, closed. I have to ask again this evening with regard to the long-term care facility for Conception Bay North and the Carbonear area, number one priority, and here we are now number six on the list: Are we being looked at as another area that is going to have to be served by one of those hubs or whatever the Premier wants to call them?

Mr. Chairman, we talk about highway maintenance. I know it is very difficult to get everything done. I know the roads are bad in different areas of the Province. Well, in my district we cannot even get the lines painted on the roads in some of the areas, and that has been going on for a couple of years.

MR. TAYLOR: It is in the Budget this year.

MR. BUTLER: I hope so. The minister said it is in the Budget, and I hope there is lots of it there because we are looking forward to the lines being painted on the roads in my area.

Mr. Chair, we were accused tonight of not supporting the vote last night when it come to different issues in the Budget. There are things good in the Budget, no doubt about it, but I do not mind saying why I did not stand in my place last evening; to know that the long-term care facility is just stripped away. I guess I am very disappointed that my two hon. colleagues opposite, the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde and the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, have not stood in their places during this Budget Debate in support of a long-term care facility; definitely.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: I say to the minister and the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, no, I will not sit down. When my time is up I will sit down, but I will stand and fight for the people of my area and your area too, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much leave do you need?

MR. BUTLER: I do not need any leave, Sir, and there is no one else going to get any leave in this House while this session is sitting.

I heard the member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: We learned that one tonight.

I have to say to the hon. Member for The Straits & White Bay North, last night when he stood in his place and said why there was nothing happening on the Northern Peninsula because they lost two by-elections up there - well, I have to ask the hon. minister and others opposite: Is that the reason why there have been very little announcements in Port de Grave because you did not win the by-election there? I fail to think that is what happened. I do not think anyone in their right mind would consider that, but I have to ask the question.

Mr. Chairman, we hear members opposite: We are standing shoulder to shoulder. I ask the question: Who are they standing shoulder to shoulder with?

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: I say to the Member for Lake Melville, he has come out of his cocoon again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: He does not know what is happening in this Province. He is welcome to come to any area. I say, stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Harbour Breton, stand shoulder to shoulder with people in Fortune.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I call upon the Member for Burin-Placentia West to stand up for his people. Do not go on with this foolishness and say that he is doing all that he can. He is a member in Cabinet and he should be able to stand up and represent them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me pleasure tonight to highlight some of the specific items in Budget 2006 certainly that have provided many benefits to the great District of Trinity-Bay de Verde, and to the people who in live in it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, before I get to those many specifics, I would just like to say to the Member for Port de Grave, that it takes some time to fix all the neglect and mess that you and your past government have left us, but we have been plugging away at it.

With regards to the long-term care facility, it is certainly a priority of this government. As I said, you left us with a long, long list of things to fix, but we have been righting the wrongs of your government and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I would like to speak about that pertains specifically to my district is road work. Certainly, investment in roads is very welcomed by the people of my district and certainly residents who visit the district and surrounding areas, and most definitely very welcome by tourists to the area.

Mr. Speaker, to date, this government has invested nearly $6 million in the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde alone. That, Mr. Speaker, is the entire -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: In fact, that was the entire Budget in 1996 for the past government; $6 million was their entire Budget and that is what we have seen since this government has been elected in the Trinity-Bay de Verde district.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week we heard the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace present a petition to this House pertaining to the deplorable conditions of the road from Salmon Cove to Victoria. Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree that this road is definitely in a state. In fact, it has been in a state for as long as I can remember. The member, I recall, said that he wanted to make sure that this issue was addressed. I just wish that the member had, had the same enthusiasm when he was on this side of the House, and perhaps we would have seen some of that road done.

Mr. Speaker, the $6 million that has been invested in Trinity-Bay de Verde district has gone a very, very long way in our district. In fact, there was twenty-one kilometres of new pavement in the entire district of Trinity-Bay de Verde. This twenty-one kilometres of new pavement means that the employees can focus their efforts in other parts of the district for maintenance and so on, and certainly no need to patch potholes in those twenty-one kilometres.

Mr. Speaker, these roads that we speak of, they did not become deplorable in the past two-and-a-half years since we have been in government. The way you hear the Opposition speak sometimes, they almost leave the impression that the roads have suddenly become such a bad state just because we are in government. The fact of the matter is, that the roads have been neglected for quite some time, for decades in some cases, but the fact of the matter is that this government, as soon as we were elected, recognized that there was a need. That if we are going to improve the economy of this Province, and particularly in rural Newfoundland, we are going to have to make major, major investments in road work.

Mr. Speaker, not only will investing in roads in rural Newfoundland certainly improve the economy but most definitely, it is a safety issue that needs to be addressed. I think there is only one person in my district who is maybe not a little happy with all the road work and that is the local mechanic that I regularly bring my car to, to get wheel alignments and tire repairs done.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, that is one of the first things that we recognized as a government. We have made significant, significant investments in roads and I know we will continue to do so in the future. I, as the Member for the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde, will do my part to lobby government so that we get our fair share in the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde as well.

The $6 million not only provided twenty-one kilometres of new pavement, but it also provided much badly needed work in terms of bridges and culvert repair, that again have been neglected for some time, which is no doubt a safety issue.

One of the other benefits of this $6 million is we had to resurface 8.5 kilometres of the Bay de Verde barrens.

AN HON. MEMBER: Resurface?

MS JOHNSON: Resurface. In fact, I will give you a little bit of background on the resurface. About a month prior to the election in 2003, I remember having to stop because of road work in the area, construction was quite busy at the time in the area. While the road looked lovely and smooth and all of that, I came to find out after I was elected that this was kind of a quick fix in fact. I came to find out that the road was not done to standard. In fact, it was quite inadequate and $600,000 had to be taken again to resurface the road.

AN HON. MEMBER: A bit of electioneering, was it?

MS JOHNSON: A bit of electioneering. I called it election pavement myself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Election pavement or a quick fix, however you want to call it. Like I said, our government had to invest $600,000 to finish the job and finish the job right, because we believe in long-term planning and putting down pavement that will last the time it is supposed to last, not to just put down pavement before an election in the hopes to get a few votes because you knew that you were in trouble at the time. Instead of doing three-and-a-half or four kilometres of standard pavement, they chose to do 8.5 kilometres of substandard pavement. So, it shows the differences in the way that we think, as that side of the House and this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other things I wanted to talk to specifically about my district in terms of Budget 2006 is investments into tourist chalets and visitor centres in the Province. Heart's Content Cable Station, as most of you know, is located in beautiful Trinity-Bay de Verde, Trinity Bay in the district. As part of this Budget, they received over $80,000 to invest in various new exhibits and video production. Research shows that tourists who come to an area like to watch a video so they can familiarize themselves with what they are going to look at before they go through the various - cable station or other site that they are visiting. This announcement was very timely in fact, Mr. Speaker, because this year is the 140 anniversary of the cable station in Heart's Content. This is happening in July, in fact - is the annual celebration. So, I certainly encourage and invite any Members of the House of Assembly who want to come and learn a little bit more about history and 140 years of history right in my area, that you are more than welcome to come. In fact, I just recently met with various committees and organizations and the town council in Heart's Content and they very much appreciated that announcement. It ties in really nicely with their future strategic plans for the area.

One of the other things in the district, and it has been ongoing for some time, far long before I was elected, and that is an issue with New Harbour dump. As you know - just a bit of background on that issue. Some transformers mysteriously showed up at the New Harbour dump when that government was in power. The now Minister of Health and Community Services, who was critic at the time for Environment, had raised this issue time and time again, to no avail, of course. So, I am very pleased to say this year that there is money announced in the Budget for environmental clean-up and for remediation of this site, which is great news to the New Harbour area. I am very pleased to say that the people in that area have worked very closely with government to provide a solution for the area.

I just want to conclude, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have one minute.

MS JOHNSON: One minute. Well, I had better make the last minute really, really powerful, I guess, for about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: Maybe he will give me leave. Although, the Member for Port de Grave seems to change the rules here tonight and say there is no more leave, but let's just end with the conclusion.

I would just like to say in conclusion, Budget 2006 is a great budget. I believe it is a budget that lays the foundation for a fabulous legacy to leave for future generations in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I predict that due to the hard work and dedication of this Cabinet and this caucus and this Premier that we have, that future budgets will only be better and that legacy will only be much stronger in the future.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise now, and I would not have only I heard the Minister of Mines and Energy, the Government House Leader, and I have also heard the Minister of Transportation and Works talk on a number of occasions, as of late, about all they did for the Fogo Island Co-op. I will get into that in a few minutes, but before I do, I would like to talk about the Fogo Island Co-op because I think it is probably one of the best fishing operations in the Province.

If we had more companies like the Fogo Island Co-op and fewer like FPI, we would not have the trouble that we have in the fishery today, because I guarantee you one thing, the Fogo Island Co-op is owned and operated by the people of Fogo Island, those who work in the plants and those who fish and land their fish at the Fogo Island Co-op. They don't have any multimillionaire shareholders. They don't have any millionaires sitting on the board of directors. They don't have the John Risley's. They don't pay out million-dollar severance packages. It is a company that was established some thirty-six years ago because of a fishery failure and plant failures on the island, and the people of that island came together and said: We are not leaving this island. We are going to form our own Co-op, and they have been there for thirty-six years. Somewhere in the 1980s, maybe the Minister of Fisheries can tell me - I don't know but it was him who - when they ran into some slight problems in the late 1980s or early 1990s that the government of the day gave them a $1 million loan guarantee.

I would appreciate it if you would listen so that you know the facts about this. I think, if I am not mistaken, the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Right. He gave them a $1 million loan guarantee, and so he should have, because when they went to go to the banks to try and get loans, the banks told them that they were not going to give them any money unless they had a guarantee from government. Well, Mr. Speaker, they worked through that, and in 1996 or 1997 - and I might add, government has never had to pay out a cent for the Fogo Island Co-op. In 1996 or 1997, just after getting into shrimp, they came in and asked our government of the day if they could extend that loan guarantee to $2 million. At the time the government said: Yes, but we are going to put one condition on it. That in the years that you show a profit, you are going to have to put a certain portion of that profit in trust with government, a certain portion. The government signed the loan guarantee for them, they did not pay it out, but they were going to have to put a portion in a trust fund here with government. From 1997 until now, that co-op up until two years ago put $1.4 million into that trust fund that was administered by the Department of Finance. Two years ago, I might add - and the government has never had to pay out a cent for the Fogo Island Co-op, much more than I can say for a lot of fish companies in this Province. The Minister of Fisheries knows the number of co-ops or the number of fish plants that went bankrupt leaving the government owing millions and millions and millions of dollars. I will bring those in one of these days and show them to you.

The Fogo Island Co-op never defaulted on those payments. They had $1.4 million sitting here with the government in trust, and when they ran into some problems two years ago they came in - we increased the loan. They came in last year and said to the government: We have some problems, we need to be able to draw down that $1.4 million that you are holding in trust for us. The government said: Yes? We do not think that is the right thing to do. If you draw down on that $1.4 million that is held in trust for you we are cancelling your loan guarantee.

Now, we hear the Minister of Natural Resources up here tonight talking about all we did for the Fogo Island Co-op, because they allowed them to take the $1.4 million out of the trust fund and keep their loan guarantee. Mr. Chair, that is what they are talking about, and that is what they are talking about here tonight. Now, here you go, Mr. Chair.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, on a point of order.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chair, as long as the Leader of the Opposition is going to stand up he might as well get his facts straight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: He is right, Mr. Chair, we did allow the Fogo Island Co-op to draw down their $1.4 million that was held in trust and we did not cancel their loan guarantee.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I did not say that they cancelled it. I said you were threatening. First when they came in and asked you, you said no. What I would like to know, I say, from the ministers opposite is, why is the Government House Leader standing here tonight-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: - and talking about the $1.4 million that they gave to the Fogo Island Co-op? They did not give the Fogo Island Co-op $1.4 million. They allowed them to take the money that they had in trust with government but they did not take money from the government.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, on a point of order.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To set the record straight once again, because the Leader of the Opposition again has no consideration for the facts, we changed the policy once again that their government brought in, in the late 1990s. We changed the policy that gave the Fogo Island Co-op the opportunity to keep their doors open last summer by releasing $1.4 million that was held in trust and maintaining their loan guarantee program in place. I do not know if they would have done the same thing, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We finally got that clarified. They allowed them to take the $1.4 million that they had in trust with government, the Fogo Island Co-op.

Now, Mr. Chair, they talk about the $2 million they gave them. They forget that, because of the minister's raw material sharing program last year, we lost two months of the fishery. The Premier stood in this House and told the plant workers of the Province -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, on a point of order.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

He should check again with the Fogo Island Co-op, the President of the Fogo Island Co-op and the general manager, Ron Johnson, of the Fogo Island Co-op, and see just exactly what they thought of the raw material sharing system. They absolutely supported it. They loved it and they would love to have it again, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Premier said he was going to look after the plant workers, and he did. He gave them $2 million in grants because no one in the plants on Fogo Island qualified for EI last year. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, I thanked him today that he gave it to them even though it was no fault of the workers that they were not working at the time. This is what we are standing here tonight - we are listening to the government talk about the $1.4 million that they gave the Fogo Island Co-op and the $2 million that they gave them. One was for make-work because of what happened in the fishery last year, the closure of the fishery, and the other was $1.4 million that was being held in trust by this government; their own money.

Mr. Chair, let me talk about loan guarantees before I sit down, because I remember well when the Minister of Finance sat over right here, I think he sat right here in this chair, and said to me on many occasions - and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, knows what I am about to say. He heard him say it too. He said: We do not agree with loan guarantees over on this side of the House. I, personally, have a problem with giving loan guarantees to fish companies. That is what the Minister of Finance said. That is what he said. He said: If we ever form the government, we will not be giving any. We will not be giving any!

I took a copy of Hansard that day and I sent it to the Fogo Island Co-op, and it is on the wall out there if anyone wants to read it. Those were his words, I say. How fast we change. No more loan guarantees for fish companies, and what did he do in Bay d'Espoir a few short weeks ago? The Minister of Finance gave a loan guarantee to the Barry Group of Companies of which his brother is the vice-president.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, what an idiot!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is a point of order already on the floor by the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Leader of the Opposition is absolutely false in what he is indicating here. The Minister of Fisheries, now the Minister of Transportation and Works, introduced a program for a provincial guarantee for aquaculture for anybody in this Province. He can apply or anybody who meets certain criteria. Fifty people can apply. Once you meet the criteria - as Minister of Finance I am responsible to the Financial Administration Act. Every week I sign dozens of guarantees from municipalities, and any one goes through Cabinet, I sign a guarantee on behalf of this Province. He is absolutely wrong. In fish companies, the only -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - guarantee that we increased, actually - as my colleague indicated, we freed up -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - $1.4 million that they could not access, so that company on Fogo Island could operate last year and put people to work on Fogo Island. No help from him in the process.

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I said, how fast we change. Where there are no government guarantees going to be given out when they are sitting in Opposition, and as soon as they get in government, what do they do? Then the Premier came out last week and said that the minister is not in a conflict because his brother is not an immediate relative. Now just imagine! The minister is not in a conflict of interest because his brother is not an immediate relative.

Mr. Chair, before I sit down, I want to make a point of order. When I was standing - and I do not have to tolerate what the Minister of Fisheries has been saying to me. I have to tolerate it when he keeps it in order, but when I was sitting down there just then he looked across the floor - and you can pick it up in Hansard - and he called me an idiot. I do not think that is parliamentary language and it shouldn't be used against anyone in this House of Assembly.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There has been so much shouting and bantering back and forth across the House that the Chair certainly did not hear the comment, but I rely upon the hon. minister, that if he did make the comment, he would withdraw it. Other than that, the Chair will have to review the tapes and report back to the House at a later time.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, I will not put Your Honour through the trouble of reviewing the tapes. I did say something to that effect, so I apologize.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The time allotted for the Budget Debate, which is seventy-five hours, has now expired.

The Committee is now ready to call the subheads.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I call on hon. members, if they would be kind enough, to hold their enthusiasm for another few minutes. The parking lot would be a good place, probably, to talk about the rest of the things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

We will now call the subheads for Executive Council.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01. to and including 2.2.07.

CHAIR: Subheads 1.1.01 to 2.2.07. Shall those subheads carry.?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through to 2.2.07, carried.

CLERK: Subheads 2.5.01 to and including 2.6.01.

CHAIR: Shall headings 2.5.01 and heading 2.6.01 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 2.5.01 through to 2.6.01, carried.

CLERK: Subheads 3.1.01 to and including 4.1.05.

CHAIR: Headings 3.1.01 to and including 4.1.05.

Shall those subheads carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 4.1.05, carried.

CLERK: The total for the Executive Council.

CHAIR: Shall the total for the Executive Council carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The total is carried.

On motion, total carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the subheads of Executive Council carried, without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

Carried.

On motion, subheads carried, without amendment.

CHAIR: The committee will now call the headings for the Legislature.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01 to and including 6.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall subheads 1.1.01 to and including 6.1.01 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The subheads are carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 6.1.01, carried.

CHAIR: Shall the amount of the Legislature carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Shall I report the subheads of the Legislature carried, without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, Department of the Legislature, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed the Consolidated Fund Services, Executive Council and Legislative heads of expenditure, without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of Committee of Supply reports that the Committee considered the matters to them referred, have passed the Consolidated Fund Services, Executive Council and Legislative heads of expenditure, without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the said Committee have leave to sit again?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to call Motion 1, which is that we move that this House approves, in general, the budgetary policy of the government, commonly known as the Budget Speech. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure because the Minister of Finance introduced probably one of the best budgets in the Province's history some three weeks ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Without a doubt, one of the best budgets across all departments in terms of the social side of the agenda, the economic side of the agenda and the investment and resource side of the agenda.

Now, without further ado, Mr. Speaker, the only, and quite correctly, the last speaker for tonight who has an hour to finish up the Budget Debate, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the Opposition had a chance to speak, and several of our members had a chance to speak for about eight or nine hours on this budgetary motion, and we had seventy-five hours under debate on Estimates. I started this racket on March 30, and I hope to finish the racket some time tonight, close to midnight, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to let people know, give them an idea, basically, where this government has gone in this Budget, and what we have done. I was going to comment on some incorrect comments by the Leader of the Opposition, but I will leave that alone. I will stay away from that foolishness and nonsense he gets on with, and I will talk about something that is concrete and positive for the people here in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We started off this fiscal year with a Budget that was the first budgeted surplus on a fully consolidated basis in the history of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We took office from a government that was spending money like it was going out of style, that would not lay off seasonal workers, that wasted money. They spent more on parties and speech writing, $22,000 to write a speech, a hundred-and-some-thousand dollars to make an announcement, a government that had no regard for the taxpayers of this Province and the hard work they do in contributing to the Treasury of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: After putting us a billion dollars a year in debt, they kicked them out of office in a very strong manner and, on October 21, the Premier of our Province led a team of people who wanted to come in here and take the Province by the bootstraps and bring it back on the road to self-reliance and efficiency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It wasn't all luck. The Premier of our Province got a commitment out of the Prime Minister of Canada. Yes, there was a minority government. They had faced governments in the past; they made absolutely no progress whatsoever on this issue. He took advantage of a situation, whether there was a minority government or not. He got a commitment. We didn't know, when they got the commitment, if it was going to be a minority government after the election. We got that commitment before that, before the people of Canada voted on that issue. Then, he kept their feet to the fire in getting a deal eventually, on January 28, 2005, I believe, when the deal was struck. Not only that. That alone has had an immense impact on the revenues of our Province, and it was not just that. They talk about, what else did he negotiate? Well, I know. I was there in September of 2004 and October of 2004 in Ottawa when our Premier stood there and rallied the people together, rallied the Premiers together, and fought to get a significant increase of several billion dollars in the Health Care Accord that we never would have gotten.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: And everybody looked on TV and saw the two days of beating up on the federal government at a health care forum and they saw, the next day, on a Wednesday, all the empty seats around, because our Premier was not satisfied that the money in the pot was in line with what the federal government was able to pay, and what they were showing in surpluses, that were $73 billion in surpluses over a ten-year period, when they said they were only going to have balanced budgets. They did not give the true facts in the Budget. They did not give them, and we knew there was money there. There was a fiscal imbalance there, and we had to work hard to get every cent out of that.

Not only that, equalization that was hit in the fall of 2004, we got an equalization that upped it from $8.9 billion, that would have been paid out, to $10 billion, and $10.9 billion last year. This year it is gone up again by another 3.5 per cent. That is because of hard work by the Premier and other First Ministers around this country to get from the federal government what should be rightfully money belonging to the provinces.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The price of oil helps, but it would not have helped. It would have gone in on one hand and out on another hand, without the security of getting 100 per cent on our royalties. That is the significant turnaround in the revenues of our Province, and it would not have happened under that government there because they would have signed the fastest deal to get them by the next election, and to hell with things for the next four years, or the three or three-and-a-half. When they saw a rise there, they would call another election again and have another one thirty-two months later again to get them by the next one. That is the philosophy they operated under. Fool the taxpayers again, and do it again and again, but that day is over in politics in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, this Budget touches on a lot of areas. It touches on an area of fiscal responsibility. It touches on areas of social compassion for the people in our Province who deliver programs that people want and have been a long time waiting for. They stand up in this House and they talk about, approve this drug and approve that drug. Last year, twenty-five were approved in the Budget a year ago, and significant others added to the list on the formulary this year. All that government did, they sat back and none of these got approved. Absolutely, they did nothing.

I heard my colleague from Burin-Placentia West today, and the Member for Grand Bank, throwing remarks across the House. She sat in Cabinet for seven-and-a-half years and did none of these things, and the colleague down there fighting on behalf of the people in Burin-Placentia West, in Grand Bank and Fortune, to bring some prosperity and some badly-needed health services to the Burin Placentia, and other colleagues in other parts all over this Province.

I am going to list out just a few of the things and give an overall picture, first of all, of where we have come and where we are heading over the next period of time. We have seen our economy grow in our Province. The last two years they talk about out-migration. The last two years we have had two of the highest years of employment in our Province's history. Over 215,000 and 214,000 respectively worked in our Province in 2004 and 2005, the highest in our history. We are projecting it will increase again this year.

While there are people leaving, yes, they leave because we cannot compete with the enormous outrageous salaries that are being paid in Alberta. There is a company moving to Ontario. They said, we cannot compete in trucking and are going to move to Ontario. We cannot match Alberta's economy, and we are not even going to try to do it, but we are going to provide the best possible resources to people here in this particular Province. We all cannot be in Alberta. The fiscal capacity of this country averages about $6,400 per person. Alberta is up to $11,000, $12,000 and $13,000 and growing. It is way out there beyond any other province in this country, but we do have a responsibility to provide opportunities for people in our Province, and that is what we have been doing in this Budget.

We have seen our economy grow. We will see our real GDP will grow this year by 6.2 per cent; that is when you take away the inflationary aspect of growth. We have seen a budget that is targeting a surplus of $76.5 million. Hopefully - yes, hopefully - it is will be higher than that. Hopefully, we will be able to use some more to put down on our debt so we will have lower servicing costs.

This year we will save $156 million less paying out to banks and institutions in interest alone that has been channelled out in health care services in Labrador, the Northern Peninsula, the West Coast, the East Coast, and all over the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we will see this year taking in, in our Province, $927 million coming from companies in royalties in corporate income tax that is coming from the big companies, the big ExxonMobils of the world, the Chevrons, and Husky, the big multi-billion-dollar companies in the world turning out enormous and huge profits. Huge profits. We need to get our share of those resources, and that is part of the battle in fighting to get our share of those resources out here developed on our terms. They are our resources, and we want to get the benefits. We cannot get the benefits if companies are making $12 billion and $15 billion.

The United States Senate is investigating this enormous profit that is going on in these oil companies. There is something wrong - the Senate of the United States, the most powerful nation in the world. Then, here in our Province, our Premier is raising these issues and trying to get more for us. We are not going to be trampled on, by big companies all over the world.

We have a right for our resource. They will want it, and they will want it at a much higher price if they have to wait and develop it later on. I do not think we are going to see a $25 barrel of oil again. I do not think we will ever see it. We might see $50, or maybe $40; that is possible. There could be a correction and things would move down. There is volatility that occurs around the world and we will run through a period of stability and things will come back somewhat. It may not happen this year, but there will be some levelling off in the world situation.

We went through this Budget, no new taxes. We did increase the tax, and that is for health reasons, on tobacco tax. We increased that because we want to see a healthier population in our Province. We have contributed money in public health this year, in schools for phys. ed. equipment, better eating, better education of people in our schools, to try to change lifestyles of people here that will reduce those costs in the future. That is a positive thing, I would say, Mr. Speaker, for people here in our Province.

We looked at education. Education is the cornerstone of a successful society. You cannot achieve success without education. Ireland is a tremendous example. If you do not invest into our young people, into their skills training, into their education, whether it is primary or whether it is post-secondary, we are not going to put out a product that is going to be able to be productive and produce a return to us here in our Province.

We have invested, in this Budget alone, $100 million extra in education in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: One of the big aspects we talked about in the education system, we need teachers to teach our children, and we realize there are great demands on the education system. By leaving 151 teachers in the system from a formula - yes, a formula we did not develop - a formula that was commissioned by the former government here, we left 151 in the system, every one of them at an annualized cost of almost $9.2 million, to be able to allow a little more flexibility, a little reduction of workload for the people who teach our kids and who parents all over the Province entrust their kids with, for a great portion of the day. That is important.

We looked at lightening the workload on them by doing a review of the ISSP program. We have looked at setting up a study to look at if allocations are being provided on an appropriate basis to reflect the changing demographics of our Province, and rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular. They are some of the things that, over the next number of months, we will see some positive results in, I am sure.

Operating funding, $32.2 million for Memorial University; have frozen tuition at our colleges and universities. We have the lowest tuition of any university in the country for all students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The only Province where it is cheaper, and that is for their students only, is in Quebec, and that is for Quebec students only. Universally, we have the cheapest in the country. We are contributing on the front end by keeping down debt for students.

We have a remission program. Most people do not realize it. People who complete programs that could run up $60,000 to $70,000 in debt could get it practically wiped out at the end of their university career. People do not look at that. We have it on the front end and it is on the back end, too, to give relief.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, laboratory safety equipment so that people can work in a safe environment and be able to carry out their skills and learn skills in our school system.

A history course in our Province: Learn about Newfoundland and Labrador. We seem to know more about the history of the United States and other areas than we do about our own Province. We have a long and a proud history here in our Province, the Province that was discovered in 1497. We have history. I was in British Columbia last week - I will probably tell you the story of 1497 - but I was in British Columbia, and British Columbia, I think, joined the Country in, what, 1905. They are only a baby compared to us. Alberta joined in 1905. I mean, over 100 years joined with the Country of Canada. Imagine, we existed for nearly 500 years beyond that, 400-plus years beyond that. We have a tremendous history in our Province and it is important that we market that, because it is a marketing tool for tourism here, and people need to be more educated about us here in our Province.

For the Marine Institute - I won't go into all the initiatives in education. They are too numerous to mention, because $100 million can ring up a long, long list especially if you are shopping at a cash register. It takes a long while to spend $100 million.

Innovation: What did the former government do in Innovation? If we are going to grow the economy of our Province we have to try to diversify and reach out beyond the traditional ways. We are working in traditional ways in farming and agriculture and forestry and the fishery, but we are also looking at new areas. We have young companies, young, bright, intelligent people in our Province in some of the leading companies in IT around the world. We have a company making parts for light armored tanks, the ones you saw in Iraq, manufactured and made here in on Thorburn Road in St. John's. We have companies out there marketing smart meters to different parts of the world, out to Edison in California, out to Hydro One in Ontario. We have young entrepreneurs who need some basic funding to get them beyond those (inaudible) days, to get them over that hump financially, young, bright, smart people; and provide an investment. We have done that by investing in funds within the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

We committed $30 million over a period of five years, $10 million last year into a fund that will keep building, $8 million this year, $6 million next year, and it keeps going on, $4 million, $2 million. We have a $30 million fund, and we are using that fund to channel monies out for new companies that are going to follow, to diversify and employ. One of these companies I happened to visit, twelve people with masters degrees in engineering and other areas, highly technical skilled people who are working there on different methods and different inventions they are trying to market.

We provided for a Skills Task Force to identify our skill requirements. I mean, how do you know when you get somewhere if you do not know where you are going? If we do not know the demands of the market in the future, we do not know what we need to be training people for - we have heard too often, we cannot get the skilled people here. We do not have these skills developed, and the reason why is because we did not have the foresight to anticipate the market of the future and to move and prepare people for that.

That is what we intend to do here in our Province, and to back it up with funding into the training institutions, the College of the North Atlantic. People all over this country are crying out for skilled workers.

MR. E. BYRNE: They said they were going to close all of them, I thought they said.

MR. SULLIVAN: They were going to close them. They said, we are going to close - the White Paper, we are going to shut down rural Newfoundland. What did we do? We expanded the programs here. We re-energized rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: They are disappointed. They are really disappointed with the success. They cannot stand success. They have been so long living in the absence of success, they do not know what it is all about and they do not know how to take it when it hits them. That has been the problem here, and now the envy. They do not want to see success because, when they see success here, it means the demise of people over there. They are the biggest contributors to their own demise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: What are we going to do? We will pull another rabbit of the hat, they said. Oh, here is a way to get a bit of money from the feds. We will take over the South Coast ferry service - goes back in the early 1990s and gets $55 million from the federal government. Minister Efford was in Transportation, and he stood up there and said, in perpetuity we are going to have that, and it will run the ferry service forever. We will use the interest, $4 million and $5 million a year. In two years, all gone, $55 million. Now we are funding it out of general revenues.

The $340 million Labrador Transportation Initiative, I stood on that side of the House and said that is not enough to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway. They would not even give a truthful answer, only Ernie McLean, and I congratulate him; he stood there and he gave an honest answer in the House one day. It was not enough. We are going to have to spend in the $100 million range, now, to finish the Trans-Labrador Highway out of public money of our Province, our taxpayers. We are delighted to do it, because it is important to have a road link throughout Labrador. It is important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: What else could we do? Where else can we get some money? Hang on, now. When we joined Canada, one of the conditions negotiated back with Diefenbaker, when they had their little spat in the late 1950s, Term 29, we are going to $8 million a year forever. Under a former Premier and government, they said: How can we get our hands on that next twenty years' money? They go to the federal government and say: We want some money. Give us the next twenty years' payment up front.

Twenty times eight would be one hundred and sixty. By getting it up front, they said, we will give you 130 up front. We are not going to give you that because we would be getting interest on it; it is costing us more money. We will give you $130 million. They took that and spent that. Spent it all. Now we are getting none. We have to wait until, I think, 2017 to be able to get our $8 million.

MR. J. BYRNE: They paid a penalty on that.

MR. E. BYRNE: What was the penalty again?

MR. SULLIVAN: They paid $30 million. Thirty million dollars less, that is what it cost.

So they went and they pulled every rabbit out of the hat. They took every sinking fund - and I did not disagree with this one - where it wasn't a statutory requirement, took them out and they spent all that. Then what did they do? Where else can we get money? The Hydro there, the one we wanted to privatize, the one we wanted to give away back in the early 1990s, let's see how we can milk them dry. So, what did they do? They went out and they said, let's take dividends. They looked upon that not as an entity to be invested and to be able to grow and reap. They looked at it as a cash cow to be milked. That is what they looked at that. They took $40 million to $50 million in dividends each year out of that company, and to what? And moved their balance sheets, numerous things off the balance sheet of our Province, to show three sets of books. We only have one set of books, one true set of books. What did they do? So, we have left it with Hydro. We need to see a strong energy corporation in our Province to grow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We want to see a corporation that has a lower debt to equity ratio, one that can go out on the markets, stand on its feet, be able to borrow what a government guarantees, that can go on and do the business that we need to do.

Norske Hydro are not doing too bad for a corporation that is owned by the government. No, they are not doing too bad. They are out making huge millions of profits off the oil off our coast and nobody that I know of complaints about that, I can tell you. So, we are trying to milk everything dry, run everything to the last, run our infrastructure down. Our buildings are dilapidated. Our roads are in a ridiculous state. Our vehicles are a mess in the Province, we have to try to replace. They have run everything into the ground, spent nothing. Spent nothing on what they needed to do, only what shows visibly up and gets them elected the next time around the corner. That is the attitude the government had. That is why we are in such a mess.

We would need to have a surplus of $250 million year for the next forty-eight years to get rid of our debt. Now, that is a very strong order to tell us, that we are going to balance our Budget in the next while, and people say we are awash in cash, they said. We are awash in cash. That is like somebody who is down on the bottom of the ocean for a year and floats to the surface. Now he has his head above water. It is kind of late then. We are long, long gone down the tubes then.

Mr. Speaker, that is the attitude that got us where we are. It is time to change that attitude here. We are going to see my colleagues out in Corner Brook - a Centre for Environmental Excellence, $500,000 to grow in environmental excellence there to create whole new avenues for prosperity out in the West Coast of the Province.

We have significant investments. We looked at the elimination of thirty-four fees. They jump up and say: Well, you stuck on a pile of fees the first year. Well, we had to do something. We are $1 billion dollars spending more than we are taking in. What are you going to do? Spend another $1 billion or spend another $500 million and make their children and grandchildren pay for it? We said, that has to stop. That has to stop.

We did not like to increase fees. We did get $20-some million in revenue but we have cut back or eliminated thirty-four fees this time around. The liquor licence levy alone was equivalent, between the 3 per cent last year and this year, was about $2.5 million that we put back. This year, in numerous other initiatives in fees, we put back a whole variety of things and eliminated them. So, we have made a start. It is not the end.

We have a committee under my colleague from - where is he?

AN HON. MEMBER: Terra Nova.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the guy with the good suntan. My colleague - no, hang on, the guy from Terra Nova with the good suntan - who is looking at a review of fees and so on in government, whose committee has done an excellent job. It is an ongoing process, the Red Tape Reduction Committee, and we are going to cut a lot of red tape. They have spent so many years, fourteen-and-a-half years, wrapping everything up in red tape. It takes a while to get to the inside and get all that tape cut off, but we are getting there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get them all back in soon, I can tell you, when I start concluding. I am only on page two. I have sixty pages, Mr. Speaker. I have to move through some of these things quickly, but we have the largest infrastructure program in the history of our Province. We are committed to $2 billion over six years into highway infrastructure.

One thing that people in the Province have said to me over the past several years is the condition of our roads. This year in the Budget we managed $60 million just in our Provincial Roads Program between federal and other roads. I think it is, what, $132 million in our road construction program in total in our Province?

MR. J. BYRNE: Compared to?

MR. SULLIVAN: Compared to what? I am almost ashamed to say, of one year in the provincial program, they spent between $5 million and $6 million. The probably rolled that out the day before the election, I would imagine. I was almost run down with a spreader out in Bellevue in the last election. I was almost run over. If I did not get out of the way, I would not be here today.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the significant investment in Labrador, this is, I would say, the largest investment in Labrador committed in the history of our Province in any Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Infrastructure of all kinds, infrastructure in the health care facilities. We have looked at - and my colleague mentioned Blue Crest in Grand Bank, and the hospital in Grand Bank. From Lab West, the hospital, the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital, is not in great shape, the long-term care, the Payton Hospital, replacement of that, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, to one in Clarenville, in Corner Brook, and all of these long-terms care facilities, for schools in our Province. There are numerous schools, and an allocation of funding allowed to look at needs as they arise this year in school construction. We have given a very strong commitment in our Province.

We have not forgotten our heritage into the arts, into the music, to our artists, to our culture, to our tourism. Almost every facet of our society has been nurtured by this particular Budget and will reap dividends here in our Province.

Our tourism marketing, why do you think - do you think it was an accident that we had the best return on tourism, the increase, over anybody in the Atlantic Provinces? It is not by accident; it was by design. When you invest in marketing - we put $10 million this year. Last year, we budgeted $8 million, they put $9 million into tourism marketing, tremendous opportunities.

You fly on Air Canada and you see the ad that comes on. You see other provinces hitting the market. They are catching. People say to me, they are different, they are catching, they are unique. It catches their attention. It makes you want to visit here, and that is what it is all about.

We have not ignored low-income people in our Province. We announced last year - increased the social assistance, or income support rates for single people in the Province, and this year we have increased it overall for everybody in our Province. We have allowed a program that was not discriminatory. If you made $1 more than someone else at the cutoff point you got a drug card, and if you were above that you got nothing. This year we said we were going to scale it in, it is going to be gradual, we are going to move it out and phase it out at $30,000 income. We have introduced a whole array of programs in our Province, ones that will serve us well into the future.

We have increased policing like never before. We committed three classes of RNC officers over the past while. We deployed people this year to the RCMP office. The minister now put fifteen just recently in our Province to provide better service in our Province.

Money for health care, $180 million investment in health care in our Province. A program that was not working, the dental program was not helping those people who needed it most; we changed that. We changed that program in dental care in our Province. We changed that to allow people who have low incomes to access it and reduce the fees.

Overall, Mr. Speaker, to try to wrap an hour into eight or nine minutes is not easy to do when you have heard members talk about -

AN HON. MEMBER: The game is over. The Habs lost.

MR. SULLIVAN: Montreal lost, after all of this. I am glad the House wasn't recessed to see it. I guess there is next year. I blame it on the referee, I would say. When he did not give a five-minute penalty on Saku Koivu, that would have been the game there; up1-0 in game three.

Anyway, back to the Budget. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying the Budget was fiscally responsible. If we have a Budget that has a surplus and is not fiscally responsible - well, it is hard to believe it was not. It is one that looked at education, which is the foundation for the economy of our Province, for growth and prosperity, one that in health care shows compassion, aspects to deal with seniors, from drug cards and low income people, to deal with low income poverty, and to eliminate school fees.

My colleague from Placentia & St. Mary's talked about how there is nothing more discriminatory in a classroom where you have kids that cannot afford to buy things and provide services and those who can. I mean, the stigma with young kids is a situation. I spent twenty years there and you can see the contrast there between those who have and those who have not. I think if those barriers were pulled down that is important; and those aspects. We have looked at that within the school system, we have looked at low income people, and overall, Mr. Speaker, we have had, I think, a very positive impact, or will have.

The response to it has been, I must say, very positive, except when coming from people in the Opposition, people who cannot stand prosperity, who did not live in it for a while, who ran us into the ground, head over heels, spent more money than we took in, did not care what tomorrow was, and did not care about the future. They only cared about getting elected next time. That has changed in our Province now, it has changed for the good, and we hope it is here to stay, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion is that this House approves in general the Budgetary policy of the government.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Call in the members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: The Whips are ready.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Those in favour of the motion please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Williams; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Rideout; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Tom Marshall; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Shelley, Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Harding; Mr. O'Brien; Ms Burke; Mr. Tom Osborne; Ms Whalen; Mr. Jackman; Mr. Hickey; Mr. Denine; Mr. French; Mr. Young; Mr. Hunter; Mr. Skinner; Ms Johnson; Ms Elizabeth Marshall; Mr. Ridgley; Mr. Oram; Mr. Forsey; Mr. Felix Collins.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Reid; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Langdon; Ms Jones; Mr. Joyce; Mr. Harris.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, twenty-eight ayes and six nays.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I declare the motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

The message is dated April 12, 2006.

As Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required of the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31 2007. By way of further supply and in accordance with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.: ___________________________________

Edward Roberts, Q.C., Lieutenant-Governor

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mr. Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 5, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

CLERK: The resolution of the main Supply Bill, "That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2007 the sum of $2,914,695,600."

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

CHAIR: The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 4.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 to 4 of Bill 5 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clause 1 through 4 carried.

CLERK: The schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The schedule is carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: Whereas it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2007 and for other purposes relating to the public service.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The preamble is carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 5, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, carried without amendment.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 5 is carried.

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Chairperson, I move that the total contained in the Estimates in the amount of $4,424,206,400 for the 2006-2007 fiscal year be carried, and I further move that the Committee report that the Committee have adopted a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, and that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed the amount of $4,424,206,400 contained in the Estimates of Supply for the 2006-2007 fiscal year and have adopted a certain resolution, and I recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall this report be received? Now?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

 

The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that the committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

Resolution

 

That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2007 the sum of $2,914,695,600.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: The resolution for the Main Supply bill, "That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service to the financial year ending March 31, 2007 the sum of $2, 914,695,600."

On motion, resolution read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: The second reading of the resolution for the Main Supply bill.

On motion, resolution read a second time.

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

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

I move that the Main Supply bill be introduced and read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 5)

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. ( Bill 5)

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of the Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 5)

On motion, Bill 5 read a first time.

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

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

In the eloquent words of my colleague from Gander I move that the Main Supply bill be read a second time or as he would say, right off the bat.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 5, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, Bill 5.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 5)

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

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

I move that the main supply bill be now read a third and final time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 5 be now read a third time?

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, Bill 5.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 5 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2007 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 5)

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

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

Certainly, before I move the adjournment motion, I want to thank all members for their participation in the Budget Debate over the last several weeks. In particular, I want to, on behalf of all of my colleagues on the government side, commend the Minister of Finance for the work that he has done on this Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: With that, Mr. Speaker, I do now move the adjournment motion. I believe tomorrow we are back, Private Members' Day, at 2:00 p.m debating and discussing the resolution put forward by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

With that, I do now move the House adjourn, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 3 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House is now adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 of the clock in the afternoon.

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