March 23, 2010                  HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                    Vol. XLVI  No. 2


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start regular proceedings, the Chair would like to introduce a new Page who has joined us and will be working with the House of Assembly over the next little while, Ms Avril Dymond.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; and the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recently, Ms Beverly Swackhamer of Bareneed was named as Newfoundland's "gutsiest" citizen by the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada. Beverly, who lives with Crohn's disease, was recognized for her courage in facing inflammatory bowel disease and her outstanding work to make a difference in her community and in the lives of others.

Beverly is an exceptional leader, organizes many fundraising events and is a top pledge earner at the Annual Heel "n" Wheel-A-Thon. She was instrumental in the creation of the Trinity-Conception Chapter of the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada. She has served as president, works as a volunteer as a Brownie Leader, as well as a Sunday school teacher.

The award honours Beverly for her enthusiasm in raising awareness in Newfoundland and Labrador and for her outstanding work in raising funds for a cure.

Mr. Melvin Nash, National Vice-President for Newfoundland and Labrador said, and I quote, "It takes tremendous courage for people affected by inflammatory bowel disease to speak out and make a difference."

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Ms Beverly Swackhamer on receiving this outstanding award, and wish her every success as she continues to work on behalf of the 3,200 who live in Newfoundland and Labrador with inflammatory bowel disease.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand in this House to recognize the contributions to sports in Newfoundland and Labrador by Mr. Ron Healey.

Mr. Speaker, Ron was known Province-wide as a NAHA referee and well respected by the players on and off the ice; however, Ron was not a person to back down from a controversy. As a matter of fact, Ron could initiate a good debate off the ice and could create the opportunity for a good fight on the ice.

Mr. Speaker, as a former councillor and member of the Bishop's Falls recreation department, I had the privilege of working with Ron in his capacity as recreation director for the town. It was during that time I realized the love Ron had for all sports, especially for hockey, and always ensuring that the kids had the opportunity to participate in many minor sports programs.

Mr. Speaker, Ron lived in Bishop's Falls with his wife Jeannette Sheppard and their four children, but sadly Ron passed away January 1, 2010 at the age of seventy-two. He was a long-time member of Sport Newfoundland and Labrador and an inductee into the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in recognizing Ron's accomplishments and his contribution to sport in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to congratulate the athletes from the community of Cartwright who recently won the overall championship at the 2010 Labrador Winter Games.

This year's Winter Games were the tenth annual running of the Olympics of the North, which takes place every three years in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. There were up to 400 athletes and community co-ordinators from thirty communities in Labrador to celebrate the sporting and cultural heritage of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the competition is tight among many communities, but this year the team from Cartwright came out on top with an outstanding performance. I commend each of these athletes for their spirited effort and I would also like to congratulate the team from Happy Valley-Goose Bay for their second place finish and the Town of Mary's Harbour for their third place finish.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to pay tribute to two athletes from the Cartwright team who had multiple medal wins and were named most outstanding female and male athletes for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. They were: Andrea Pardy, who won gold medals in the snowshoe race and the snowshoe biathlon, a silver medal in the snowshoe relay race, and a bronze medal in ball hockey; and Preston Morris who won a gold medal in the snowshoe biathlon, silver medals in the snowshoe race and the snowshoe relay race, and a bronze medal in the northern triathlon and ball hockey.

Mr. Speaker, Cartwright was also named the Most Fit Community of the Winter Games.

I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the team from Cartwright, who are the 2010 Labrador Winter Games champions for this season.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Frosty Festival organizing committee and the City of Mount Pearl on celebrating the twenty-eighth annual Frosty Festival this past February. I had an opportunity yesterday to attend an event to recognize sponsors of this year's Festival.

It was a huge success, with most events this year selling out. Special thanks are in order for the Frosty Festival Board of Directors, the sponsors, volunteers, as well as the City of Mount Pearl, for contributing to the Festival's success. This event has truly become a tradition in Mount Pearl. Every year I personally look forward to attending as many of the Frosty Festival events as I can. It is truly one of the best winter carnivals in Canada. It is a great event for our community, our region, and our Province.

My hat goes off to Kelly-Ann Evans and her production company for producing one of the best opening extravaganzas in Frosty Festival history. I am always amazed at how the organizers manage to outdo themselves each and every year.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Frosty Festival committee and the City of Mount Pearl on hosting another tremendous winter carnival.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to Mr. Simeon Savory, who sadly passed away last Tuesday, March 16. Along with his partner Bud Davidge, Sim made history in the Newfoundland and Labrador music industry with their band Simani. The songs they created for us include: Music and Friends, the Loss of the Marion, Saltwater Cowboys, Heaven by Sea, Outport People, and the renowned Mummers Song, along with numerous others that we all know and love to sing.

In 2008 the musical duo was honoured with a Lifetime Tribute Award for Music NL, and in 2002 received the ECMA's Stompin' Tom award. Sim was a significant contributor to our traditional music scene and helped pave the way for many Newfoundland musicians who follow in his path.

An avid musician from youth, Sim played in a number of bands, the most recent of which was Sim and Friends. During his time with Simani, thirteen albums, two books and several television specials were accomplished, and he will forever be a part of our cultural legacy in Newfoundland and Labrador. In the early 1980s he established a recording studio in Belleoram and he was known to be very generous with his musical gifts, often not charging a fee for his services. His music has touched us all, brought back memories of special times, and has helped to ensure that knowledge about our traditional rural culture will live on eternally in his songs.

A loving husband, father, grandfather, mentor and friend, he will be deeply missed by us all, especially those of us on the South Coast. My deepest condolences to his wife, Evelyn, sons: Andrew, David and Philip, grandchildren, family, friends and colleagues. Sim will never be forgotten because, in his music, he has left a lasting source of joy for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians throughout the Province and, indeed, across the country.

I am sure that all members of this hon. House want to join me in assuring Sim's family and friends that we are with them in our thoughts and prayers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to note the success of Newfoundland and Labrador's efforts to be a major presence at the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, and to bring the excitement of the games home to the people of this Province.

The Olympics provided the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador with an unprecedented opportunity to promote our Province's business and trade opportunities, tourism, culture and cuisine on the national and international stage, primarily through our partnership with Atlantic Canada House and, Mr. Speaker, we grabbed that opportunity.

As you know, February 26 was Newfoundland and Labrador Day at the Olympics. The attention we received at Atlantic Canada House and other venues that day - and indeed throughout the entire two weeks - was certainly incredible. No doubt the lineups outside Atlantic Canada House, rain or shine, had something to do with Vancouver Magazine naming it one of the three "must see" pavilions at the Olympics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: We were also delighted that we could share the Olympic experience with our residents through regional celebrations right here at home.

You may recall the success of the Olympic Torch Relay, which visited our Province in November, and the enthusiasm it generated. Well, Mr. Speaker, that enthusiasm hit fever pitch in Vancouver where more than ninety of this Province's most talented artists and performers had the opportunity to showcase their talent, and our culture, to new audiences.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the entire Olympic experience was an opportunity to show the rest of the country, and indeed the world, that Newfoundland and Labrador has arrived - a strong, vital part of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt our work in Vancouver, and during the Paralympic Games in Whistler last week, will benefit this Province for many years to come.

I want to thank the Vancouver Organizing Committee, also known as VANOC, for their help and support, and invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating all those involved with ensuring the success of Newfoundland and Labrador's participation in the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. As they say: A good time was had by all, I guess. The only downer was we heard that the minister might have made off with Sidney's stick, but anyway they found it later on the way to Russia.

Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, congratulations to all of the athletes and organizers who took part in both the Olympics and the Paralympic Games, and our Province was indeed highlighted on the world stage at those most prestigious events. I am sure, given the level of excitement that was generated here even, watching it on TV and on the newscast, it must have really been something to witness in person on the streets of Vancouver and at the games themselves, because there was certainly a high level of excitement in this Province.

We, of course, are second to none when it comes to talent and we had some of the best talent in the world - not only this Province and this country, but in this world - present there. The likes of Great Big Sea and so on, some of the biggest high liners ever to come out of this Province were there - Ron Hynes and people of that stature. It is great to see that we were indeed showcased there. Not only the musical talents, of course, the storytellers and musicians, but we had our culinary students there as well from CONA who provided some delightful treats, I understand, to the good people who went by Atlantic House.

Congratulations to all of those who took part. In fact, we had a member of our staff, Mr. Matt Pike who works in the Opposition office; he, in fact, led the opening ceremonies. When the Aboriginal youth group entered the stadium that night, he was the person who actually led them in. You probably did not recognize him - he was in his costume at the time, his Aboriginal costume - but he, in fact, led in the youth group.

Congratulations to all, and I thank the minister for his statement again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I too thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. It truly was something for us to celebrate as Newfoundland and Labrador. I call on the minister now, though, in the spirit that he carried when he was in the Olympics, and I know he believes in this, that I would like to see the department now create continuing initiatives, in the spirit of the Olympics, tying together the promotion of sports with personal well-being and health.

Young and old were very excited watching the events of this year's winter Olympics and we need to build on that. While gold medals are exciting, the promotion of physical activity, especially in winter, can only benefit everyone in the Province.

In the past, we have had medal winners in both Olympic and Paralympic games who have been role models to the people of this Province of the benefits of physical activity. I hope the example of the athletes of this year, but also our own Olympic and Paralympic gold medal winners in the past will inspire both future athletes and everyday citizens to pursue physical fitness.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform hon. members of Labrador's premier sporting event, the Olympic of the North, the Labrador Winter Games, which took place earlier in March. These games brought together athletes, team leaders, and excited fans from all over Labrador. They showcased Labradorians' love of the outdoor lifestyle and celebration of culture and traditions while presenting some of the most spirited competition this Province has to offer.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is proud to be the primary sponsor of these games, investing $500,000 towards their successful planning and execution. The Board of Governors, the Labrador Winter Games staff, and some 500 volunteers are to be commended for their triumph over the uncharacteristic warm weather.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see my colleagues, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, attend the opening ceremonies; an electrifying event where, for the first time in four years, teams from twenty-five different communities came together to open the games. It was a special moment in time when Labrador's own poet, artist, songwriter and performer, Gerald Mitchell, took to the middle of the stadium and, under the light of hundreds of flashlights, sang the classic Sons of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most highly anticipated and entertaining spectacles was the Labrathon, a high-paced event that detailed a traditional outdoor lifestyle. A competitor raced around a 500-meter track to separate locations, where they had to start a fire, boil water, complete a target-shoot, cut through a log using non-powered hand tools, set a trap and create a fishing hole using an ice chisel, all while wearing snowshoes and towing a toboggan with gear weighing some thirty pounds. This event was won by Bradley Rumbolt from Mary's Harbour.

There were many feats of athleticism showcased over the course of the games. Some of those recognized included: Tanya Daley and Rick Kennedy, most outstanding female and male athletes for Lake Melville district; Holly Andersen and Trent Pottle, most outstanding female and male athletes for the District of Torngat Mountains; Danielle McLaughlin and Mike Brookes, most outstanding female and male athletes for Labrador West; and Andrea Pardy and Preston Morris, most outstanding female and male athletes for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair district.

Mr. Speaker, I extend congratulations to the community of Cartwright for winning the overall event and taking home the Labrador Cup, and congratulations to all of the athletes, volunteers and staff who made these games a great success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased to rise and speak to the motion that has been tabled by the minister, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Winter Games has become one of the premier showcases for Labradorians. It is not just a celebration of our athletic ability but also the celebration of our culture, of our heritage and of who we are as people. It is one of the few events that bring Labradorians together from one end and one region to the other, and this year was no exception.

I had the opportunity to attend both the opening and closing ceremonies and attend a number of the events that went on throughout the week including the Labrathon, as the minister just mentioned, which was quite a spectacular event. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the gold medal winner of that event, Bradley Rumbolt, is in fact my brother, and he is almost as nifty as what his sister is, I say to the minister. He not only broke the record from the previous games, Mr. Speaker, but he set a new outstanding record to be met by other competitors at these games over the next few years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that both the bronze, silver and gold medal winners of the Labrathon all set new records at this Labrador Winter Games and it was Leon Jacque of Postville, Barry Dyson of Cartwright, and, as I said, Bradley Rumbolt of Mary's Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to mention a couple of other communities that I think are noteworthy. One was Mud Lake, who won the most improved team award for this Winter Games, one of the smallest communities in Labrador but yet chose to participate and have a team. I want to mention the community of Pinsent's Arm, a community of fifty-five people with no gymnasium, no recreation centre but had a team and had one of their athletes bring home a silver medal to that community. I think that is remarkable. This is the kind of competitors that we have, the kind of dedication and commitment that they show to these games. There are so many other examples, Mr. Speaker, but I know time does not permit me to go on, but over the next few days I will have an opportunity to talk about these issues in the House of Assembly so we can celebrate the wonderful fine athletes that we have in Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am obviously not from Labrador - and I thank the minister for the advance copy - but we all have to celebrate and congratulate our colleagues in the House from Labrador, and the people of Labrador, with regard to the wonderful achievement that the Labrador Games are. We all should celebrate what is happening there, because we have a real celebration of Labrador's culture and history. I did not make it, and some day I think I have to go up there and be there for the Winter Games in Labrador. I did make it to the opening of the Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games on Saturday in Grand Falls-Windsor, and I could see the spirit that the athletes were bringing from Labrador to the Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games.

It is wonderful that our government does support these sporting events. It is very important that that happens because this investment, both in the Labrador Games and the Newfoundland and Labrador Games, is an investment in our people, is an investment in our communities, and it is an investment in health - something I have mentioned already in the former statement that I responded to. We have facilities that continue to need to be funded and supported, and I encourage the government to continue doing that. Again, I refer to last Saturday when I was in Grand Falls-Windsor and saw the Windsor Stadium and the way in which it has been upgraded and renewed. That is the kind of thing we need to keep doing, because these events, both in Labrador itself and here on the Island, are so important for our future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past couple of weeks, both the Premier and the Minister of Health have launched attacks on the Province's doctors. The minister even brought forward conspiracy theories that the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association was supplying the Opposition with information and subsequently cancelled negotiations. I say shameful behaviour when we are trying to improve the health care system in this Province.

I ask the Premier today: In light of your government's damaged relationship with the Province's doctors, are you willing to send these negotiations to binding arbitration and if not, why not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me answer the question very directly. Under no circumstances are we prepared to send this matter to binding arbitration. You will see from the Budget next week – and the Minister of Finance will indicate – that we are going to run a deficit. We consider the people's dollars to be very, very important dollars and regard every one very, very carefully. We want to make sure that they are spent properly.

The paramount concern for all of us is patients, and patient care and health care for patients. On that basis we were certainly prepared to enter into reasonable negotiations with the doctors, and have been prepared to do so, and have had discussions with them. Negotiations last week – the meeting that was cancelled last week was because of the volatile circumstances that were going on, that were precipitated by the NLMA when they tried to throw a smokescreen at the entire negotiations by indicating that the minister had made a statement which they felt was untoward. So, on that basis we felt it was not appropriate at that time to continue on with that particular meeting. We have since phoned. I understand, I believe, our negotiators phoned this morning to continue those negotiations and, as I understand it, that offer was flatly rejected by the NLMA.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association had submitted a proposal to government. They are awaiting a response from that proposal – not necessarily a phone call, but a written response into what government's position is.

I ask the minister today: Why has that response not been forthcoming from you and your Administration?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been having discussions with the NLMA over a period of time. The matter has moved along, obviously not as quickly as I think either side would like, but we did ask the NLMA to put their proposal in writing. We received their proposal on March 3, and we have taken that proposal and we had it costed and we have had it reviewed, and the costing is somewhere in excess of $126 million to $140 million.

In the meantime, the NLMA, the doctors want to have another meeting to provide us with additional information concerning coverage for ICU. That meeting was set up for last Friday. A representative from collective bargaining and a representative from health were to attend and meet with the doctors' representative. The meeting was cancelled, and today I called to try to get the meeting rescheduled but the doctors indicated to me that they did not want to have the meeting rescheduled. Instead, they have asked us to respond to the letter of March 3, and in due course we will do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On what is a very serious issue that has unfolded in the Province, the department received a proposal from these doctors on March 3, today is March 23 and there has been no response given to them in writing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today - because we now have a copy of the proposal that was submitted to government and it was released this morning by the NLMA. I ask the Premier - because in your comments last week you said that the proposal they had submitted was through the roof, it was too high, it cannot be dealt with, it cannot be satisfied and it cannot be answered. Well, the proposal that we certainly looked at today does not fit that description.

I ask you: Which of these particular aspects of the proposal do you feel characterizes your comments?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I forgot to say over the moon, Mr. Speaker, because that would have been one I would have used, too, if I had to think of it at the time.

These proposals, as the minister has just indicated, have been costed at, at least $125 million on an annual basis, probably as much, if we add all the incremental items, as $140 million to $150 million; a significant amount of money. If you remember correctly, the last arbitration that the medical association went to, I think they were awarded $54 million. You can take that by comparison; it will give you an indication of the order of magnitude of what they are asking for now.

I will tell you one item that they are asking for; they are asking for some of their physicians to be reimbursed partially for overhead that occurred during the last agreement. I think that is pretty unreasonable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the other thing that these physicians are asking for is Atlantic parity with their colleagues in the three Maritime Provinces.

I ask the Premier: Is this a concept that government is prepared to accept and negotiate on?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I say, negotiations have been going on. We have their written proposal. We have had it costed. We have reviewed – I think there were ten or eleven asks in the proposal outlined in the letter. We were asked to hold off until such time as this meeting with respect to ICU took place. The meeting has not taken place. I called today to try to get the meeting rescheduled. They have asked us to respond now to the letter without having that meeting, so we will respond in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, there are two very distinct sections within the NLMA proposal that relate to doctor recruitment and retention which goes with improving our health care services and also ensuring a doctor is available at all times to address patient concerns. These are very fundamental proposals that are necessary to improve our health care system.

I ask the minister: Why have you dismissed such a serious proposal without a comprehensive negotiation, going twenty days and not responding to this when you realize that these are the critical components of the proposal that is on the table?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I just said to the hon. member that discussions have been taking place and we were asked not to respond to the letter until such time as that further meeting had taken place. So we are not delaying. Discussions will take place, they will continue, and we will negotiate a deal that is fair to all concerned but on behalf of the taxpayers of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we are losing doctors in various regions of this Province in almost every speciality, and unless government is able to change its negotiating tactics this will continue. Yesterday, we learned that the hospital in Clarenville will be without an internal medicine specialist for the next ten days.

I ask the minister: What concerns do you have about the increasing gaps in this service? It is not the first time it has incurred; it has been a problem for the last two years. I ask: What is being done to ensure that doctors are recruited and these positions are filled?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact we have, in 2010, Mr. Speaker, nineteen family practice residents finished their medical training, with two delaying their entry. Of the seventeen family physicians, Mr. Speaker, who will commence practice, fourteen are practicing in this Province, all with bursaries and return-in-service agreements. Twenty-seven specialists, Mr. Speaker, finished their medical training, with two residents delaying their entry due to maternity, sick leave. Of the twenty-five specialty residents to commence practice, seventeen are practicing in the Province, nine of whom have bursaries and return-in-service commitments.

So, Mr. Speaker, fourteen out of seventeen, I do not know the exact number but it has to be between 80 per cent and 90 per cent, and then seventeen of twenty-five - again, I will have to ask my colleague, the Minister of Finance to do the calculation, but they are very high numbers. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the market adjustment policies, the bonuses, the bursaries, everything is working and we are keeping doctors in this Province, contrary to what the Liberal Opposition says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister might want to tell that to the people in Burin today who are supposed to have three internal medicine specialists but they only have one; the people in Clarenville who are now going to be without one; the people in Carbonear who recently lost an internal medicine specialist. Mr. Speaker, we know that there is a shortage of nearly 125 general practitioners in this Province today.

So I ask you, Minister: What plan do you have to ensure that these gaps are lessened and that we have good negotiations with our doctors so that we can recruit people to this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We currently have - as of September, 2009 – 1,042 physicians in active practice, our most ever. In the last eighteen months, Mr. Speaker, we have a net increase of fifty-three physicians. We currently offer bursaries, Mr. Speaker, of $25,000 a year. We have forty-one family medicine residents, seven psychiatry residents, and twenty-eight residents in other training programs, with a one-year return-in-service agreement. We have retention bonuses, Mr. Speaker, weighted toward rural and isolated areas, up to three years incremental, Mr. Speaker, $36,000 for three years added on to their salary in a lump-sum non-pensionable payment. Mr. Speaker, we have an $18 million expansion of the medical school, and we will increase our undergraduate class size from sixty-four to eighty. We have a provincial physician recruitment office. We are currently, Mr. Speaker, in negotiations with the physicians.

Again, we have difficulty recruiting individual positions and physicians but overall, Mr. Speaker, we are doing quite well. The doctors, contrary to what the Opposition says, are quite happy with (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Well, that is of little comfort for the people in Burin, I say to you, Minister. It does not change the fact that these vacancies exist in our system and gaps are still there.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here with great sadness to question the minister on why air ambulance services in our Province have failed the people of Labrador again. A man who was severely injured from an industrial accident in Labrador West died while waiting for an air ambulance to arrive.

Why, after all the previous incidents, are the people of Labrador still waiting unacceptable times for air ambulance medevacs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On October 9, I became Minister of Health and Community Services. On November 27, I flew to Labrador, met with the councils in Lab West, met with the council in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, met with two families who were severely affected by air ambulance issues. I indicated in this hon. House in early December that we would conduct a review of the air ambulance.

I appreciate the petition provided by the Leader of the Opposition with the 3,000 residents of Labrador asking to have services in Labrador. We have a consultant, Mr. Speaker, who has conducted a review. That review is completed; we will be releasing that review in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the host of Open Line today say there should be air ambulance in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Deer Lake and St. John's, and I also heard the Member for The Straits & White Bay, or –

PREMIER WILLIAMS: White Bay North.

MR. KENNEDY: White Bay North - phone in and say it should be in St. Anthony. We are looking at it, and again I ask – we have two planes - to the Leader of the Opposition, where should they be?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the minister needs to put his head around the fact that it is not about changing out services in air ambulance; it is about adding services to meet the need and meet the capacity in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the CEO of Labrador-Grenfell Health stated that the original air ambulance was out of service - I have no idea why; maybe the minister can tell us that - however, the chartered aircraft used as a replacement had to recharge the on-board oxygen service and the medical team had to return to the Health Sciences Centre to retrieve medical equipment.

I ask the minister: Why wasn't an air ambulance ready to go in this Province at a moment's notice with a medical team on standby, with oxygen on board, ready to respond to an emergency?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in the past that the air ambulance is a very serious issue. I have met with the families who were affected, and the emotional impact of meeting with those people was quite significant on me. Again, Mr. Speaker, my sympathies to the family in Labrador West.

The air ambulance did not work as it should, Mr. Speaker. It is the reason that we are conducting the review and looking at where we should have our planes located. I am advised, Mr. Speaker - and so far some of the comments by the Liberal leader are accurate - the plane in St. John's was down. It is a 1990 King Air as opposed to the 2008 King Air that is in St. Anthony right now. A King Air airplane, Mr. Speaker, costs approximately $8 million and there has to be the crew to go with it. So we certainly have to improve.

I have made a commitment to the people of Labrador that we will look at improvements. I can assure the people of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, that we take this very seriously and that, in due course, we will be making a decision and addressing their needs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are happy to know that the minister is going to investigate this incident. We were somewhat taken back that the decision to do this did not come until yesterday, which was four or five days after this incident in Labrador West; however, Mr. Speaker, I think answers need to be provided as to why this air ambulance was not available and not ready to go at a moment's notice.

I ask the minister: In cases where our provincial air ambulances are tied up and in use in other parts of the Province, why is it that there is not a Plan B that is readily available to respond to these emergencies?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a Plan B, but unfortunately it did not work as it should in this case. The air ambulance in St. John's was down. I am still waiting for an explanation as to why the air ambulance in St. Anthony was not utilized. It is my understanding it was in the air. So then, Mr. Speaker, there is a charter company that we have on call. That charter company, Mr. Speaker, was advised around 8:00 o'clock that their services would be required. The gentleman in question went into the hospital in Labrador, by my notes, at 2:45 p.m., Mr. Speaker, and it was around 6:10 that a request for an air ambulance came in.

There was an hour lost, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, Mr. Speaker. There was an hour lost as a result of having to return to obtain equipment from the Health Sciences Centre. The unfortunate reality, Mr. Speaker, is that the charter aircraft which was utilized took an hour longer to fly to Labrador West than the King Air normally would.

Again, these are issues that are of concern. We have conducted a review as to where air ambulance should be situated in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and we look at all alternatives to make sure that not only the residents of Labrador but all of the residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, including the residents of Western Newfoundland, are well served by air ambulance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister today: In light of the fact that the review is ongoing into provincial air ambulance services, and the need has been identified that a third air ambulance service should be based in Central or Western Labrador, are you prepared to enter into a standing offer contract to have an aircraft based in Labrador immediately to respond to any air medevac services that would be required until this particular issue has been ironed out?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, the review of the consultant has been completed. We will be reviewing the same and making our decision over the next short period of time as to the location of air ambulance services in this Province. There has been no decision made, Mr. Speaker, that a third air ambulance is required in this Province. If the hon. member opposite remembers our discussion on this in December, I had indicated that the flight statistics showed that there were more flights coming out of Deer Lake than there were out of St. Anthony, and that there were more flights coming out of Labrador than were coming out of St. Anthony.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that this decision will be made shortly, but anything that we have to do right now to ensure that proper services are provided to all residents of this Province, steps will be taken and addressed immediately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Minister of Labrador Affairs talk about meetings he has had with international stakeholders around 5 Wing Goose Bay. In fact, in The Labradorian newspaper yesterday he said he was on top of this file and expecting to hear good news. However, Mr. Speaker, the NATO exercise that the minister was so excited to see come to Goose Bay has gone to the United States.

Will the minister inform the House as to why 5 Wing Goose Bay is not going to receive this NATO exercise, and instead it has gone south of the border, obviously without his knowledge?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, again the Leader of the Opposition only gets half of the facts straight half of the time. Let me explain to the hon. members in the House regarding 5 Wing Goose Bay. There was a NATO exercise planned for Happy Valley-Goose Bay, for 5 Wing Goose Bay this summer. It was put together quickly by the NATO General, General Brady. Goose Bay was looked at for close air combat support. We travelled to Ottawa last week, myself and the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; we spoke with the Minister of National Defence, along with the British High Commissioner, as well as the Embassies of Germany and the United States.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer and to do it now.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, what is happening in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and at 5 Wing Goose Bay this summer is that work will be continuing on the expenditure of some $1.9 million to improve hangars seven and eight and there has been a commitment on behalf of NATO that this exercise will take place next year and future years until 2016.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only thing, obviously, that Happy Valley-Goose Bay got out of this is that the minister got a trip to Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue. In fact, back in December, I had one of the researchers in my office e-mail the minister and respectfully ask for an update on 5 Wing Goose Bay. This is the response the minister sent back to my researcher - an intelligent, intellectual response, Mr. Speaker. I quote. He says: 5 Wing is alive and well. You need to grow up, and don't e-mail me any more.

This was the response, Mr. Speaker, from the minister of one of the most important –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. Leader of the Opposition has a question, I suggest she pose it immediately.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a very important question, but first of all I was going to say, this was the –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question or sit down.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: On the heels of that intellectual response, what does this mean for 5 Wing Goose Bay and NATO training going in to 2011, which we all know (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, let me say this to the hon. member: This government, under this Premier, has supported 5 Wing Goose Bay more than any provincial government in the history of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Let me say this to the hon. member across: Your answer should be going to the Liberal Member of Parliament, Todd Russell, who is up in Ottawa; that is where your questions on 5 Wing Goose Bay should be going, I say to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Let me say, just to answer your question, Mr. Speaker, all is alive and well, I can tell you, at 5 Wing Goose Bay. We still have 350 people working at the base, and I can tell you with the improvements that are going to be made this year, on hanger seven and eight and the PTA, I can tell you we have a bright future. Our glass, as the Premier said yesterday, is half full not half empty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the fishery represents the heart and soul of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and unfortunately it is a very troubled industry on the brink of collapse. Everyone concerned about the fishery is looking at the MOU as a way forward for this industry. In fact, many of the constituents in my district have been asking about the progress of this framework agreement.

So, I ask the minister: Will he update the people involved in the industry when they can expect to see some significant results in this process?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I advise the Opposition to probably follow the media a little bit closer, because if they would have they would have seen a sequence of steps that have moved this process along quite expeditiously. This process started last July; Ministers Dunderdale and Hedderson met with fisherpeople and instituted it. In the fall, Request for Proposals was called. On December 17, a letter was written; on December 30, a meeting with both sides and government. On January 22, reports were received back; February 15, presented to Minister Shea - and, Mr. Speaker, I see you are going to rise, so I will answer the question.

Mr. Speaker, all of these dates have been released to the media. Right now, Mr. Speaker, the working groups are meeting and I would expect that within the next month or two we will have some further information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is a major stakeholder in this industry and they have not been meaningfully involved in the process; yet they will be deemed as essential to its success.

I ask the minister why the federal government is not at the table, and what is this government's plan to get the federal counterpart there?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, the federal government has to be a partner in this, but I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, to the Opposition and the people of the Province, that before we can expect that the federal government would get involved, we have to have the parties in the Province who can come to some sense of agreement and some sense of direction.

I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that through this MOU process, that is what will happen. Once we come out of this process with a strong package, then we have something that we can take to Ottawa and we can say we fully expect you to be a partner in this restructuring or what comes out at the end of that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, since May 2007 the people of this Province have had their confidence shaken in our health care system. Since this government has been elected they have created an enormous health authority which provides the major portion of tertiary care in the Province, and they have had six Ministers of Health. Mr. Speaker, we now have the current minister saying that Eastern Health Authority is too big.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: When will he admit that government made a mistake in forming these large, unmanageable regional health authorities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question, but I do not remember saying that Eastern Health was too big. We have four health boards who administer the day-to-day operations of the health authorities. As the minister, as pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, the minister has an oversight role. We are, Mr. Speaker, dealing with a $2.6 billion budget. Approximately $1 billion or $1.2 billion of it goes to Eastern Health, but Eastern Health is also responsible for the tertiary care unit, Mr. Speaker, and also approximately 300,000 residents of this Province. Then we have Central Health, which covers a vast geographical area and is responsible for approximately 70,000 people, Mr. Speaker. We get to Western Health, again, a big geographical area and approximately 60,000 to 70,000 people. Then we get Labrador-Grenfell, which is dealing with 30,000 people.

So it would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the - Eastern Health is big by its very nature, but I think that four boards certainly serve the purpose. We are ironing out the kinks, Mr. Speaker, and we move along. H1N1 was an example of how we work. Government worked with all the health authorities to do what had to be done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I advise the minister to go over the footage of when he stands before the media, because I think you will find at one scrum he said at least three times that perhaps it is that Eastern Health is too large. So I suggest that he go and look over his own footage and see what he says in front of the media.

Mr. Speaker, the government keeps throwing numbers at us and impresses upon us everything that they are doing with regard to our health care, the money that is going into machines and buildings, which has to be done because of the fact that the infrastructure has to be kept. The issues in our health care system are much greater than creating the adequate infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, without constructive leadership this Province will be unable to attract or even retain the medical staff needed to engender the confidence that I am asking for.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: When will his government do what they were elected to do and work responsibly with the health care professionals to create an efficient health care system the public has confidence in?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that I have done as minister in my short tenure is to identify priorities. In mental health and addictions, Mr. Speaker, we have sent out approximately $430,000 to various groups working with people to affect and help change their daily lives.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I was over at the Health Sciences where we dealt with the issue of wheelchair accessibility. This issue had been raised, Mr. Speaker, in December. January we met with the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities. Myself and the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment got to work on the matter, and today, Mr. Speaker, it was heartwarming to listen to the President of the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities outline what this government has done right, how we have dealt with all issues that have been requested, Mr. Speaker.

When we talk about health professionals, I have already gone through the numbers of how we have recruited and retained individuals, but we are now in the middle of negotiations and we know that during negotiations things are going to be said and done. Mr. Speaker, I can assure this hon. House and the people of this Province that our concern is for the patients of this Province and the efficiency and effectiveness of our health care system, and that is what we will continue to work for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for Questions and Answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As per section 63.(3), I table the following private member's motion to be debated tomorrow:

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Transportation Assistance Program assists residents financially in accessing medical services; and

WHEREAS the Medical Transportation Assistance Program current criteria did not sufficiently provide the financial support for its residents who must travel to avail of medical services in our Province; and

WHEREAS residents of Newfoundland and Labrador have to incur substantial cost in order to access medical facilities in major centres; and

WHEREAS changes are required to the Medical Transportation Assistance Program in order to lessen the financial burden at a time that is often difficult and stressful for patients and their families when accessing health care services both inside the Province and outside the Province; and

WHEREAS a petition with over 7,300 signatures was presented to government on December 4, 2008, asking for changes to the Medical Transportation Assistance Program;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon government to make changes to the Medical Transportation Assistance Program, namely to reimburse gas and mileage for the use of personal vehicles; to add meal per diems for those staying with family and friends; to increase overall rates to reflect the true financial burden; to include coverage for those taking part in clinical trials; to waiver the $400 deductible faced by those who live on the Island portion of the Province, and increase the reimbursement of eligible costs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, just to speak on the motion that was put forward under section 63 of the Standing Orders, section 63.(3) indicates that the motion put forward for Private Members' Day - it reads, "On the Monday before the Wednesday of the week in which a Private Member's motion is to be debated…". Just because it was done on Tuesday as opposed to Monday, I am not sure if I heard when the Leader of the Opposition stood to speak to this motion, but we acknowledge that it was not on Monday, and whether or not leave was asked for, we certainly would have no problem with it. I just want to clarify that we are accepting the motion, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

I appreciate the opportunity in this section of the House to again present a petition on behalf of the residents of Southwestern Newfoundland with respect to dialysis services in that area. As anyone in this House is familiar with, I think I have gone through something like six different Ministers of Health in the last number of years here. The only section of this Province right now that does not have a satellite dialysis services is the southwest corner of this Province. Whether you are in Burgeo, Port aux Basques, Burnt Island, Isle aux Morts, anywhere, it is the only section of the Province that does not get provided with some kind of dialysis service. We have been at this - this is my sixty-seventh petition in this House asking for some help for the people of Southwestern Newfoundland, who travel a minimum of over 200 kilometres to try to get this help.

As I say, I have asked previous ministers. The most recent step, just so that the people who watch this are aware of the processes taken place since we were last here before Christmas, I have been advised that the report was compiled in Western Health between Dr. Charles L. LeGrow health people personnel. They gave it to Western, and Western has forwarded it to the minister. I have written to the minister, as of a couple of weeks ago, to ask him if it is possible at all. There is not a lot involved from a budgetary perspective to do this. They basically needed the physical place to do it. They have confirmed that the physical facility is available at the Dr. Charles L. LeGrow Health Centre to do it.

They also had concerns about the staff that were required to do it. The staff at Charles LeGrow in Port aux Basques have agreed to undergo whatever training is necessary in order to provide that service. It is not like you are going to train someone and they leave. I think something like 95 per cent of the nursing staff in that area were born there, live there, still live there, work there and intend to finish out their careers there. You have the facilities to do it in; you have the nursing staff who are prepared to do it. The people of the area are prepared to fundraise, if necessary, to buy the equipment. We have raised millions of dollars in the past in Southwestern Newfoundland and provided it to Western to use for other necessary medical equipment. We are certainly prepared and committed to raise the funds to do it ourselves.

We submit there is no reason why one particular area of the Province should be treated in this fashion. It has gone on for years and years. I have a gentleman named Mr. Keeping - anybody who has listened to the Open Lines has heard him on there religiously, morning, noon and night - talking about how he travels from Burnt Islands. He is not a wealthy man. In fact, he cannot work because he needs dialysis so regularly. He does not know what it is to take a vacation, for example, because he needs dialysis regularly. The cost it takes him to go from Burnt Islands three times a week into Corner Brook - and you can imagine the stress it is not only causing him but his family, and that is just one gentleman.

I pledge to the people of my district, I will keep this matter on the front burner. There is no question, by the way; this is the primary, the number one priority for the people of that area, no question. Yes, you need roads; yes, you need educational systems, but first and foremost is your health. Number one is your health care, and in this particular case, as we see, there are several people – we have, for example, lost residents in that particular area because they just could not sustain the stress any more of living at home where they wanted to be with their families. They have had to take apartments hundreds of miles away just to get the use of this service.

Mr. Speaker, again I bring it back here. I have written to the minister, and hopefully we will see something positive in this Budget which is due to be delivered next Monday. I do not think, in the massive Budget that we have, $8 billion, to ask this for the people of one particular region is not a big ask, as we say, to get this done. We have the facilities to do it. We have the personnel to do it. It is a matter of putting your mind to it and saying we are going to get this done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, from the motion paper, Motion 2. I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 3)

Mr. Speaker, I say that the bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 3, and that this bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 3 and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000", carried. (Bill 3).

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 3 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 3 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 3 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 4)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, and that this bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 4 and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991", carried. (Bill 4).

CLERK: A bill , An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 4 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 4 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 4 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Provide Liability Protection On Portions Of Pedestrian Trails. (Bill 5)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Provide Liability Protection On Portions Of Pedestrian Trails, Bill 5, and that this bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 5 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Provide Liability Protection On Portions Of Pedestrian Trails", carried. (Bill 5)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Provide Liability Protection On Portions Of Pedestrian Trails. (Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 5 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 5 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 5 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I have received a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All rise.

The letter states:

As Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit a request to appropriate sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2011, by way of Interim Supply, and in accordance with the provisions of section 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend this request to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:__________________________

John C. Crosbie, PC, OC, ONL, QC

Lieutenant Governor

Please by seated.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health, that the Message, together with a bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the Message, together with a bill, be referred to a Committee of Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

We are considering the related resolution and Bill 2, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2011 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Resolution

"That 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, 2011 the sum of $2,398,481,900".

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is my pleasure and my duty as the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board to lead this debate on Interim Supply and, as we all know, I guess this is the third time I have had an opportunity to speak in this particular debate. As we all know, before this House of Assembly can raise revenue or spend revenue on any purpose, it all has to be voted upon and approved by the elected representatives of the people in this House of Assembly.

So what we do is that the permission to spend money, the main Supply bill, the Budget bill, will allocate the funding and the appropriations for the entire year, but that debate takes a period of time. The Budget will be brought down next Monday, on March 29, and it will be debated for about seventy-five hours and we will all have a chance to take part in that debate.

In the interim, on April 1, a new year starts. The fiscal year of 2009-2010 will end on March 31, at which time the government runs out of money for that year, and since there has been no Budget passed, there is no new money for the new year that starts on April 1. So, the first thing we do after the Speech from the Throne, normally in a new session, and this is pretty standard practice, the Minister of Finance will present to the House Interim Supply in order that we can have some money to pay our bills for a three-month period from April 1, the start of the new year, to June 30 - pay the bills, send out the cheques until such time as the Budget is passed.

Mr. Chair, when I was preparing for this last night I noticed the message. You notice when I first stood up I said I had a message from the Lieutenant Governor. I have done that and I have never looked into the reasons for it. It is set out in the Constitution, it is set out in section 54 and in section 90 the Constitution Act of Canada that says we cannot bring in a bill for the passage of money unless it is first authorized by the Lieutenant Governor. That message was presented and the Speaker just wrote the message.

We are looking at both a resolution as well as a bill. The resolution: Be it resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting of Her Majesty - in other words the government - for defraying certain expenses of the Public Service for the financial year that is going to end March 31, 2011 the sum of - and just listen to this - it is $2,398,481,900. It is quite a lot of money for a three-year period. In the bill, which I will call the Interim Supply bill, it is called the Interim Supply Act, 2010. It is from out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, there will be issued by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that sum of money, that $2.4 billion of money, and the sum so issued shall be paid and applied by the several heads of expenditure in respect of the financial year for the period from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador.

At the back of the bill is a schedule and the schedule sets out the various heads of expenditure. As I said, they total $2.4 billion - and I will not read them all and other Cabinet ministers are here today and they will be able to answer questions and take part in the debate on the spending in their respective departments. I noticed the biggest one is Health and Community Services; the amount is $835,886,500. The next biggest is Transportation and Works and that is for the amount of $521,598,300. The third largest one is education, which is $435,305,700.

As I said, it takes time to debate this. The amount of the $2.4 billion, it represents about 34.3 per cent of what was spent last year, in the year 2009-2010. That was the Budget for that year, the budgeted Current and Capital Account, the Gross Expenditures, and it is going to provide the departments with sufficient cash flow dollars to manage Current and Capital Expenditures, as I said, for the three month period, April 1 to June 30 of 2010. In some of the accounts, as is normal, more than one-quarter of the Budget is required to provide for those items that will be need to be expensed early in the year, as well as to provide for the calling and the awarding of tenders and the encumbering of funds.

There is a 7 per cent increase being requested in Interim Supply this year over the amount that was asked for last year. Last year the amount was $2.2 billion. So the amount is up by 7 per cent. This increase is therefore approximately $163 million. It includes provision for increased infrastructure spending, annualization of 2009-2010 Budget decisions. Now the annualization means, of course, that sometimes when a program is brought in for the first time, it might be brought in, in July, it may not be brought in until October; therefore the amount of money needed last year was only for six months, or three months, and of course this year that same program will operate and the funding will be needed for the twelve-month period, and that is what we mean by annualization. Also, there are salary increases and there is other growth in program. It will also include funding for six pay periods, and ongoing project and funding requirements that are applicable to the upcoming fiscal year of 2010-2011.

Mr. Chair, this bill needs to be passed on or before March 25 so that government can process the cheques, including income support cheques, which have to be mailed across the Province, and to get to our rural parts of the Province and to meet the government's payroll obligations for April 1, 2010. As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, on March 29 I will table the Estimates of Expenditure of the main Supply Bill, the Budget Bill, and I look forward to the debate at that time.

Mr. Chair, prior to this time we had pre-Budget consultations. We do that every year. The Minister of Finance goes around the Province and conducts pre-Budget consultations. I was pleased to have the opportunity to do that again this year. I visited a number of communities. We began in Corner Brook on January 15 and we concluded with two sessions here in St. John's on February 17.

One of the things I wanted to do as Minister of Finance was not stick with all of the same places each time. I like to vary it a bit. Obviously, there are certain centres that expect the Minister of Finance to show up. This year we had sessions, in addition to Corner Brook and St. John's, we had them in Stephenville, we had them in St. Anthony, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Lab City, Marystown, a new location this year was Bonavista. Another new location this year was Springdale. We had them in Clarenville, Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, Carbonear and St. John's. There are some places that I never got to that I was hoping to get to, and I can say that if I am in this position in the future I would like to get to the South and North Coast of Labrador and I would like to get to Port aux Basques. I have never had an invitation to come down to Channel-Port aux Basques. I listened to the Opposition House Leader talk about, in his petitions, things that he needs and the number one priority for the people of Port aux Basques, and I have listened to what he has had to say.

The people of this Province, Mr. Chair, in my view, value very much having an opportunity to tell the government directly what their priorities are but every year we see people in the media say: oh, it is a waste of time, that the Budget is already done and that we are wasting time or we are wasting the people's time. It is not correct, Mr. Chair. I can assure you that it is not correct. We always learn new things when we do these Budget consultations and they are very helpful.

This year the consultation I found in Bonavista and Springdale, which were new communities for me to attend, were very, very helpful. I found the session in Springdale most helpful. I have a totally different – well, the messages I heard in Springdale I think were different from what I heard in any other community and it was very, very interesting and I am glad I was there. I heard many good discussions and government can continue to - as we emerge from the recession and plan for a brighter tomorrow, there were also discussions on the investments in Budget 2009.

I was pleased to see that the people of this Province were very proud of the vision of the Williams government and were very supportive of the investments we have made to date. You only have to look at the recent public surveys just to see how pleased people are with the exceptional work that is being done, led by the Premier of this Province.

Mr. Chair, our government in particular was commended for its unprecedented investment of $800 million in the infrastructure projects. The business community commended government for its continued fiscal management and business investments and practices. In Labrador, residents and organizations requested a continued investment in transportation and infrastructure and health care. Our investments in health care and education were applauded, $2.6 billion in health care, $1.3 billion in education. Our commitment to rural Newfoundland was acknowledged and appreciated. What is very important is that 80 per cent of the infrastructure strategy - 80 per cent of the money in the infrastructure strategy was spent in rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Chair, for this year, like last year, we have made the decision, from a public policy point of view, that we will run a deficit this year. That is a deliberate and conscious decision taken by the government. We are doing that for good reasons, because it is uncertain at this point whether the recession is over and whether economic recovery will get some traction. The federal finance minister, Minister Flaherty, has indicated that yes, there is economic growth but that it is very, very fragile. It is very tepid. Other economic commentators are saying that economic growth will be flat.

Many of the banks economists, some of whom I met with in Toronto, while acknowledging that the recovery was starting, that the economy had stopped contracting and that the economy was starting to grow, mentioned one thing above all, that the outlook is uncertain; that the outlook was uncertain and the degree of certainty was still high. I was very pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition yesterday say the same thing. She said that the economy was uncertain, economic growth was uncertain, and because of that we now have to make a conscious decision. Will there be growth or will it be fragile? Will it be flat? If we do not know I think we have to err on the side of caution, and we have to continue to stimulate the economy to ensure that there are jobs and opportunities provided for the people of this Province.

Mr. Chair, the dollar continues to be very, very high. The economy in the United States - there is high unemployment in the United States. On a proportional basis, they are losing jobs. They have lost three times the jobs that we have lost in Canada, and they are our main customers. If Americans are not working, they do not have the revenues and they do not have the cash to buy our products. We have seen that in this Province. We have had lots of great success in the oil sector; great success with the nickel and the new facility being built in Long Harbour, but what about in rural Newfoundland? What about our forestry? Our forestry has been hammered. The newsprint industry has been hammered. The fishing industry has been hammered. They are hammered by the recession in the U.S., the recession in Europe, and the high dollar.

So if we are going to protect rural Newfoundland, which is what we want to do, the investment, the only demand that is taking place in that area is government spending. We spent a major infrastructure strategy, $800 million budgeted in this year's Budget, and 80 per cent of that money is spent in rural Newfoundland. If we slammed on the brakes now, if we listened to those who say that we should not run a deficit right now that means they want us to raise taxes. Well, let those who say we should not have a deficit, let them tell us what taxes they are going to raise. That will slam the brakes on economic growth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Those who do not want us to run a deficit, the only other option is to cut spending, but if we are going to cut spending then we cannot come up with money for new satellite dialysis units. If they want us to cut spending, if they want us to go back to a balanced budget then tell us what they want us to cut spending on because that is the choice? Raise taxes or cut spending, both of those policies, right now with a fragile economy, are wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: This is a time not to slam on the brakes; this is the time to keep the momentum going. This is the time to stay the course, to stay on course and to stimulate the economy, as I said, to provide jobs and opportunities to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and to provide jobs and opportunities in particular to the people of rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: That is what we are going to do, and I am going to bring down a Budget on Monday that is going to provide jobs and opportunities to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We cannot, until we know for sure that the economy has gotten traction – right now it is fragile. Right now the growth is uncertain. Right now the dollar is high. Right now the American market is low, the European market is up. Even in China - a potential new customer – I just read yesterday that an economist at Harvard and a couple of hedge funds were predicting that the economy of China was in a bubble and was about to collapse. The signs of uncertainty are there, so we cannot take the chance -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. MARSHALL: By leave, just to clue up?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank colleagues for allowing me leave to end my remarks, to clue up.

In looking at it, what do we do? If the economy is uncertain, if we are not sure, if we are not sure there is going to be economic growth, if we are not sure the economy is going to have traction, then we have to err on the side of caution and we have to keep the momentum going. We have to move forward, we have to invest, we have to invest in rural Newfoundland, and if that means running a deficit, then so be it.

Over the medium term, we will get back to balance as the economy grows. When there is economic growth there is return and there is traction in the economy, we will get back to growth, but we cannot just slam on the brakes. We cannot just put that pressure on the economy now. That could drive the economy back into recession and we certainly do not want that.

So, Mr. Chair, I look forward to hearing my colleagues taking part in this debate and I urge the passage in due course of the Interim Supply Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am certainly happy to rise and speak to the bill on Supplementary Supply today. A very important bill, Mr. Chair, as it is the funds that pay the people, the public servants of this Province, it pays for the services that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian enjoy each and every day, and, of course, it is appropriate that those particular allotment of funds are always done and made appropriately.

Mr. Chairman, I listened intently to what the Minister of Finance had to say in his remarks. I certainly want to recognize the fact that he has taken the time - an initiative that was started by his predecessors - to travel around the Province and to hold consultations around the Budget.

What was notable this year, Mr. Chair, is he did not bring the clock. The clock that he usually used to take - formerly when he was the Minister of Finance – that he would put up on the wall and he would tell you how many minutes the deficit was racking up in the Province -

MR. MARSHALL: No, the interest on the debt.

MS JONES: The interest on the debt, Mr. Chair, was racking up in the Province. Of course, that became a bit of an issue for those who like to blog and the columnists in the Province as they made the comparison of those individuals sitting in the room watching the money of the provincial Treasury tick away, at the same time, Mr. Chair, they were trying to ask the minister for some new services, new infrastructure and new pay raises. So it was somewhat of an intimidating experience, I say to the minister, and I guess after seeking higher counsel from those in the field that he must have decided to drop the clock and leave it at home. Mr. Chair, we have seen a little bit of a different consultation this year, no doubt about that.

Mr. Chair, I think those particular sessions are very worthwhile. In fact, I attended a number of them myself over the years and certainly had my staff attend many of them around the Province because it does give people an opportunity to bring their messages directly to government in terms of what they want to see in the Budget. It gives them the opportunity to shape how government investment and spending is made and also an opportunity to make suggestions on where cuts can be made. So, Mr. Chair, it is a good exercise from that perspective. The results of that exercise is only ever seen when the Budget itself is tabled in the House of Assembly, to see if government actually listened to what these people had to say and really give careful consideration to the initiatives and the proposals that they were putting forward.

So, we will see on Monday, Mr. Chair, March 29, as the minister stands in his place and brings down again one of the largest revenue budgets in the Province, and to tell us how big the deficit is going to be this year.

I say that because I think that is one of the most discouraging pieces that I see in all of this. We went, in this Province in a six-year period, from running the Province on revenue of $4 billion a year in 2003 up to nearly $8 billion this year, Mr. Chair, in revenues in the Province. Last year we were a little shy of it, this year we may be down a little bit more only because we have seen some downturn in the mining industry and the oil and gas industry, so our revenues probably did not get to the forecasted levels or the actual levels that they were a year ago.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, we have seen our budgets, our revenue double in this Province, but over that six-year period, we had a government that could not manage the expenditure of the Province within that budgetary process. They are running deficits, Mr. Chair. Running deficits for the second year in a row. The same Administration who, at one point, said that they would like to bring in a law. The same government who said they would like to bring in a law that they would have balanced budgets in this Province, but yet, Mr. Chair, they are unable to balance the Budget at the time when we have the largest revenues ever in our history in the last few years.

Now, Mr. Chair, that is a very important point - a very important point - because we are looking at a six-year term that this government has been managing the finances. They have seen the finances doubled. They have spent those finances as they went to the point that they are running a deficit again this year.

Mr. Chair, I think there needs to be an explanation for that; I honestly do. I think at a time in this Province when we are able to achieve some of the strongest returns on revenue that we have ever seen in our history that is a time when we really need to ensure that we can live within our means. What happens – because the minister knows as I do how volatile this environment is that we live in. We have already seen in the fishing industry alone in the last year - the minister will confirm this. We have seen, I think, a 22 per cent drop in the value, Mr. Chair, in our industry this year alone. That tells you how volatile things can be.

Look at previous years, when we were forecasting barrels of oil to be much higher. Then all of a sudden we saw it drop, drop, drop and continuously drop to the fact that we knew the revenues were going to be impacted. Look at what is happening now in our mining industry. We do not know, on any given year, what is going to be the circumstances around the economy on a worldwide basis and how that is going to impact us. So therefore, Mr. Chair, we have to be more cautious and careful in terms of how we manage our annual expenditures.

We know and we realize that this government did increase their program spending annually by 8 to 10 per cent over the last number of years. We are not saying that was not necessary, and we are not saying that should not happen, because in fact, Mr. Chair, if you go back through Hansard what you will find out is I probably stood in this House and asked for most of it. Mr. Chair, what I did not ask for is I did not ask for the people's money to the tune of $200 million and $300 million to be invested in equity shares in the oil industry. Mr. Chair, we are investing today in equity shares in the oil industry and we are running a deficit in this Province to do it. That is the legacy. We are running a deficit in this Province today in order to invest in the equity in that industry.

So, Mr. Chair, the minister wants to talk about where we should have saved money that is one of the places we could have saved money and balanced the books this year. That is just one suggestion.

Mr. Chair, what this government has not done is they have not faced up to some of the real challenges that have existed within the Province, especially within our health care system. We, today, Mr. Chair, spend more per capita on health care per patient of any other province in the country. We spend more money per person, realizing that some of that has to do with our geographics and the fact that we are spread out. When you look at somewhere like Hamilton, Ontario, Mr. Chair, they might have one operating room. We have to have hospitals all over this Province.

So I realize that there are some differentials that come into play. Having said that, Mr. Chair, we still spend the most money and we get the worst results. We get the worst results. In fact, last year we were dead last in terms of our health care targets and how our money was benefiting the people of this Province when it came to health care. Guess what? This year, we improved a bit. We are number three in the country now. We are third from the bottom in terms of how our investment in health care is actually servicing the people of the Province.

Mr. Chair, government needs to face that reality. They need to face that reality. Their approach so far has been, when there is a problem in health care, we will run in, we will rush in, we will try to fix it, we will throw money at it and we will run back out. Guess what? It is not fixing anything. It is not fixing anything. The failure to listen to the people who work in the system, the failure to make the investments in the proper and appropriate places is not building a stronger health care system for the people of the Province.

Mr. Chair, there are a number of ways - and the minister knows this - that you can save money today in health care in Newfoundland and Labrador. First of all, Mr. Chair, one of the groups out there that is offering suggestions to do just that is personal care home operators. A group, Mr. Chair, that the Premier agreed in 2002 in a letter that if he became the Premier of the Province and formed the government that he would indeed meet with them, that he would indeed champion their issues, because he understood their issues. Well, guess what, Mr. Chair? This is 2010 and they cannot even get a meeting with him over that period of time. This is a group of people today who have invested their own money in this Province to care for our seniors. They deserve to be listened to. They have ideas as well. They have ideas on how they can care for our seniors at a lot lower cost than is occurring right now in some cases. Many cases where we have our elderly people who are in hospital beds who have nowhere to go. We cannot take them out of those beds because there is no level three facility to put them in or long-term care facility. So they are costing us hundreds and hundreds of dollars every day in a hospital and tying up beds that other acute care patients could use. Is that not reason enough to listen to the ideas of others out there in the Province who believe that they might have a solution, believe they might have a solution to help alleviate some of that demand, Mr. Chair, that is occurring, some of that congestion that is happening in our hospitals today?

Let's talk about the home care program. Let's talk about the people that are prepared to care for their elderly people at home. Mr. Chair, there is a financial difficulty for many of them because they have to give up their jobs. They have to give up their jobs to stay home to care for a child that may be an adult child with disabilities, may be a spouse who has some degenerative diseases or just because they have a parent or grandparent that is elderly, and therefore, Mr. Chair, they have to give up their jobs to stay home to provide that care, or they have to put them in one of those long-term care facilities in the Province at a cost of $2,500 to $3,500 a month to the taxpayers of the Province, but they would be glad to stay home and care for those loved ones and individuals if they were able to receive some form of income to support themselves in doing it. Many of them now, they cannot afford to give up their jobs, even if it is a minimum wage job, because they have to be able to support themselves financially and independently. That is another option that government can look at.

Our wait lists; I talked about this before, Mr. Chair. I talked about it before, patients who are admitted in the hospitals around this Province who are waiting to have cardiac tests done, dye tests, other kinds of heart tests at the Health Sciences Centre. I know many cases in my own district where patients have had to stay in hospital in St. Anthony up to four and five weeks, taking up space in a hospital bed until they could get medevaced down to St. John's to get a test done that was going to take about an hour or two to have done. Mr. Chair, we paid to have that person in a hospital bed every single day for five weeks so they could get that one day, two hours at the Health Sciences to get a test done, only to be released the next day and sent home. In fact, I have gone and picked up some of these patients myself and taken them to the airport after waiting five weeks, they had one day here, had one test done and they were sent home. Now, Mr. Chair, there is something wrong with a system that functions like that, something significantly wrong. If you want to save money, you ensure that these tests are being provided in a shorter possible time. You make sure that there is enough beds to accommodate those patients because the problem is they cannot bring them in from the hospital in Corner Brook or in Grand Falls or in St. Anthony or in Port aux Basques or in Burin to get this test done, because they do not normally have bed space to be able to hospitalize them if the need is there. That has been the single, largest barrier in getting these people through the system.

The minister wants some suggestions on how he can look at reforming some of these things and saving some money and developing a better system for people at the same time. Well, these are some ideas for you minister. You can start with stop putting the equity money in the oil industry; $60 million to drill a hole in the ground up off Parsons Pond to find out if we actually are going to find anything there. Mr. Chair, this is the kind of gamble -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: This is the kind of gamble that the minister and his government is prepared to take, but today we have doctors who are resigning, leaving this Province and looking at other kinds of job action because a proposal that was on your desk for twenty days where they are looking for $80 million; $80 million to keep doctors in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: - and keep services in this Province. Mr. Chair, they failed to see the importance of that, but in 2002 they did not fail to see the importance of that because I have quotes, Mr. Chair, from the Premier in every kind of press release and every kind of news release in 2002 when the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association was out negotiating another contract, in which he was saying that patient care is going to be at risk if this is not sorted out and that government should get back to the table with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association. He says that government's attitude towards physicians in the Province has contributed to the breakdown in talks. Does this sound familiar, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: Does any of this sound familiar?

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, by leave, to clue up.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, by leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

These are the comments of the Premier in 2002 when he was standing in this position in the House of Assembly as Leader of the Opposition, in which he thought that the entire system was going to be at risk because of what was happening between the doctors and the government. He felt there should be meaningful negotiation. He felt that the breakdown in discussion and the war of words was not helping the situation.

Well, what have we seen from the members opposite in the last few days? We had a Minister of Health who was out inflaming the decision, infuriating doctors in this Province into a position to take some kind of job action. Not sitting down and negotiating, not sitting down and trying to work out a deal. In fact, Mr. Chair, called off the negotiations because in his mind he thought there was a conspiracy. He thought they were actually leaving information to the Opposition.

Mr. Chair, there is lots more to come and I will certainly have many other opportunities to stand and speak to this issue and I will certainly be taking advantage of it.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I see that the Leader of the Opposition - she is going to be right back and we will have an interesting debate. She does not want a deficit, and let's talk about the ways we can eliminate a deficit. Number one, we can cut spending. Of all the things we are doing out there to provide opportunities for the people of the Province; of the things we are doing in health care; of the things we are investing in R&D to create jobs based on the knowledge, economy for the future; of the things we are doing in aquaculture; of the things we are doing in forestry, she wants us to cut funding, get back to a deficit. That is the worst economy policy that we could have right now. The worst thing we could have right now is slam on the brakes, bring the economy to a real stop and go back into recession again.

Mr. Chair, the other way of getting rid of a deficit, if that is what the Leader of the Opposition wants to do, then she has to raise taxes. So tell us what taxes she is going to raise. We have lowered taxes. We have removed people at the low end of the income scale totally from the Newfoundland and Labrador tax rolls. They pay no taxes at all. We have given our seniors a low income seniors' benefit. We took them from $400 to just under $800. We did it for couples and then we did it for widows and widowers as well. We put money in people's pockets to help people pay their bills, to attract people who earn, have big incomes and pay big taxes. We need skilled tradespeople here. We need people in the medical profession here. They make large incomes. It is not the total salary they look at; they look at what they can bring home. We have to be competitive to attract those people here because we need them.

Now, Mr. Chair, it is very interesting to get a lecture from the Opposition, and in particular the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador on deficits, because they have been in power - I do not know how many years the Liberal Party has been in power in this Province. It is probably what, thirty-five, thirty-six years? In all of that time they have not had deficits in only two years, and my understanding is that when they did have a balanced Budget they kept the books in three different ways. They had three sets of books in order to manufacture this so-called deficit.

Our government has been in office for six years. We have had balanced Budgets. We have had surpluses in four of those years and that is the way we want to be so that if you run a surplus you can use some of that surplus to pay down your debt because our debt is the heaviest in the country. When the economy is slow, when the economy is bad, when the outlook for economic growth is uncertain, when the outlook for economic growth is fragile, when economic growth is flat, when your major customers' economy is dropping, when another potential customer is facing possible, major adverse economic consequences, when the dollar is high, when your main industry is in the rural parts of your Province, like fishing and newsprint, and forestry are dropping, then we have to be very, very careful and we have to ensure that if the private economic investment is not out there than government has to step in. That is what we did in the recession.

The Leader of the Opposition yesterday, she talked about unemployment going up. Well, unemployment does go up in recessions. That is what happens. In recessions the economy contracts, businesses close, people lose their jobs. That is why we have to step in. If business is not investing, if there is no investment, if people are not creating new jobs, we have to step in. That is our role when the economy is not working, and we are proud to do it and we have to continue to do it.

Now, I want to use the time that is left here to speak about the doctors. Now, Mr. Chair, it is my role as Minister Responsible for the Public Service Secretariat to negotiate a collective agreement with the doctors' association, and the person who occupies the position of President of the NLMA, that is the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, it is that person's responsibility – and it is Dr. Brendan Lewis from Corner Brook, who I know. It is his responsibility to negotiate a collective agreement on behalf of his association. So he and I have a duty to do that.

Now doctors, apart from collective bargaining, will be dealing as well with the Department of Health on issues of policy, health policy and operational issues, but it is – I fail to see that if there was a difference of opinion with respect to a threat of clinical chiefs to not go on, or to resign, that we have to separate that. That should not stop the collective bargaining process. That process can and should continue.

As I said earlier in Question Period, we asked the doctors to put their proposal in writing. We have had lots of discussion going on back and forth. We have asked the doctors to narrow down their asks, to tell us in writing what their proposal was, and we received that on March 3. There are, I think, ten or eleven items in there. We have costed those proposals, as I said earlier, and the doctors did in fact ask for another meeting in order to explain in more detail to us a portion of their asks relating to coverage for intensive care. As I said, that meeting was set for Friday. It was scheduled for last Friday. There were some discussions with health. The meeting got cancelled. We cancelled the meeting. One meeting – not collective bargaining, that one particular meeting was cancelled. The doctors interpreted that as being a cancellation of all meetings, which was not the case. I understand the Minister of Health called Dr. Lewis last Friday night or last Thursday night and said that was not the case. Yet, the doctors wrote a letter the following morning saying that collective negotiations could not go on and that they wanted binding arbitration, but collective agreements can go on; negotiations can go on.

So, today, I had my officials call the NLMA to try to reschedule that meeting that the doctors had asked for. The response that I received was that they did not want the meeting to go ahead now and they wanted a response. They asked for a response to the letter of March 3.

So, we have and we will review the various asks that were said on that letter. As I said, we costed the amount of what it is going cost us, and we will respond to those doctors. I would encourage the NLMA, let's get back to the table, let's continue with the negotiations, because I think we are all concerned about patient care, we are all concerned about health care in this Province. The collective agreement negotiations are about negotiating an agreement that is fair to the doctors and that is fair to the taxpayers to the Province. I would encourage everyone to continue those negotiations in good faith and to let's reach an agreement and carry on.

So with that, Mr. Chair, I will take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words here in Interim Supply. We have been out of the House for a while, so it is going to take a little bit of getting used to again, I guess, speaking, and get our vocal cords all tuned up.

I am not sure exactly how long we are going to be here, but this process is one whereby, of course, it is called Interim Supply, meaning that we do not yet have the Budget - the Budget is going to be delivered next Monday by the Minister of Finance who just finished speaking. This is a bill whereby the government needs some money to get the expenses of the Province paid for, because even though the Budget comes down Monday, of course, it will not be paid for Monday. It might not actually get it passed and approved by the Legislature until some time in May.

That is a couple of months out, so the question is: How does the government pay the bills from April 1, which is the beginning of the government year, until the Budget gets passed? So we have this thing called Interim Supply, which we are dealing with today, which basically, once it is passed, gives the government enough money – usually about one-third or so of the Budget to take them through until the actual Budget gets passed, and that is what we are doing here.

It is a money bill - there is no question. Sometimes we get issues here of what you can and cannot talk about, but when you are on a money bill, it is a pretty wide latitude. You might not necessarily be talking only about the bill. You might be talking about anything that concerns your district, anything that concerns the Province, or anything that you think is of interest and the people of the Province may in fact be interested in hearing about. You have certain avenues, of course, to inform the people of what is happening in the Province, particularly when it comes to being in Opposition. Oppositions do not have all of the media access and so on, and the wheels that they can grind when it comes to getting the message out. Governments do have access to the resources to do that, but Oppositions use the House time as an opportunity, particularly when it comes to money bills, to discuss some of these issues. When we are in the fall session, it is the legislative session, we tend not to be able to be as broad in scope and range as our comments we would like to be because you must restrict your comments to the legislative agenda that you are dealing with usually. We have seen examples in the past where we have tried to stretch that as far as possible and the Speaker of the House brings us in to line and says: No, no, restrict your comments to the legislation. The government always does - they do not like for us to wander off course because we, as an Opposition, then might bring up some things that they do not like to hear about.

That brings me to the comments of today. This is the first Question Period we had today - and I think the people who watched it today and the people of the Province, they were observing. I always use my good friends Joe and Martha who are very observant of what has been happening in the House here, but today, I do not know if it was a sense of apathy or a sense of arrogance that I saw from the government. In fact, it might have been a little bit of both, it depends on who it was coming from, and I will expand upon that a bit now as to where I am coming from.

For example, we had some questions of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture today and it was about the MOU, which is out there now between the FFAW, the seafood processors and the provincial government trying to get some answers as to where we would go in the fishing industry as we move forward. A very straightforward question from the Member for The Straits & White Bay North: Why aren't the feds at the table? The minister got up and gave an answer. He said: Well, we think we are going to figure it out ourselves first, amongst the three of us here, and then we will ask the feds if they want to come to the table.

Now, I say in all seriousness, where does one think one is going to get with that type of approach? We are going to figure it out amongst ourselves and then we are going to let the federal government know this is what we have done, are you going to get on board with this? That seems like a backwards approach to me. Here is the federal government that controls all of the quotas that happens in this Province. Every quota that ever any of these processors or FFAW are going to have anything to do with is controlled by the federal government and they are saying: We will wait until we figure out ourselves what we are going to do and then we will go ask these people if they want to get on board. Now I do not know how much time the government seriously believes that our fishing industry has. Some would have you believe that it is on life-support right now.

So let's go through the process provincially; then we will go talk to our federal cousins. By the way, one must remember the toxic atmosphere that exists between this Province and the federal government for starters. You are going to take that approach which is going to be a bit time consuming because, first of all, these three bodies have to get their heads together before we even get a draft plan to ask the feds to dinner. Then we have that relationship that exists between our government and the federal government and we are going to go ask them how we are going to deal with it.

So that is one thing about the approach to it, but of course when I talk about the arrogance it was a certain backbencher - I am not sure if it was a backbencher or a minister. While that discussion was going on between the questioner and the minister a backbencher said: Go ask Jerry Byrne! Go ask Jerry Byrne! Now that is the kind of input we get from government members here. A serious question gets asked questioning the approach of the minister, the minister got up, gave his answer - no question about his answer, no problems with his answer, but it comes back to attitude again. The attitude of the government - I am not sure if it was a minister or a backbencher, I do believe it was a backbencher who said: Go ask Jerry Byrne! Now that is the kind of input that government members have into this most serious issue involving our fishing industry when you ask a serious question. Now I do not know if you would call that apathetic or if you would call that arrogance, but either one, I would say we have a problem with some government members if that is the extent of your contribution to such a serious issue.

We saw it again today in Question Period when the Leader of the Opposition was asking questions of the Minister for Labrador Affairs. We already know from commentary recently that he did not show up to the Combined Councils. She pointed that out yesterday in her response to the Speech from the Throne. Today, she asked him questions about 5 Wing Goose Bay. I think first when she said 5 Wing, he could have only thought she was thinking about Mary Brown's or something because I am sure he had no idea what she was talking about. Now it has always been said that his only responsible for two or three files, and it is pretty obvious that he does not have much knowledge about what is going on in the 5 Wing Goose Bay file. He sits pretty near to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, so he certainly can get all of the information that he wants. He tells us that he was up in Ottawa as recently as last week, but when you listen to his answer it shows just how shallow and empty his answer was. But more telling was the comment again of a government backbencher, when that question was being asked, who said: Go ask Todd Russell! Go ask Todd Russell! Again, I do not know if that is an apathetic response or an arrogant response, but either one of them, I would suggest, do not bode well when it puts a face on this government, shows and reveals the attitude of this government - Don't ask us! We do not have the answers. That is their way of deflecting from trying to give a substantive answer - Go ask Todd Russell! Well, I suggest it is not the role of Todd Russell, the MP, to answer that question. The question was asked of the minister: What do you know about 5 Wing Goose Bay because apparently you said one thing in The Labradorian yesterday and today we have a different story. He gets up and gives a wishy-washy answer which reveals just how much or how limited his knowledge is.

That is the kind of stuff we start off this session with. That is the kind of things that the people of this Province are going to witness if they watch this TV channel, watch these proceedings, because we will be taking every opportunity as an Opposition to show that this government is just not about glossy press releases and news conferences, that if you look a bit deeper, if you peel back the layers of the onion, if you listen very closely you will see exactly what the true attitude is of some of the government members and some of the ministers. People will, no doubt, start to take notice. Don't ask us. We do not know. Go ask the federal member.

Mr. Chairman, I will take my leave at this point because my time is up for this speaking opportunity, but I certainly have more to say and I will be back in due course with more commentary.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is my pleasure today to stand in this House and speak for a few moments about Bill 2. Before I get into the substance of Bill 2, I just want to make a couple of comments. As I listened – the Opposition House Leader stood up and gave an overview of what we are dealing with here now in Supplementary Supply, and talked about the intent, but he also talked the latitude that this House takes. It does not need to be focused on necessarily the topic at hand, but in Interim Supply and money bills in this House we take some liberty to talk about issues that may affect our district, that may affect other parts of the Province, but it is always important, Mr. Chairman - relevance is one thing, but you need to be focused and you need to be accurate in your commentary, and I think that is always something that we are mindful of in this House.

When I reflect for a moment on the Opposition Leader, the Leader of the Liberal Party stood in this House a few moments ago and she asked a question. She said that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador need an explanation of what this government is doing. They need an explanation of what it is they are spending their money on. The second thing she says is we need to live within our means. I say, Mr. Chair, how hypocritical. How hypocritical of the member opposite to stand in this House and talk about our fiscal practices, what this budget will bring next week, the fiscal practices of this government since 2003.

I would like to remind this House and remind the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that when we formed government in 2003, this government, or the party opposite who was in government at that time, this Province was nearing billion dollar deficits when we formed government. We inherited a situation where we had near billion dollar deficits, crumbling infrastructure. Our social programs were in disarray, lack of funding in education, lack of funding in health, lack of funding to deal with poverty issues, lack of funding to deal with all of the income support issues.

Mr. Chair, we found ourselves, in 2003, in a state of disarray. So when the member opposite stands in this House and starts her commentary about Interim Supply and asking the question about us having to be accountable for how we spend our money and suggesting that we have to live within our means and stand in this House as an expert on fiscal management, how hypocritical I say, Mr. Chair, when you reflect on their legacy, what they left to the people of this Province in 2003 when we formed government. She then started to talk a little bit about the last six years. When she starts talking about the last six years, that was our watch. That happened since we formed government. So let me just answer her question, because her question was we need an explanation. Well, Mr. Chair, let me give her an explanation. Let me give the members of this House an explanation. Let me give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador an explanation of what we have done in the last six years. Just reflect for a moment. We have taken this Province from a near billion dollar deficit to having four successful years of surpluses. In the last two years we have been challenged, as many other jurisdictions have, to deal with some of the financial issues that are happening internationally and we have been able to respond to that. Some of the responses we have had, Mr. Chair, have been to invest in infrastructure.

So, if you look at the money we have spent, we have had a 53 per cent increase in the amount of money we spend on education in the last six years. That is part of the expenditure, I say, Mr. Chair. Look at what we have done in health care. She acknowledged that we are spending the largest amount per capita than any other province in the entire country. That is how we are spending the money, Mr. Chair. When we look at our Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy; that is how we are spending the money, Mr. Chair. When you look at the period between July of 2007 and July of 2008, this Province witnessed, for the first time in sixteen years, Mr. Chair, for the first time in sixteen years, the period between July 1 of 2007 and July of 2008, we saw the first increase in population in this Province for sixteen years. That happened on our watch, Mr. Chair. That is a reflection of the financial investments we have made, strategic investments we have made to make Newfoundland and Labrador an attractive place to live, an attractive place to invest, a place where people want to raise a family, a place where people want to pursue a career. That is how we have been spending our money, Mr. Chair. So if she wants us to account for some of the expenditures we have made, these are just some of the examples of some of the things we have done since 2006.

As the Minister of Business, one of the primary responsibilities of our department is to attract new investment to the Province. When we speak to people who are looking at investing in the Province, when we speak to people who want to look at Newfoundland and Labrador as an opportunity, do you know what they are telling us? Members opposite who live here, members opposite who supposedly represent the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians stand in this House, and stand in their place in the many parts of this Province and criticize what is happening because they do not recognize the full potential we have in this Province.

When I speak to people outside the Province who are looking at coming in here to invest in our Province because they see the opportunities - people who do not live here see what the Opposition cannot see and do not believe exist, because people opposite, Mr. Chair, do not see the opportunities that exists in Newfoundland and Labrador. What people are telling us is they see and they recognize that the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador is more vibrant than many other jurisdictions.

I had an opportunity back about three weeks ago to attend an anniversary celebration of a local consulting firm that has operations around the world. The president of that company was here, and at the reception he indicated that as he met with his offices across Canada, the place in Canada that has the most potential, the place in Canada that is showing the most promise for the growth and expansion of that firm is in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a major firm with international operations, Mr. Chair. They see the opportunities. They recognize that the mining industry is rebounding. They recognize the tremendous potential we have in oil and gas. They recognize that not only do we have three fields producing now, and one about to produce, but they also recognize that we have some six billion barrels of oil not yet discovered. We have some sixty trillion cubic feet of natural gas not yet discovered. They recognize the potential, Mr Chair, and they recognize that to be in Newfoundland and Labrador positions them to be a part of that prosperity and a part of that future.

My colleague earlier mentioned the investments we are making, in making Newfoundland and Labrador an attractive place to live with a competitive tax regime. That is how we have been spending the money. So if you look at for a moment - and I say to the Leader of the Opposition, a lesson in economics, if she had been paying attention to what has been happening in the world in the last eighteen to twenty-four months when countries around this world were saying if we want to stimulate our economy we need to invest. We need to create new investment opportunities. We need to invest in infrastructure. We need to aggressively pursue expanding opportunities to stimulate our economy. Where was that happening? Newfoundland and Labrador led the country, I say, Mr. Chair. Newfoundland and Labrador led the country in capital investments in the last twelve months.

Look at consumer confidence. We are the only Province in Canada that posted an increase in retail sales in the last twelve or eighteen months, Mr. Chair. Why? Because Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and people in this Province are confident in the future and the potential of this Province, and it translates into prosperous economic activity. All of the consumer reports, economic forecasts, talk about consumer confidence. The greatest consumer confidence in Canada is in Newfoundland and Labrador because people recognize - not only people on this side of the House, Mr. Chair, but people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador recognize the tremendous potential that exists here, the tremendous opportunities that exist here and they value the contribution that our government is making to ensure that we maximize the potential of the resources, not only the natural resources but the human resources we have in this Province. So when the member opposite stands and talks about what is not happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is the reason they sit in Opposition. That is the reason that they will not have a future in governing this Province until they change their attitude and change their minds.

Mr. Chair, I know my time is running out. I just wanted to - before I wrap up I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the newly elected Member for Topsail. Elected with a resounding majority, I say, Mr. Chair. A vote of confidence in him as an individual and what he brings to that particular post that he has and what he will deliver to his constituents, but I say, Mr. Chair, he is a part of a team. He is a part of a team that has been embraced by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. If you consider what has been happening in the last five or six years since we formed government in 2003. Since we formed government in 2003, Mr. Chair, just look at what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been saying. They have said it in an election in 2003; they have said it in an election in 2007; they have said it in by-elections since that time, and they say it in public opinion polls. When asked: Who do you want to be the leader of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Who do they say? Our current Premier. When you ask them: What party do you want representing you in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? What is it they say? They say the Progressive Conservative Party.

CHAIR (Kelly): The Chair reminds the hon. member that his time has expired.

MR. WISEMAN: If I could just have a moment to clue up, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member has leave to clue up.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Chair, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the members of this House just should not take my word for that, just look at what elections have said, just look at what opinion polls have said. They have clearly endorsed the policy decisions of this government. They have clearly endorsed the sound leadership being provided by our Premier. They clearly endorsed the fiscal platform of this government, because I say, Mr. Chair, it is sound, prudent fiscal management. We have been focused on that since 2003, and we will continue to be focused on good fiscal policy that ensures that we develop the resources of Newfoundland and Labrador so that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are the principle benefactors of that.

We recognize, Mr. Chair, the potential. Not just the potential in resource development of this Province, but more importantly we recognize the potential in Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that they will have the ingenuity, they will have the foresight, they will have the intelligence and the ability and the strong leadership skills to deliver to future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the same way that we have in the last seven years, Mr. Chair. So as a result of that, people will continue to endorse the fiscal policies of this government.

When the member opposite asks: you should be accountable, give account of your actions. Clearly, in ten short minutes I think I have outlined a couple of key areas where we can stand proudly in this House and speak to the accomplishments and speak to the contributions that we have made to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Our commitment today, and in the future, will be diligent, focused on the future and ensuring that we have a prosperous Newfoundland and Labrador well into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am delighted to have an opportunity today, our first opportunity in this session, to speak to broad issues that affect the people in this Province. As has been pointed out already, because of the Interim Supply bill that is on the Table, we can stand today, and we will be able to do it another day this week, I hope, where we can stand and we can speak to issues that we know are affecting the lives of people in the Province.

In spite of what my colleague from Trinity North just put out on the floor with regard to the wonderful things that he wants to be able to talk about with regard to government, the thing is: every one of us has been elected to be here in this House; every one of us has been elected to have a voice; every one of us has been elected to bring issues that people bring to us. That is the nature of democracy. Whether a government has 80 per cent or 52 per cent or even 95 per cent, there is still an Opposition in the House. This is our role, to be that Opposition, to be the voice that brings the other voice that is out there, because not everybody is benefiting from what is going on in the Province.

Yesterday, the Premier stood with a glass of water and talked about how the Opposition sees the glass half empty whereas the government sees it half full. Well, what I see, as the leader of an Opposition party in this House, when I look at a glass that has water in it and a space, I see what that space represents; because if it is only half water, what is the other half? The other half is the people who are not being served by what is going on in our Province. We have to look at the people who are not being served because it is government's responsibility to take care of everybody. It is government's responsibility to make sure that the investments that they are making for our future, that the investments they are making are serving everybody in the Province.

I believe that this government is short-sighted when it comes to their understanding of investment. We get a lot of talk with regard to investment, investment in infrastructure, investment in buildings, investment in business, investment in things that are very, very concrete, but what the government does not seem to get is that when, for example, you put a new social program in place, that is an investment. It is not just a social investment; it is also an economic investment. We need to see more leadership from this government with the understanding that a social infrastructure is not just social programs; it is not a drain on the purse; that social programs are also an economic benefit and are an economic investment. One of the places where we really see that is with any social program that in and of itself creates employment; and, do you know what? There is no social program that does not create employment.

The program that we are badly lacking in this Province, and which the Speech from the Throne yesterday made some allusion to, is the lack of a child care program and early childhood education in this Province. We do not have a program, and it is as simple as that. Now, the Speech from the Throne yesterday makes reference to the fact that the combination of the Child, Youth and Family Services and the Department of Education are together going to be developing a ten-year strategy around what they are calling early learning and child care. I am really glad to see that because we are so badly in need of child care and early childhood education in this Province. It is a disgrace, actually, that nothing yet has substantially been done in this Province.

We do have some good things going on in child care; there is no doubt about it. We have some very good not-for-profit organizations out there doing some good programming, and they do understand the link between early childhood education and child care, but this government does not understand that what they need is a complete overhaul, a total overhaul. If they are going to do a ten-year strategy, that is what I am going to be looking for. I am going to be looking for an understanding that if you have a full child care program, you are going to have more people working because of that child care program. If you have more people working because of the child care program, you are going to have more money going out into the economy because more parents are working and able to spend their money.

That is the spin-off; if you have a full child care program, we are going to have something for people to become trained in. Right now, the people who get trained in early childhood education do not have a substantial program to enter here in this Province. A lot of them do their training and then they leave the Province because going into child care in this Province - basically what they have to go into - going into child care gives them very little remuneration, even though they have to have a degree to fill some of the positions that are there in child care, because some of the positions are positions that have to do with early childhood education. They have to have that degree or they have to have certificates from the College of the North Atlantic, but they go into a program where they are paid just above minimum wage, some of them, so they do not stay in the Province.

So, if this government turns the strategy into a real – real - child care and early learning program that has more funding from government, that is not for profit, that is based on the needs of the children in this Province and of the families of the children in this Province, then we might get somewhere. We might, for example, get what happened in Quebec. When the federal government backed down five years ago in 2005 and did not honour the agreement with the provinces to co-fund child care and to get involved in a child care program, Quebec moved ahead with its program and they introduced a universal child care system that saw women entering and re-entering the paid workforce at a very high rate. They have determined in Quebec that the extra revenue from the taxes that they get because of more people working, because of now having child care, that extra income actually covers 40 per cent of the cost of the child care system. Now, that is an amazing figure and that is real investment. That investment has a payback. It has an amazing payback, actually.

Another thing that has been determined by the research that has been done with regard to child care in this country is that child care and early childhood education bring real money back, as I have just indicated, and what has been figured out is that every $1 invested in universal quality early childhood education and child care increases in our economy by $2.30. That is an investment.

So this government has to start looking at child care and early childhood education, for example. They have to start looking at home care. They have to start looking at social programs which we are lacking in this Province, not just from the perspective of how much money will it take out of the coffers. They have to look at the fact that in a year, two years' time, there is going to be money coming in; the same way with home care, because you are going to get more people trained, and because you have more people trained you are going to have more people working, and the more people you have working in home care, for example, again, the more people who are going to be able to spend and who are going to add to the economy of the Province.

So, I do not see this government speaking that way about the investments into the social infrastructure. It would be just as important to put $12 million into an early childhood education program as it would be to put $12 million into doing exploration for oil over on the Northern Peninsula, just as important. We will have an economic benefit for the Province, but not only will it have an economic benefit in the present; if we start getting our children early in early childhood education, if we start really doing a really good early childhood education program, we are going to have children who are going to be better educated at the other end. Because the earlier we start with their education – and there are enough educators in this room to know that this is true – the further they are going to go.

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

MS MICHAEL: Just to clue up, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: To clue up, by leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

The more we educate our children at very early stages - you know, one, two, three, it does not matter - the earlier we do it, the further they will go in the educational system, the longer they will stay in school, the fewer dropouts we will have, and the better trained people we will have at the other end and we will have an investment that will pay off.

It is not sufficient to put money into the business end. Talking about investments, we are talking about into the business sector; that has to happen too, but we have to make sure that we are looking at what are the gaps that we have in our social infrastructure in this Province and how can we, at this moment, with the resources that we now have, cover those gaps? Child care and early childhood education is only one of those major gaps. The fact that we do not have a universal fully funded home care program, which has been called for in the Siemens study that was done on patient flow in our health care system, is another gap.

Mr. Chairman, I will have more time this week to speak more to those gaps that we see in the social infrastructure, and I will save the rest of my comments until then.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to get up for a few minutes and speak to the Interim Supply bill, a bill which we have to bring in every year - as already has been indicated - to make sure that the funds are provided for the business of government and the business of the Province to be able to continue.

We are allowed a fair bit of latitude in terms of some of the things that we can speak about. In the short time that I have available, I want to cover some broad issues but I also want the opportunity, if I could, to speak a little bit to my department. If I run out of time now, hopefully I will get an opportunity to come back later.

Mr. Chair, I will address some of the comments from my hon. colleague across the House in terms of some of the broad issues that she references and that she speaks of. The impression that she leaves with me is that we have made significant investments in business initiatives, but we have not done such a good job in some of our social investments, and she references a couple of examples. She references for instance, child care; she references education.

I would argue, and will argue and will make the point, and will put forth for people's consideration that this government more than any government that ever came before has made more investments in our social infrastructure in this Province than any government from 1949 to today has done. This government is the government that brought in a nationally recognized and a nationally applauded Poverty Reduction Strategy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: We are currently at over $130 million per year. This government is the government that stepped up and increased the Income Support rates when we heard from people doing our consultations that they would like to see those increase immediately. We also, on top of that, made sure that the Income Support rates were increased by the Consumer Price Index, Mr. Chair.

This government is the government that recognized that our post-secondary education students were drowning in post-secondary debt. It was this government that brought in things like lower tuition and freezing tuition rates; we continued those programs. It was this government that brought in the interest relief; it was this government that eliminated interest relief. It was this government that brought in needs-based grants and continues to increase those needs-based grants for the post-secondary students of this Province, Mr. Chair.

Those are some of the social investments we have made. We have made many, many more, but to try and leave the impression that we have made only business investments is totally false, totally wrong, totally disingenuous and needs to be challenged. I stand here today to challenge that and to say that we have made many, many investments in our social infrastructure. Not only have we made them, Mr. Chair, but we will continue to make them. I can tell you as a member who sits around the Cabinet table today, that we have many, many discussions about the kinds of things we need to do from a social infrastructure perspective. It is not all about bricks and mortar. We certainly need to make some economic developments. We need to invest in the infrastructure and there are good reasons why we need to do that, because in some cases it never had an investment in over thirty years.

Look at some of the schools we have. I can walk to schools in my district, sixty-five years old, one particular school I am thinking of, where they have had to close down sections of it for years because leaks come into it, because there is mould in it, because the walls are falling down, because the smell in the place would knock you out. We have children going to school in that but we are going to build a new school. We are going to do just what we have done in all other parts of this Province. We are going to tackle those challenges head on. We are going to make sure that we make those investments in the physical infrastructure that we need to make. By doing that we will also make investments in the social infrastructure.

That is why we have capped the class sizes. That is why we have put more money into learning resources for our students. That is why we have done more - the free textbooks. Those are the kinds of social investments we have made. So I do not need to be lectured by people on the other side about how we need to rejig ourselves or how we need to be thinking differently about what it is that we do. We understand the economic side very, very well, and I will speak in a second about some of the things we have done on the economic side.

We also understand, and have shown by our record, the kinds of things we have done on social investments in this Province. So for anybody to stand in this House and challenge us that we are not making investments in social infrastructure, it is wrong. Are there more needs? Absolutely! Are there things that we need to be doing? There is lots more. There is a lot of things that we need to be doing, and we are going to continue to do it. If it was not for people like you, when you were sitting on this side, who did nothing, did nothing to improve some of the things. You get up and talk about your petitions. You sat here. What were you doing then with the petitions, I say to the hon. Member for Burgeo & La Poile?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: You can sit there and grumble all you want. You get up and you pontificate lots of times with us, but I am saying to you today –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SKINNER: – we are tired of taking that from you. We are going to be giving it to back to you now. So you stand up with your petition and I will ask you, when you were –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SKINNER: – giving your petition, what were you doing when you were on this side of the House? I did not see you doing much then for the people of Burgeo & La Poile. You are not too long today getting up and telling us about it, but I will ask the people of Burgeo & La Poile what they think you have done for them relative to what this government has done.

As well, Mr. Chair, I would like speak about our investments in oil and gas, and what we have done there. The hon. members on the opposite side like to talk about our investments and how they feel we should not be investing. It was said again today - the Leader of the Opposition said it. We should not be investing in oil and gas. We should not be taking equity stakes.

Well, there are a couple of reasons why, I will mention today, there are many reasons, but a couple I want to mention, why we should be doing it. Number one is, Mr. Chair, there are major, major profits being made by the owners of some of those oil stakes, those oil companies, and we now are a piece of that. We have been able to get an equity stake – which people said we would never do. I remember when the industries cooled down a few years ago, when we were fighting for our equity stake, and the howls were coming from the opposite side about what we should be doing. How we should cave in again to big business, because we are supposed to be friends of big business. So the howls were coming, cave in again, you have the oil companies driven away, they will never come back, the place will go bankrupt here.

Well guess what? They came back. They came back and they danced to the tune that we played for them. We are now partners with them, and we are sitting at the table, and while they are making profits, we are making profits. What are we doing with those profits? We are investing in our social infrastructure. We are investing in the infrastructure that we have, the bricks and mortar, the pavement, all of those things. We are investing in our people. We are investing in our students. We are investing in those that are unemployed. We are investing in those that are on Income Support. We are investing in those that need medical assistance. We are doing all of those investments, but it is not something, Mr. Chair, that is black and white. It is not something that we are going to have one day and it is all going to be fixed the next day. This is a continuum that we are on here. Every time we met one of our challenges there are new challenges that we face, but we are here today to face them and we are going to be here tomorrow to face them. We will continue to knock off all of those challenges.

When I look back over our record over the last six years there are pages and pages of things that I could speak to that were not done when we came into office that are being done today. When I look ahead to see some of the things that we need to do, there are many, many things, many, many challenges that we have in this Province; many, many things that we need to do, but we have a plan and we are going to get them done. Whether it takes thirty days or whether it takes thirty months, however long it takes, we will continue to work towards it. Some things are easier to do than others, and unfortunately, we cannot get it all done today but we will do our best to get it done.

Mr. Chair, I will come back to some of that when I get up again at another time, but I do want to, because we are on Interim Supply, talk just a little bit, for the couple of minutes I have left, about my department, about the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Some of the money that is being asked for today - $2.4 billion I think was the number I heard the Minister of Finance talk about - about $13 million or $14 million of that relates to the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and I want to talk about that because I have some great staff working right across this Province who are doing wonderful things in this Province and I want to talk about why we need that money in INTRD. The kind of investments that we are making and the kind of people we have out there on the ground doing the work that needs to be done in this government to make sure that the people of this Province are receiving the kinds of benefits they should be receiving.

I will just take a minute, Mr. Chair, to talk a little bit about ocean technology, for instance. We have some great opportunities in ocean technology, and upstairs in the Department of INTRD in the Innovation branch, we have some people who are working on that. There is some money allocated here in Interim Supply to allow us to continue to work with our ocean technology sector. We are basically going to grow that sector from - I am going from memory now so I will check my facts when I get down, but I will say this to you, I believe we are going to grow it to over a $15 million industry with over 6,000 employees in it in the next five years. We started off with nothing basically a few years ago in an ocean tech strategy and we are now building that; companies here in this Province are the ones doing that kind of things for us.

We have a group of people in the department who are working on export. People sometimes wonder: Why do we send people to the New England states? Why do we send them to Ireland? Why do we send them to Europe? Why do we send them to wherever we send them to? Because we are helping local companies export.

The Member for Bishops Falls has a company out there that exports peat and his slogan is – I think it is one of the best slogans I have ever heard - Selling the Province One Bag at a Time. He sells bags of peat and that is his slogan: Selling the Province One Bag at a Time. Well, that company exports all over the world.

We have companies in the Burin Peninsula exporting all over the world. We have companies in Central Newfoundland. Lots of people. How many people?

AN HON. MEMBER: Over twenty.

MR. SKINNER: Over twenty people working in Bishops Falls.

So, Mr. Chair, I recognize that my time is up and I apologize for taking an extra second, but I do appreciate the opportunity and I will come back again.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes 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 today and bring forward issues on behalf of the people of the great District of Port de Grave.

Before I get into my few comments, I want to welcome to the gallery today the new Member Elect for the great District of Topsail. I happen to know the gentlemen over the last few years, and I want to wish him every success as he enters this wonderful Chamber of the House of Assembly. I think we are off to a good start. I was half afraid to get up after the last speaker. Mr. Chair, I was half afraid to get up; it was getting pretty heated here.

Mr. Chair, as previous members have said, we are here today and we are in reference to the Interim Supply Bill and we have a short time frame to get up and speak on various issues. As we know, yesterday we went through the Speech from the Throne, which is a blueprint that the government put forward each and every year as in the past and it gives an outline, I guess, where government is headed in the present fiscal year and up and coming.

We also look forward to next Monday, March 29, when the Budget will be brought down. I guess we will get more clear definitions then on where government is going, what spending we will see and what new ventures they will encounter on over this fiscal year. Each and every one of us looks forward to what could be in the Budget, and we have our wish list I am sure.

I was pleased last year with regard to the long-term care facility where funding was announced to kick-start that wonderful project for the Trinity-Conception area and probably Placentia area. I am going to go into it in more detail one of those days when my hon. colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, is here because I did ask him some questions and the responses came back, but I am looking forward to a bigger announcement this year, that money will be forthcoming, that this project will get off the ground. I am also looking forward to a preliminary announcement on a new primary school for the wonderful community of Coley's Point, a primary school for Coley's Point. We come here each and every day talking about the schools and how old they are. That is a structure, I can tell you, is pretty close to fifty, fifty-five years old, a wooden structure. I know the minister, his staff, the Avalon West district, they all know the situation. The minister is shaking his head. I do not know if it is up and down or sideways, but hopefully something will come forward this year with regard to that project.

Mr. Chair, when we come to this hon. House to represent our constituents it is not always easy. I say that with all sincerity, whether you are in the Opposition or on government side. Only recently I saw an incident that happened, I am not going to mention any names, not going to look at anybody in particular, but I was in a situation recently where there was a member from the government side and we were on a flight to Toronto. When that individual got off the plane I saw him being verbally attacked – not physically – by a constituent of his, up one side and down the other, and that is what we go through. It is not all sunshine, like a lot of the people think out there. We try to do our best on behalf of our constituents, but I am going to tell you, you can go that extra mile sometimes and it does not pan out for you.

Mr. Chair, like I said when I started, it is a pleasure to be able to stand to represent the people of the great District of Port de Grave, and also the people of this Province that you represent for the various departments that you act as a critic for. I know, as members stand, they talk about all the good things that happen in their districts, and rightly so. I have no hesitation in recognizing the good things, whether it is water and sewer, renovations and repairs to schools, or extensions to schools that have gone on in my district. It is very well known, I do a newsletter. I put it out to the public and they all know what takes place, but that is no reason why you cannot stand in this hon. House and bring forward issues that people want you to bring forward. It is not always that you are downing or criticizing government, you are bringing issues forward that you have been asked to do on behalf of the people throughout this Province.

Mr. Chair, one of the key issues, one of the main topics in my area that comes up each and every year, this time of the year - and it was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne - and that has to do with the fishery. I wish the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture every success with the deliberations they are having as they deal with the MOUs, but I want to assure you that people around this Province - and I am sure my district is not the only one - they have major concerns of what may happen this year in the fishery. I am hoping beyond hope. It is not only the person who goes out in that fishing boat, or the gentleman that owns the company, we also have to look at the people who work in the plants and the harvesters and the owners of the boats. Each and every year down through history, and it has been, I guess, the backbone of this Province for over 500 years. It seems like each and every year people have major concerns. When the fishery does not work, it affects the economy totally throughout this Province.

We have been fortunate over the last few years to see the flowing of revenues from offshore oil. I know my hon. colleague earlier today said that when they took over government they inherited a major deficit. That is true, we know that. You cannot back away from that, but he failed to say that they also inherited considerable wealth that was coming from projects that were brought forward, negotiated by previous Administrations of all political stripes. They do not add that to it, it is just that what we took over. I agree with that. I do not know about everybody, but I do. Things have to be done and we are fortunate now that we have the money flowing that we do have to take care of those issues.

Mr. Chair, when it comes to the fishery - I attended the Pentecostal Church in Port de Grave this past week, and they have a breakfast and they have a service to kick start the fishery each and every year. Those individuals have concerns. Every person who spoke were hoping beyond hope that everything is going to work out fine, but the fishery is not what it used to be. We know that there are different issues. We can blame it on the markets or whatever, but still those people have concerns and they are looking forward and hoping that this will not take place and that this year will not be a difficult one for them. When you talk about the fishery, as I said before, you talk about other industries and businesses. Whether it is someone who is selling the fuel or the food for those people who go out; the car dealerships, they are all affected when the fishery goes on its wayward path.

We remember back in the 1990s when the moratorium came upon us and the people from that area, right from Upper Island Cove all the way up through, and throughout this Province, they had to diversify and go into fisheries that they were not really used to. We are into the crab and the shrimp now, the two major species, but God forbid if something should happen and we have to go back, knowing what the problems are within the cod fishery. We have brought forward motions here; the Premier even went to the EU. We have brought forward private members' motions with regard to custodial management, and some of those issues have to be dealt with.

I hope that the minister here in our Province will deal with the federal government. Don't just wait until you get your own House in order, I mean those people have to become involved. Hopefully, then we will see something that the people will have some assurance that this year will do great things for them. Also, in my district we have an area where they offload from foreign ships, species that they catch in various areas, and the federal government recently closed down the ports. I can understand that, if there is something happening to our fish stocks, but you would not believe the major effect that that has on a local area. Hopefully, this can be resolved in some way that each and every individual who is involved in the fishing industry can take care of that.

We also notice in the Speech from the Throne yesterday, I will touch on volunteers, and a mention about the tremendous impact it had last year when we had our municipalities conventions throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Volunteerism, I can assure you, is alive and well. That has to happen. We will never know the value of what happens with individuals who serve, whether it is with various groups and organizations, fire departments, municipalities and so on.

So, Mr. Chair, I know my time is running out, but there are many issues that I will hopefully speak on over the next short period of time. In the Throne Speech we heard about children and youth, poverty reduction, ferry services, the strategy for inclusion of people with disabilities, health care. I do not know if there was all that much about home care and long-term care facilities, but there are many issues that we can touch on, Mr. Chair. Like I said, over a period of time each and every one of those will serve us, and hopefully, when we hear about the Budget next week, that we will see the funding, where it is going and what can be done to help the people of this Province.

I know my time is out, sir, so I will take my leave. I am sure I will have an opportunity to come back again.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to stand and speak for a few minutes. I do not think I am going to speak too much to the programs that we have done over the past number of years. I think, Mr. Chair, for the few minutes that I have I would certainly like to delve right into my department and to express – I do not know how to word it. When you get someone in Opposition who gets up and uses the words that we on this side are arrogant or that we appear to be apathetic towards – I do not know how we arrived at that, but all I have to say is that if the Opposition House Leader, if he thinks that I, as a minister, or I as an MHA or we as a government appear to be arrogant, I think he is sadly mistaken and he is very lacking in the response that we have taken as a government in this Province. I take great exception to being tagged with those two terms.

If you look at the fishery, I think the sense that we all get is that it is a sense of desperation. The Member for Port de Grave is exactly right, that there is a major concern about the fishery that is about to open in two weeks time. The panel has come out and set $1.35 as the starting price for crab. We are not exactly - we have heard from some of the processors who are expressing a concern, and when we speak to the revenue generated from our fishery, it dropped by 22 per cent last year. It seems that half of that is due to the Canadian dollar. So you are dealing with a commodity item in fish products that are so influenced by global forces that oftentimes things are beyond our control.

Mr Chair, if you look back at our efforts, it is not because of a lack of trying. In 2007, there was a fisheries summit held. We, at that particular time through the fishing industry renewal, committed $140 million that we were willing to put into it. I recall quite vividly the FPI debate, and coming out of that debate was whether we should buy the marketing arm or not. If I am not mistaken, the dollar figure was somewhere around $120 million that we as a government - the Premier said it - that we as a government were willing to purchase that marketing arm. What did we hear just a week or so ago? That that marketing arm is now reaping financial reward for it, and we are into a MOU process now that ironically we are looking at marketing. So, we are investing in it. The marketing council - Minister Hedderson brought forward I think it was $5.8 million, almost $6 million, the former Minister of Fisheries put toward a seafood marketing council. Now we are in the MOU process and we have committed $800,000 towards that process. It is almost a sense of desperation, but we as a government are certainly stepping up to the plate here and putting financial support towards trying to stabilize this industry, if I could put it that way. Please, I would ask no one out there to think that we are in some way arrogant or apathetic towards what is happening.

I think there is one thing I recognized in this Legislature over the years, Mr. Chair. You can get up and you can say what you want, but there is one thing about it: In this House, when you get up to speak, the general public sees the truth of the character that stands up. I am truly, truly convinced of that. When people watch us through the medium of television or, I suppose, you can say equally when we speak publicly, that oftentimes we do it without prepared scripts and as such the truth of the character that stands can very well be judged by the general public. Let's give the general public credit that they see through the trueness of the individual that gets up and speaks.

I can assure you, Mr. Chair, that I, as the Minister of the Department of Fisheries, and everyone on this side are true to making this Province a better place in which to live.

When I heard the Leader of the Opposition talking about investment in the equity stakes, my first thought is that she is not looking at the long-term future; because those investments, that is exactly what they are about. They are about ensuring that this Province is strong now, but also that it is equally as strong in the future. That is what all of it is entirely about.

Mr. Chairman, the MOU process, time is quickly going by but I certainly want to comment on that. This was an agreement that was signed by three parties: government, the producers, ASP in particular, and the FFAW. That is progressing to the point where the working groups now have all of the financial information, they have the reports that were submitted by the processors, and they have the report that was submitted by the FFAW. Those working groups are now looking at all of that information and they will come forward with some recommendations to government.

We certainly have to come to an agreement within our own Province. As I said before, I have no doubt about it, that if through this process we come forward with a strong package then we have something that collectively everybody in the Province has an interest in; because, whether you are a fisherperson or not, the people in this Province know the importance of the fishery to the entire economy of the Province and rural Newfoundland.


The members from St. John's know equally how important this fishery is to the people of the Province and, as such, they know the intricacies of that fishery. So it is important that we come out of this MOU with a unified front, a unified presentation, and I think that every person in the Province is willing to support us as we go forward to the federal government with the expectation that they be full participants in that.

They know some of the things that are happening at the table now. I met with Minister Shea on February 15, to explain to her the process that we are going through and that I will be requesting further meetings with her, and also that we will be requesting to present the information that comes out of this process. I think that if we go forward with a strong, unified approach here then we would fully expect the federal government to be a part of it, and I would certainly hope and think that they would be.

Mr. Chair, there is no doubt about it, 2009 was a challenging year for the fishery as we saw many things happen. There are many things that are happening that are rather favourable this year in terms of the fishery, that the market – the inventories are down. That means the U.S. market is more open to buy the products. We do not know exactly yet, but we look forward to the Japanese being major buyers here. The unfortunate thing is that everyone in the Province is following that Canadian dollar. It is creeping up there closer and closer to par. It is impacting us now, and as it continues to strengthen it only means that it is going to compound our problem.

As the Member for Port de Grave said, and I have said on several occasions, I am hoping against hope that we can get this season started. I know that there will be challenges but, in the challenge that we have in front of us, I certainly hope that all the parties involved here will have cool heads, that cool heads will prevail, and that we will see a fishery starting.

I know my time is up, Mr. Chair, so I thank the House for the time and I am certain there will be further debate on the issues that I have talked about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly wanted to rise and continue my comments on the debate on Supplementary Supply. When I last finished off, Mr. Chairman, I was talking about health care and in particular the issues that are ongoing today with physicians in the Province, between government and physicians.

First, Mr. Chairman, I want to address a comment that was made by the member who previously spoke, and I think he was referring to something my colleague had said with regard to arrogance. Mr. Chairman, I guess one of the things often seen as being arrogant is when you have people on your doorstep; people who need your help; people who are out there every day crying out for help and crying out for someone to represent their issues. We know all too well a case on the Burin Peninsula, a case today where there are twelve or fourteen workers who are still on strike from last fall - October, November; it has been so long I cannot remember the exact date that they walked out on the picket line. Guess what, Mr. Chairman? They have been asking for government to settle with them on the issues that are outstanding.

Let me give you a little bit of a history around this. These are individuals who work for some of the lowest wages in our Province. They work, Mr. Chairman, in a service where they provide for the care of other individuals, adults with disabilities who are able to enter the workforce, and they provide supervision to them, so it gives those individuals who suffer with disabilities and with other illnesses the opportunity to become fuller members of society, to be able to participate in the workforce, to have a reason to get up and get dressed to go to a job every day. It is those twelve or fourteen workers who accompany them to that job site and provide for their personal care services and other services that help them every day in their jobs.

Well, these individuals have been walking the picket line for a number of months. They have staged sit-ins in the minister's office in the Marystown area, where his district office is. They have staged sit-ins. They have gotten no satisfaction; they have gotten no recognition of their issue from government. This is what their issue is: their issue is that government is insisting that the classification clause in their contract be removed.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have that particular note in front of me right now, so I cannot read you the exact terminology, but I am going on recollection, and my recollection tells me that there was a clause in the previous contract negotiated a few years ago by the same government opposite, but the same Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that holds that prestigious position today, and this contract at that time was settled with a clause that included classification - something that other public sector employees have included in their collective agreements, and it was done as part of the bargaining process, and so was the case with them when they had settled the last agreement with government.

Now, Mr. Chairman, government is saying we want to remove that classification system, that classification clause, from your contract. These workers will have no part of it. I will tell you why they will have no part of it, Mr. Chairman: because other groups have the clause in their contract. They are still part of the collective bargaining process with government. Even though government may not see themselves as the direct employer, they enter into a collective bargaining agreement with these individuals, and they fund the jobs that these individuals are in.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, they have been out walking the picket line in the district of the Member for Marystown since October or November. They have not gotten any satisfaction, and they have not gotten any resolve to their issue, although it is a privilege that others enjoy in the Province, although it was a clause in their agreement that was put there at the insistence of government a few years ago, was agreed upon by government, was signed as part of a collective agreement process by government, but the same government today wants that removed.

So, Mr. Chairman, that is a little example of arrogance: when people are knocking at your door looking for help, looking to have an issue addressed that is important to them, and everyone is just walking away, ignoring it, pretending they are not even out there. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, they are few in numbers; but they are very important people as well and they need to have this issue resolved.

Mr. Chairman, before I diverted from what I was going to say with regard to health care - and I will get back to that now; because today, ongoing in the Province, we have a situation where not only do we have recommendations that were put forward by Justice Cameron that were seen as priorities to be implemented within our health care system, not only do we have those recommendations not being implemented today and a full year later no movement on some of them, which is one critical issue within itself - a critical issue, Mr. Chairman, that came to light only a few weeks ago when we learned of other cases where there was equipment in the laboratories at Eastern Health that were not calibrated properly and, as a result of that improper calibration of equipment, we ended up with cases where once again there was wrongful diagnosis made. Once again there were treatments given to patients that were not at regulated levels, and as a result of that, Mr. Chairman, there was harm caused to certain patients and individuals who were receiving this treatment.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, one of those individuals was a fourteen-year-old boy who still remains today in critical condition at the Janeway Hospital because he was given too many toxins in his body when he was given cyclosporine - something that should never happen to anyone else in this Province, Mr. Chairman. A year ago, we said these things should never happen to anyone else. A year later they are still happening. Why is that, Mr. Chairman?

The reason for that is we have still not finalized an accreditation process in our laboratories in this Province. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, we still lack human resources in many of those labs, to do the work that needs to be done. Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, the recommendation that these lab workers be given proper training was not fulfilled and it still has not occurred. As a result of all of these issues, and the workload issues in those particular labs, we are continuing to see problems and that cannot be ignored. We are continuing to see problems, problems to the extent that people's lives are once again being impacted.

Mr. Chairman, how do you maintain a system of health care in which you build confidence for the people who have to use it, in which you can give assurances to patients, and in which we can recruit good human resource personnel, meaning doctors, meaning oncologists, meaning pathologists, meaning lab workers themselves, or lab technicians. All of these individuals make up what is that particular team within that particular lab that deals with each of those patients.

Now, how do we do that? We do that, first of all, by giving them the resources that they need, by putting proper protocols in place and ensuring that the protocols are being met, which is one of the things we failed to do, the ministry failed to do. The other thing is, in addition to ensuring that the protocols are met and the human resources are provided, to ensure that we can continue to retain physicians and recruit them when we have vacancies.

That brings us to the issue that we are dealing with this week in which we have a situation today – and again this afternoon I heard of another doctor who is leaving, or has left, but it is a new incident to me. This continues to happen, where we have vacancies in our system and we have a failure on behalf of government to negotiate appropriate deals to ensure that we are able to fill those particular vacancies.

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot more to be said on this issue, and I know I have used up my time, but I will certainly be back and I will be speaking further to this issue.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Any time there is a money bill involved, it is always a pleasure to get up and speak in this House.

The glass is half full, as we always say, and we are going to say it again and I am going to talk a little bit slow because I have been accused of talking too fast. When I am trying to get the good news out there, I seem to speed it up and people just say: Clayton, can you repeat that please? So I am going to say it a bit slower, especially for the Opposition because they always seem to ask the same questions. They get the answers, but they still come back with the same questions.

I would like to start off by this statement that is here: Our Premier has negotiated the Atlantic Accord for a gain of $2 billion, negotiated higher royalties from offshore oil and equity stakes in offshore projects worth tens of billions of dollars, unlike anything the Province has achieved before. We have secured the underfunded pension plans, turned around the fiscal decline, and achieved impressive and important upgrades in the Province's credit rating.

Now, where am I going with this? Well, if the Opposition, this party, had to stay in power, the glass probably would not be half full. It would probably be close to empty right now; but, because of wise fiscal management, and under the leadership of this Premier and our government, we have been able to move forward with good strategic investments.

Somebody once said that practice makes perfect; but apparently there was another saying that practice does not make perfect. It is perfect practice that makes perfect. I think that is what this government is doing, and that is why we are moving forward and generating the economy. Even last year, when there was a downturn in the economy in the global market, we were able to ride through that storm and not have any cuts in services but were able to invest over $8 million in a stimulus package. I think it was greatly appreciated in this Province.

As a matter of fact, already this year I see ads in local papers where contractors are already asking, looking for heavy equipment operators, looking for tradespeople, and looking for different workers. That is a good sign.

The Opposition says: Well, we should have a balanced budget. Basically, as the Minister of Finance said, if we are going to have a balanced budget, are we going to start increasing taxes again - because we have to get the revenue from somewhere - or do we not spend and then these contractors and these other industries out there, and businesses, will not be able to hire people, and there will be nobody working? Is that what we want? Is that what the Opposition wants? Maybe it is.

There was an investment this past year in a new venture, a fairly new venture anyway, and a lot of it had to do, of course, with the downturn with AbititiBowater in the Central region. This government was fast out of the gate to help support these workers, but also looking at future industries and what could generate the economy in the Central area. Well, it has not been talked about much but cranberry farming right now is going to lead the way in the next couple of years.

I took a tour of some of the farms this past, I guess, month or so. One particular farmer took me out on his cranberry farm that he was developing, thirteen people working there - thirteen. They are developing ten acres per farm, and there are ten farmers that have been approved under this program. That will be 100 acres. They will produce, they will harvest, when they are finished, 20,000 pounds of cranberries per acre.

What, do you ask, is all of that? What do you do with 2 million pounds of cranberries? Right now we have a business that is able to take that product and get it to the market without any extra cost. Do you know in order to get to processing, where we need to get to a secondary processing, we need 10 million pounds of cranberries just to even consider processing?

When you think about the demand and the market for cranberries, it is just amazing, and we are not even touching the surface, but this government made an investment into these cranberry farms. Right now we have equipment that would be sitting around in the snow, collecting snow and ice and so on, but it has been out on the farms clearing farms - thirteen workers on one site. It is costing over $30,000 to develop each acre, and we are developing 100 acres in this particular project, so that particular industry will grow and we are going to see good things come from that.

As the Minister of Finance said before, because our debt has gone down and our credit rating has gone up, we have been able to decrease the interest that we pay on our debt, so we are saving money. We are saving money there. We have passed it on, Mr. Chairman, and we have cut taxes, we have invested in infrastructure, and we have invested in roads, education, municipal infrastructure, affordable housing. I can certainly go on and talk about our investments, Mr. Chairman, in education, in municipal infrastructure, and especially the cost-share ratio that was brought in two years ago by this government. For a population of towns less than 3,000 on a 90-10 cost share, and over 3,000 - between 3,000 and 5,000, I believe – an 80-20 cost share, they have been able to move forward on a lot of projects.

I would like to talk about just what is happening with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and the investments in affordable housing, because in most areas, I know out in the District of Exploits, there are a lot of aging – we are an aging population and people are looking to get into some affordable housing. They probably want to sell the house they have, Mr. Chair, because they do not want to spend the money to keep it up and it is not cheap, so they can move into the affordable housing units. In the past couple of years, Mr. Chair, this government has invested millions of dollars in affordable housing. Out in the District of Exploits, there are four developments out there. This year, just recently, there was another announcement for another six units by a developer. So we are investing not only in industry, but we are investing in our seniors and our education and our health care and that is what it is all about.

If we cut spending, like the Opposition wants us to do, then we can have a balanced budget, but we are not going to see as much in roadwork, we are not going to see as much in health care, we are not going to see as much in affordable housing. So, if we go their way, then the Province and the residents could suffer because of it, and that is not where this government wants to go.

For example, this government has invested $10.9 million for the purchase of twelve digital mammography units for communities across the Province, Mr. Chair; $10.6 million for the construction of bunkers and the purchase of two new radiation machines for the Bliss Murphy Cancer Centre, Mr. Chair – I would like to thank the Member for the Bay of Islands, too, for bringing that to my attention; $17.2 million for new medical equipment, such as MRI and CT scanners, and diagnostic equipment.

I would like to go back to – I know my time is growing short, but I would just like to talk about the diagnostic equipment and the investment that we have had in all of the equipment we have purchased in the past couple of years. I have made this statement here before, Mr. Chair; I am going to make it again. Thirteen years ago, my brother-in-law had a kidney transplant. The only place for dialysis that was close was either Corner Brook or St. John's, Mr. Chair. Today, if he needed it, he can go to Grand Falls-Windsor or he can go to Gander; he can go to places that are really close. We can get the cancer treatment now in Grand Falls-Windsor - something that the Opposition tried to put in a budget a year or so before they were elected and thought they were going to get elected. They went ahead with it, put it in their budget, did not move on it, just one of those promises, but they were there for almost a year after they put it in their budget and did not move on that particular centre, Mr. Chair.

Anyway, I know my time is up. I would like to talk more about other investments and what this government has done, but if the Opposition wants us to cut or raise taxes then maybe that is what we should do but I do not think we are going to do that, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Burgeo & La Poile.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate another opportunity to have a few words in Interim Supply. It seems like my comments a little while ago this afternoon might have sparked some controversy. I used the word arrogance at one point, and apathy, and I see we really got a reaction and that is good to see. It is good to see that the government members react sometimes, that they just do not become complacent. The Minister of Innovation, Trade, for example, I thought we were going to have to medivac him there for a second. He seemed to really get a bit excited.

Before I get into my comments though, I would like to extend my congratulations as well to the newly elected Member for Topsail. He is seated in the Speaker's gallery today. Welcome, Sir, and I am sure soon as the proper regulatory pieces are complied with, you will find your seat a little inside the rail. Anyway, welcome aboard and congratulations on your victory.

I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, in the last talk I had here about the federal-provincial relations and I used the word toxic. We can talk all we want - and it is good to talk by the way; there is nothing wrong with a government bragging about what they have done, nothing wrong with that. You do good deeds; you should tell people you do good deeds. The problem is if you do not do so good in certain areas or you have some weaknesses, it also does not hurt to acknowledge that there are some areas that you have a weakness in and are prepared to work on. Now the problem becomes of course when you fail to even acknowledge that maybe we have a weakness, when you just make the assumption that we are perfect. That is what leads to these words like arrogance, when somebody acts as if they are perfect in everything they do; nobody is perfect. We all have some flaws - things that are not right.

Again, here is the Member for Exploits, of course, touting that he is perfect. Now, I do not know anybody on the face of this earth who would say that they are perfect. Now, that is the ultimate, ultimate arrogance. The ultimate arrogance, when the Member for Exploits will get there and say: Yes, I am perfect; we are perfect. Now, that is a government who are perfect.

Well, I guess they were not so perfect in some things. I am looking forward, for example, I wonder will there be anything in the Budget – because we are having a deficit this year – I am wondering will there be anything in the Budget this year where we are going to save a bit of money, because I would think with a deficit, we would try to save money. There is certainly one thing that we have all come to learn, has been very wasteful since 2003 - absolutely wasteful. That is the office of the special ambassador that the Premier sends off to Ottawa. We used to call him Dr. Feelgood, because he made people feel good. When the government members would come up, the ministers would come to Ottawa, his job was to make them feel good. He would pick them up at the airport and deliver them to their meetings and so on. We have never ever in this Province seen a report of what he has done – never!

We had Mr. Rowe who left it and came home and went back to his talk show. We have had Dr. FitzGerald there now since, I believe, 2006 or so, and he has resigned now. He has gone somewhere now in the bowels of the Public Service, probably never to surface again, but he has resigned. I am anxious to see, come Monday, will we see a little savings here where finally there is recognition that that office was a waste of money? The reason we have always said it is a waste of money, of course, is because if ministers were doing their jobs, and if the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was on the ball, you would not need somebody up there as a special envoy, a special ambassador to arrange your meetings for you. Surely, the Minister of Finance for this Province can pick up the phone and call Mr. Flaherty's office and say: We have a serious issue down here. We need to talk to you. Can we come up and see you? When can we do it?

I am sure the federal Minister of Finance has enough respect for our Minister of Finance to say sure - maybe he can come down, if you want him to. I am sure if our Minister of Innovation, Trade wants to meet with the federal minister of industry, he can do so. It is nothing wrong whatsoever with having a Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who might even interject to expedite those types of meetings. We certainly did not need someone extra, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to do that. We see now that the position is vacant, and hopefully it will stay vacant. If you want to show us a little bit of fiscal management, let's hopefully see that position never gets filled again.

The Premier tried; that is fine. He obviously thought that he had some reasons for thinking that was a wise move, but even the best of us have to acknowledge after awhile that maybe it was not such a good move, and that is one of them.

We saw today, for example, the Minister of Labrador Affairs told us he went up last week and had a meeting with the federal Minister of Defence regarding 5 Wing Goose Bay; he had the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs with him. If it worked last week, why can't it work on a go-forward basis, as the government likes to say? Why can't it always work that way? But, that all ties in with the whole piece about the relationship with the federal government. How much better, or could it be any better if we had a good relationship with the federal government? By the way, it is a two-way street.

I do not think that what I call a stressed relationship between our Province and the federal government has got all to do, or all of the blame can be placed on the shoulders of the Premier – not at all. Yes, he is very combative. Yes, he had his problems with Prime Minister Harper, and yes, we had the ABC campaign, but you get a little bit of the rubbing of the salt in the wounds come the other way too. I mean, surely, surely, it must have galled the Premier, galled him when here he is with a meeting set up for 3:00 on a Friday afternoon with the Prime Minister, recently, and what does he do the day before, or the morning of the meeting? He appoints the former Member for Topsail to the Senate. Anybody who lives in this Province knows of the tiff that existed between the Premier and the former Member for Topsail when she was the Minister of Health. I do believe she left Cabinet and never did get back in again. Quite obvious, he made eighteen Cabinet shuffles and never invited her back in. So that existed and lo and behold, what happens? Prime Minister Harper, he was not satisfied, of all the people – I heard talks of Mr. Sullivan, I heard talks of Mr. Hearn going to the Senate. Lo and behold, everybody gets blindsided. The Member for Topsail was gone. Now, don't think that did not gall the Premier. I would think he should be galled. He should be galled.

Likewise, just before that, of course, who was one of the other persons whom the Premier probably had one of his major tiffs with within his caucus, was the former Member for St. Mary's, I do believe it was, Mr. Manning - turfed him out of caucus. He sat over here behind us for a few months. Then he went off and ran in a federal election and got defeated. Lo and behold, what did Prime Minister Harper do? I will spite you now, Mr. Premier, he says. So he takes Mr. Manning and puts him in the Senate. The salt has gone both ways. They both have their reasons for being nasty to each other, and that leads for a bad atmosphere, bad environment between us and the federal government. I am sure Prime Minister Harper is not up there jumping out of his slippers to do stuff for us every morning he gets out of bed. That is pretty obvious by his actions in the appointments he made to the Senate. Now that is not to take away from these people being good Senators. In fact, we see Senator Manning - I do believe I saw him on the news last night. He was cutting another cheque for somebody, the Blue group or someone. He is doing a fine job. He is all over this Province, every nook and cranny passing out cheques, money from the federal government.

We do not have our own Cabinet minister, but that is all right. That is another story. That is another story that we do not have our own Cabinet minister. We have the person who was the nemesis of the governing party of this Province as being the cheque cutter for this Province from the federal government. That is the truth of it. Mr. Manning, the nemesis of the Premier and the PC caucus in the Province brings every cheque that comes to this Province now, ladies and gentlemen. Now, I guess he is going to have to split the duties because Senator Marshall is going to want something to do as well. She is not going to be just sitting in the Senate doing nothing. She is a very intelligent, very active person and there is no doubt that she is going to be just as active as Mr. Manning when it comes to bringing the cheques back here.

That atmosphere that we have there, and that tit-for-tat that has been going on for some years now, how much easier would the Minister of Finance have it if he did not have to go through Dr. Feelgood to get a meeting? If he did not have to muster around the bad feelings that exist –

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Deputy Chair of Committees and Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very pleased to stand here today and say a few words on Interim Supply. First of all, I would like to say how pleased I am to be a part of this team. When you look around the Province and you look at the latest numbers coming in, thank God the people of this Province have a different perception of what is going on than what I have been listening to from the other side this afternoon. Ninety-three percent of the people of this Province are satisfied with this government. Talk about vision!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Leadership, as we all know, is not a popularity contest. Sometimes you must make difficult or unpopular decisions for what you understand to be for the greater good. I am extremely proud of the leadership provided to this Province by our Premier, his Cabinet, and caucus. Very proud indeed.

In fact, this past week I attended four or five different functions. First of all, I attended, on Tuesday evening in Deer Lake, the Deer Lake Airport Authority's annual meeting in which the authority gave an update on a successful year that it had. For example, it had managed to end the year in the black despite the global economic recession. Of course, the project, the runway extension is well underway thanks to a $3 million commitment from this government, and a commitment, again, to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

On Wednesday night I had the great pleasure of attending a school administrators' conference in Corner Brook and bringing greetings on behalf of the Minister of Education. While at that conference I spoke to a number of school administrators, and I can say that they are happy with what is happening in education. A far cry from what it used to be years ago when I was a school administrator in this Province. In fact, on Thursday evening I went back as the guest speaker for their banquet. I spoke for about half an hour. Afterwards the chairperson got up and he talked about the change, and how important those changes are for education in this great Province.

Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition responded to the Speech from the Throne, and it was – she looked at it in a negative light. Yesterday, last night and today I have talked to a number of constituents, a number of friends of mine and others in this great Province, and many of them turned off the television as soon as she got up. So they did not hear what she had to say anyway - because there are so many positive things happening. This Province is not the same today as it was in 2003. This is 2010. There have been significant improvements made.

The amount of money in the Budget has gone up significantly across all departments, and I will highlight some of those. One of those, of course, is municipal infrastructure. Today we heard one of the members on the opposite side get up and talk about volunteers and municipal leaders. Well, I can tell you, being a municipal leader today is a lot different than it was being a municipal leader ten years or fifteen or twenty years ago, because the funding to municipalities has changed significantly. If you are in a small town the funding formula is now 90-10; larger communities, of which there are only two in my district, the funding formula is 80-20; and the larger communities, of course, the funding formula is 70-30. So, these towns now have been able to take on more infrastructure projects, looking after the needs of their residents for water and for sewer and for road paving, for recreation, you name it. In fact, in the last couple of years $9 million worth of municipal infrastructure has been spent in the great District of Humber Valley, a number of which I am very, very proud. Also, of course, they did not stop there. The same funding formula was also in place for fire trucks, for fire-fighting equipment and so on, and of course that affects the bottom line of a municipality when you can get funding at such marvellous rates.

Recreation grants; throughout my district a number of communities have benefited from recreation grants in the last couple of years, and that money is being very well received. Transportation; since elected, over $13 million has been spent in my district on transportation, which of course included the Nicholsville Bridge, included ten kilometres in White Bay, two-point-nine kilometres on Howley Road, the Trans-Canada Highway, you name it, money is being spent in rural Newfoundland. Yet, sometimes when you listen to the other side it is all negative, it is doom and gloom, but the people of this Province really know that this government, since 2003, is doing very positive things that are impacting the lives of the people of this Province in a very positive manner. Folks, that is why they are at 93 per cent; no doubt about that in my mind at all.

Special Assistance Grants; the Province provided, in my district, several Special Assistance Grants. One that was recently well received was in the Town of Reidville. The Town of Reidville has the responsibility for providing animal control on a regional basis. Not only do they provide it for a number of towns in my district but they also provide animal control services to communities on the Great Northern Peninsula and to the Bay of Islands, Corner Brook area, et cetera. Of course, they were funded on a 90-10 formula for a $27,265 truck, and their maintenance and repairs on the existing vehicle that they had was well above that 10 per cent mark a year. They were so pleased with receiving that. So there are a lot of very positive things going on throughout the entire Province, some big and, of course, some small, and this government is doing it.

Community enhancement grants in my district, a lot of positive stories there; because what is happening, particularly in the rural part, people are able to get work and at the same time do very worthwhile community-based projects. I know, for example, in Jackson's Arm the money has been spent over the last couple of years to do improvements to a community museum. The Ford House in Jackson's Arm has received CEP grants and, of course, also some federal grants as well for the doing up of their museum, which is only the second, I think, museum in my district, and also grants for doing up their community centre as well, and projects throughout. Pollards Point has gotten CEP grants. Hampton has gotten CEP grants for their stadium. Beaches have gotten CEP grants to do up their recreation centre, and Reidville as well. Well over $200,000 in funding, not only providing work but providing improvements to these small communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Also, I talked about education and how happy educators are and how it has changed. In fact, this year the education budget was $1.3 billion; $850 million of that $1.3 million budget goes to the K-12 system, which is quite a significant chunk of change. I know in my district a number of projects took place, including some roofing work that needed to be done, some site access changes, some heating work to be done, and very, very significant. Well over $1 million worth of improvements, things that had to be done. I can remember when I was a school administrator, looking back, I mean the roofs were leaking, the buildings were in a deplorable state, but thanks to the investment of this government in the last few years significant improvements are being made in infrastructure, in schools, in municipalities throughout this great Province. That is something that we can all be proud of and should be proud of.

This government has done it thanks to the leadership of our Premier, I think, who is doing an outstanding job, because this Province – and people see it. This Province is not the same as it was. In fact, the other day I stopped on the road and there was a senior citizen there, eighty-odd years old, and he was doing a little project out on his lawn. I stopped and I talked to him for awhile, and he told me how much respect he had for the Premier. In fact, he said, my siblings who have married and live in Nova Scotia, they are as proud of him as I am. Our Premier, not only is he admired - the respect and admiration of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - but he enjoys that respect right across our great country.

We know that everyone –

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. KELLY: Time to clue up?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. KELLY: We know everything cannot be fixed overnight, but as opera singer Beverly Sills once said, "There are no shortcuts to any place worth going."

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are always pleased, of course, to give any member leave to clue up. The member for that particular district as well. I appreciate his comments.

One comment, though, in response to some of the things that he said. There is a misunderstanding by the members of the government as to where the Opposition is coming from sometimes and what the role of an Opposition is. For example, nobody over here – maybe the Leader of the NDP gets into a bit of doom and gloom from time to time, but I do not think anybody over here is always into doom and gloom. In fact, I think if you check the record, the members that I know of in the Official Opposition have been quick to give government credit when government have done good things.

For example, the member alluded to the issue of the 90-10 funding. I said from day one, and I still maintain – the current Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was the minister when that was announced, one of the best programs ever announced in the Province. It was this current government that did it, and they deserve to be applauded for it. Now, I do not think that is doom and gloom. I think that is a pretty positive statement. I have seen a few of those. I am just as quick to tell government and commend government for what they do as I am to condemn government if I think they do something wrong. That is the role of an Opposition, but it has to be constructive. You just do not criticize for the sake of criticizing. I agree that is not right.

This Opposition, by the way, if you go back and check the record, particularly when it comes to private members' motions, we have not just criticized, we have offered some pretty good solutions to some of the problems in this Province. Government has not taken us up on them, but if you go back, some of them were pretty creative. That is the role of an Opposition, is also to put forward some alternatives, some possible options that a government could consider rather than just be critical of the government. This Opposition has done that, I would submit, and done it very, very often, but do not be so thin skinned that you cannot take a bit of legitimate criticism. Lots of times, by the way, it is not criticism, it is questions being asked. You may well have the answers, and if you do, please stand, rise, and give us the answers to the questions. You do not have to fudge it. You are pretty quick to roll out the press releases and everything and have press conferences. We almost kept Abitibi open in Grand Falls keeping your paper mill open just to get your press releases out there, you had that many of them, and still have them.

I have to come back though. Today my theme was sort of like the federal-provincial relations. Again, I say, how much better could we be off if we did not have that toxic relationship that exists between the Province and the feds? It is not right, for example, when we have to have the largesse that the federal government might decide to lay upon us, be constantly delivered to us by two senators because we do not have a Cabinet minister of our own. We do not have our own, and we all know why we do not have our own.

For example, we heard today in Question Period when the Minister of Labrador Affairs was asked – and by the way, call this criticism, call it what you want, but this is a fact. Our Minister of Labrador Affairs went to Ottawa last week, stood on his feet here today, said he talked to the federal Minister of Defence about the 5 Wing NATO contract, and before he got back here to Newfoundland the feds had it sent down to the United States. Now, is that not a fact? Let somebody stand up and tell me that is not factual. That is our Minister of Labrador Affairs who goes out and brags about what he is doing for 5 Wing, and he was not off the plane from Ottawa and Ottawa had given the contract to the U.S.

AN HON. MEMBER: They took him seriously.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: They took him seriously all right. Now, is that something not to be concerned about? I think it is something to be very concerned about.

Now, I also come back to when I talked about toxic environments. I come back to the issue of our Department of Health and Community Services. You wanted to know about another serious issue – and I will not even get into the details in this little commentary, I only have five, six minutes. I will get into even the appearance on the outside of how that department is working. Folks, we have had so many ministers in the Department of Health and Community Services since this group became the government that they took the hinges off the door and put in a revolving door. Now that is how many Ministers of Health we have had. Tell me what that does for stability. What does that do for stability and confidence in the health care system?

Go back to the initial minister when this government came in, the former Member for Topsail, now Senator Marshall. She was there, had a tiff with the Premier and was out, over the VON dispute in Corner Brook; cut a cheque for $20,000 or 30,000 and she is gone as a minister. One of the most intelligent, hardworking, energetic women we have ever had in the government of this Province, and she was turfed.

Then we had the former Member for St. John's East who was in there for a while; now gone off to chair Hydro, I do believe. It is certainly not a place you stick around for very long. Once you go in there, it is almost like you are guaranteed to get the axe. Then we had the current Member for St. John's South, he was in there. He got the boot, he was gone. I do not know what his relationship is like with the Premier these days, but he did not last too long in there. He got the boot too.

Then we had Minister Wiseman. He did not last. He got into the Cameron inquiry stuff, the Premier had to take over the file, and he got turfed. He got the boot. People got tired of hearing his wishy-washy answers outside the House here. The most serious issue, most serious issue we had, and he gets out there and wish-washes in his answers in the House and outside the House, until finally the Premier said: we cannot have that anymore. We cannot have that anymore. So the Premier said we have to fix that. So what did he do then? He put in the man who did not need briefing notes. He put in the Member for Terra Nova then, gave him a shot; another great move. He stood up and said: no, I do not need any briefing notes, I am smart enough, I know all that. Imagine! The single most expensive department in this Province, with the biggest chunk of our budget, with the most complex issues that you might want to deal with, and he is so full of himself, he did not need a briefing note. Now that is pretty good for stability. Meanwhile, we have all kinds of issues going on around us. Cameron issues, and everything else. I do not know where he is now. He got more than the axe, I guess. He took his leave for good.

Then, of course, we get the current minister. Now, we saw a couple of weeks ago the attitude that he brought to the department. He was not on the job two or three months and he proceeds to call them childish - the pathologists - childish. Now, I was at a function on Saturday night, by the way, when someone said the current minister makes the former Minister Wiseman look wise. Now, you tell me that is not a backhanded insult. Yes, they said, he makes the former Minister Wiseman look wise.

It comes down again to the combativeness. We can talk about all the money we are pumping into the economy, we can talk about all the programs we are doing, poverty reduction strategies, money into infrastructure, but it is attitude. A lot of it comes back to attitude. Imagine, the Minister of Health and Community Services stands up and says: They are childish. By the way, I have a copy here of a press release, and he talked at the same time about they should not be childish because they are making $350,000 a year. Imagine, throw that up at you now, because you are making a certain amount of money, you are not supposed to say anything or you are not supposed to voice your opinion, and you are certainly not supposed to be what he termed childish.

I do believe it was the Premier, for example, I am looking at a press release here dated Friday, May 23, 2008, in which the Premier says, "I hope we address their needs…" - and he is talking about giving them the big raise. "We put together a package that we think at least compensates them appropriately…" - the current minister, he might think it is appropriate, but he does not mind calling them childish in the same breath - "…and makes them very competitive with the rest of the country…" The last part of that is very telling, he says, "…that, in fact, if they want to leave Newfoundland and Labrador, it wouldn't be [over] a monetary issue, it would be a career choice issue."

So, if that is where the Premier was coming from in 2008, and in good faith gave these people the big raise, the pathologists, because we needed them, and we wanted to compensate them fairly, let it stand at what he said. Why do we have a minister, two years later, come out and slam them because they are making $350,000 a year? He was part of the same government that gave it to them. You cannot give in the one hand, compliment them in the one hand, and talk as if they should not be getting the money. If you thought that was the case, you should not have given it to them in the first place.

So, Mr. Chair, not only do we have a toxic relationship with the federal government –

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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 (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Speaker and Member for St. John's South.

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

The Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again? Tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is properly moved and seconded that this House do now stand adjourned.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned until 2:00 o'clock tomorrow, being Wednesday.

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