The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start routine proceedings, I would like to welcome a former long-time Member of the House of Assembly and former Speaker of the Assembly, Mr. Harvey Hodder.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride; the hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay East & Bell Island; and the hon. Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today in this hon. House to rise and to congratulate the Grade 12 graduating class of Sacred Heart School in Conche.

I had the honour of attending the graduating ceremony of Sacred Heart School on May 13 and was very pleased to watch three young individuals receive their graduation certificates. They were Natasha Byrne, Shawna Flynn and Dawn Kearney. Although the number of graduates was small, these three individuals certainly have big aspirations. This was evident by the many quotes they had placed around the venue. It was indeed a special moment that will surely be etched in their minds forever.

Mr. Speaker, these students have done everything it takes to reach this milestone in their education and I want to commend them for staying the course and achieving this wonderful goal.

Special congratulations are also extended to Ms Natasha Byrne, valedictorian of the graduating class, whose words touched all of those who were in attendance.

These graduates are an important part of our future and I wish them much success in whatever path they choose, whether it is furthering their education or entering the workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the Grade 12 graduating class of Sacred Heart School in Conche and wish them well in all their future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Nathan Whelan from the District of Kilbride who was recently named the 2011 City of St. John's Youth of the Year.

Nathan, a seventeen-year-old Level III French immersion student at Bishop's College, was chosen for this award based on his dedication to volunteering in a number of areas. He is active with Debate Newfoundland, president of Allied Youth, president of his student council, and he serves on the school council.

He has also been involved with a number of humanitarian and social justice organizations such as Oxfam, Engineers Without Borders and the St. John's Gulu Walk which raises money and awareness for children in Uganda.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most unique aspect of Nathan's volunteering is his role as a coach for senior citizens blind lawn bowling. In the spring of 2010 he took a team to Israel to attend an international blind lawn bowling tournament.

Nathan maintains a high academic average, has a part-time job and still manages to make these outstanding contributions. He is certainly a testament to the energy and potential of the youth of this city and Province.

To top things off last week, Nathan was one of the twenty young Canadians who were awarded the TD Centre Trust Scholarship for Community Leadership valued at $70,000. Nathan is the third provincial president of Allied Youth Newfoundland and Labrador to win this award.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Nathan Whelan for being named the 2011 City of St. John's Youth of the Year and for his TD Canada Trust Scholarship Award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today in this hon. House to congratulate a group of volunteers for undertaking a very valuable project. Mr. Speaker, I speak of Radio Bell Island which operated from March 14-20 at St. Michael's High School on the island. This endeavour included a group of volunteers from the community, the town council staff, but particularly students from St. Michael's High.

These individuals were responsible for the design of the broadcast, programming, and all aspects of technical operations. These seven days gave residents the opportunity to be educated, informed, and entertained, but more importantly, engaged. The program included news, interviews, a talk show, call-in song requests, a sports and history segment, and everything else to catch the ear of preschoolers to seniors.

The station was set up with approval from the CRTC and financial assistance from the Rural Secretariat and the high school. The station had listeners in all parts of the country, and as far away as France. This is a testament to how professionally it was operated.

While the whole of the community benefited from the operation of the station, there was one group that gained immensely, these being the students of St. Michael's High, who were trained in every aspect of the techniques of broadcasting, from interviewing, to research, to use of technology. I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that a number of these students who volunteered have shown an interest in a career in the broadcasting industry.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating all involved in Radio Bell Island.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I have gotten used to having the likeness of my predecessor on the wall behind me, but to have him here alive as well is making me a little nervous, but I want to join you in welcoming him to this hon. House.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Ms Victoria Ralph, a resident of Mount Pearl and a Memorial University Huskies wrestling coach.

Recently, on April 7, Victoria was honoured with three awards at Memorial University's Athlete Awards Ceremony. She was named MUN's Female Athlete of the Year and received the Butler Trophy award. She was also awarded the Graham Snow Memorial Award, which is presented annually to the student who combines excellence in varsity athletics with high academic achievement.

I would also like to mention that Victoria helped lead her cross-country team to a third-place finish and became Memorial's third female medal winner in wrestling, winning a bronze medal at the National Championship at Lakehead University. For all her successes, Victoria was named MUN Wrestler of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Victoria Ralph on all her achievements, both athletically and academically, and wish her all the best in her future endeavours.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform the hon. House that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, through Budget 2011, continues to strengthen its commitment to attracting and retaining immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, in Budget 2011 - Standing Strong: For Prosperity. For Our Future. For Newfoundland and Labrador, we outlined our commitment to create opportunities for more citizens to thrive and to prosper. In total, $705,000 is included for grants to support immigration and multiculturalism initiatives. This investment includes an increase, Mr. Speaker, of $50,000 in 2011, and further enhances the priorities of the Province's immigration strategy, titled Diversity ~ Opportunity and Growth, which was launched in 2007.

The strategy currently has an annual investment, Mr. Speaker, of approximately $2.4 million.

Provincial government grant funding in 2011 will support many initiatives including English tutoring for spouses, multicultural events, and welcoming community projects.

This past year, for example, the provincial government, Mr. Speaker, contributed to forty-one organizations, including $48,000 to the Multicultural Women's Organization of Newfoundland and Labrador, $30,000 to Memorial University's International Student Advising Office, and $260,000 to the Association for New Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, these are examples of the kinds of initiatives and investments we fund aimed at increasing the number of immigrants who choose Newfoundland and Labrador as their new home in Canada. By supporting our community partners, we are working to ensure that the Province retains and maximizes the strength of our newcomers while promoting inclusive prosperous communities across the Province.

To that end, it is truly inspirational to see that the Province is home to people from more than 100 different communities speaking seventy different languages, Mr. Speaker. These highly-skilled individuals have settled in forty-eight communities, with almost 50 per cent located in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. When we encourage immigration and multiculturalism we build vibrant communities, and we enrich our future.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the provincial government's continued support of our partners through Budget 2011 will allow them to enhance the cultural diversity, prosperity, and long-term vision we are all seeking in this Province. Co-operation and partnership, Mr. Speaker, are critical to connecting people and possibilities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Certainly, with all provinces across Canada facing an aging population and a declining population as well, coupled with an increased demand in the workforce, especially in highly-educated, skilled workers, the attraction and retention of immigrant workers is a vital issue.

We thank the minister for the update today on what his department is doing. It is good to hear an update, of course, on the strategy. We recognize the vast economic, social, and cultural contributions that new Canadians bring to Newfoundland and Labrador. Certainly our communities are better off having them as a part of our day to day life for sure.

That said, we have a long way to go in terms of attracting and retaining more immigrants in the Province. I know the study is a little dated, but I believe it was 2006 the Interprovincial Mobility of Immigrants in Canada study suggested that Newfoundland and Labrador had the lowest retention of immigrants, somewhere around 47 per cent or so compared to around 90 per cent or so in Ontario. We certainly see that in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. I think of the health care at the hospital, for example, in St. Anthony. It seems that just as you get a good doctor come in and get used to the community and the way of life and so on, you see them leave.

Any strategy that encourages them to not only come and participate, develop and share in that setting for a while but to stay in the longer term is good.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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. I was glad to see in the Budget that there is a bit more grant funding to support community groups involved with immigration and multicultural initiatives. It is a very important expenditure. They play an important role in helping newcomers learn the language and make contacts in the community. I am also glad to see that we do have more new Canadians settling here in the Province. I know personally and am aware of how well they are fitting in to some of our communities outside of the urban settings.

I would like to note two outstanding barriers that make permanent settlement more difficult, creating hardships for families not just here in our Province but in Canada. One is the length of time it takes professionals to be able to practise their professions in Canada because of having to get accredited, and the other is the new federal immigration policy that makes it very difficult for immigrants to bring their parents into the country. I trust that the department is working with other agencies and levels of government to address these matters.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to announce that Ms Amber Dyke of Gambo is the provincial winner of the Canadian Securities Administrators' Financial Fitness Challenge Contest. Amber is a Grade 12 student at Smallwood Academy who will be attending Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador in the fall to study pre-pharmacy.

Amber was one of 7,500 young people from across Canada who entered the contest in February to prove their financial fitness knowledge through a series of on-line questions.

The challenge was open to Canadians between the ages of fifteen and twenty-one. Participants were asked questions about budgeting, saving and investing, and were also encouraged to learn more about other smart financial practices. As the provincial winner of the contest, Amber won an Apple iPad.

Mr. Speaker, contests such as the Financial Fitness Challenge is designed to raise awareness about the importance of positive and healthy financial practices. We believe that teaching our young people smart financial behaviours now will help them remain financially responsible throughout adulthood.

Even though this year's contest is over, I encourage young people to continue to visit the site, which is www.financialfitnesschallenge.ca , and to use its interactive features to share important financial awareness tips and knowledge. The Canadian Securities Administrators will offer this contest again next year and I am looking forward to seeing even more interest by our young people.

I congratulate Amber for her success and I am sure that all hon. members will agree with me that she has a bright future.

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. It is good to see young people involved in activity of course, whether it be as a volunteer or in a sports activity, or an intellectual activity as we see here. It makes for healthier individuals and, of course, that leads to healthier communities.

Amber's example is a showcase of the intelligence and the aptitude of the youth in our Province today, as well as their ability to compete on a national stage. Her involvement in this activity, in particular, draws attention to something that has been problematic in Canada for quite some time, and that is financial literacy. In fact, the federal government established a task force back in 2009 to deal with this issue. Four out of ten Canadians right now lack the basic financial literary skills. Canadians, of course, need these skills to help them make informed financial decisions that will help them control their own lives; hence, they do not need to rely upon government programming as much if they have healthy financial lives themselves.

Again, we congratulate Amber. We encourage her to stay involved and we would encourage others like her to get involved, be active and participate in activities such as this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am pleased to join in congratulating Ms Amber Dyke of Gambo as the provincial winner of the Canadian Securities Administrators' Financial Fitness Challenge Contest. I am sure that the Apple iPad she has won will come in very handy in her first year of university.

It is very important for our young people, and especially our young high-school students, to learn about practising good financial habits as they are preparing to enter into post-secondary training and education, and eventually the full-time workforce.

Mr. Speaker, many students have heavy financial burdens as they proceed with their post-secondary studies, for whom financial planning does not have very much meaning because they are so heavily into creating debts and trying to pay debts. I encourage the government to continue looking at the need for a full needs-based grants program for our post-secondary students, Mr. Speaker. Again, I am very happy to stand and congratulate Amber, and I know her parents must be very proud of her.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC have all introduced senator election laws. These laws enshrine the principles that senators should be elected by the people of the Province before they have the right to go to Ottawa to represent the people of that Province.

Mr. Speaker, we feel it is time for Newfoundland and Labrador to follow and establish our own provincial Senate election laws instead of passively allowing the Prime Minister to appoint and reappoint political favourites to represent this Province in Canada's Upper Chamber.

My question today is for the Premier: Will you Premier commit to introduce laws to facilitate the election of senators in Newfoundland and Labrador and look to elect our first senator in this Province come this fall?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, appointments to the Senate are entirely within the purview of the federal government. We will certainly make our views known as a Caucus to the federal government as to how we feel about this.

In terms of applying any particular energy to this file, Mr. Speaker, my time is taken up in the running of the affairs of this Province and promoting wonderful projects like Muskrat Falls, and that is where my attention will continue to be focused.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know it is a federal responsibility, we are asking the views of the government opposite knowing that other provinces in Canada have moved to elected Senate, Mr. Speaker. We know that just recently with the retirement of Senator Rompkey, the Combined Councils of Labrador passed a resolution in February asking that the Senate seat be elected.

I ask the Premier if she supports that request and if she will make way for it to happen?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is the very first time I have heard these comments and questions from the Leader of the Opposition. We have had any number of patronage appointments to the Senate of Liberals in this Province over the years, Mr. Speaker, and never heard a squeak.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be baited into this discussion. We will make our views known to our federal counterparts, Mr. Speaker. That is the position of this government. We have important things to discuss – very important things going on in this Province, Mr. Speaker – and that is where I would like the debate to be focused.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is about leading, I say to the Premier. Obviously if she is going to share her view on Senate reform, it should be with the people of the Province and not just with the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest reforms to government operations in this Province has been the introduction of the Public Tender Act. It commits government to the lowest cost, transparent process in purchasing goods and services rather than quickly approving contracts to friends of government. Mr. Speaker, this act needs to be updated to remain relevant and effective. Since 2008, government has sat on a secret report recommending updates and reforms to the Public Tender Act.

I ask the Premier today: Will you commit to releasing all the relevant documents and reports you have in your possession on the issue of reforming and updating the Public Tender Act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the way that government purchases supply and services is extremely important. A Conservative government in this Province brought in the Public Tender Act and brought it in for a very good reason: so that there would be accountability and transparency, and that there would be full access. Mr. Speaker, that was done quite a long time ago. We are hearing from suppliers in this Province that the Public Tender Act always does not work now. It is a bit outdated and it needs to be looked at again so that it serves the principles upon which it was founded, Mr. Speaker.

We have undertaken that process. It is a long process. It is an arduous process, Mr. Speaker, and one that we need to approach very carefully. That work is progressing and when we have something to put forward to the House of Assembly and to the people of the Province, we will be more than pleased to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can only take from that the Premier is not prepared to release the information that she has in her possession, Mr. Speaker, on how the Public Tender Act should be reformed.

What we do know, Mr. Speaker, is that the government is allowing for more and more exceptions of public money that is being spent. That means, Mr. Speaker, every year we are seeing the number of contracts being exempt from the Public Tender Act grow. In 2004, there were 560 exceptions worth $34 million. In 2009, which are our latest numbers, that nearly doubled – more than doubled. There were 1,379 exceptions worth $88 million.

I ask the Premier today: What steps is government taking to ensure that the spirit and the intent of the Public Tender Act is followed in each and every case, instead of allowing more and more exceptions to the act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the whole issue of public tendering is one that is very important, not only to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is extremely important to the people of this Province to ensure that the purchase of goods and services, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, is done in an honest and transparent way. There are times when there are exceptions required, because the way that the Public Tender Act is currently written does not allow for special circumstances to be taken into account, certain requirements to be taken into account. It is not unusual that the number of exemptions would be double, Mr. Speaker, our Budget is double.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not open, it is not accountable and it is not transparent, I say to you, Premier. Since your government has been in power you have spent over $500 million of taxpayers' money without going to public tender. You have passed out 7,500 contracts for goods and services without any accountability for the people's money in this Province.

I ask you: Why are you consistently going outside of the Public Tender Act to award hundreds of millions of dollars belonging to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians without accountability and without transparency?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first Administration to have exemptions to the Public Tender Act, and if you look back over the fourteen years of our friends opposite, you will find quite a number of them.

In terms of accountability and transparency, Mr. Speaker, when we do not go to public tendering we go to a request for proposals. Mr. Speaker, on top of that, every exemption to the Public Tender Act is tabled here in the House of Assembly, and our friends opposite have the opportunity to ask whatever questions they would like on the issue and raise any issues that you might have. I have not heard one question in this session with regard to exemptions on the Public Tender Act, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows they are tendered after the fact and she knows that there is more than $500 million in taxpayers' money gone out the door without being tendered.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month Quebec announced Plan Nord, a comprehensive plan to develop the economy, infrastructure, and community well-being of Northern Quebec. They are making their north a priority by investing $80 billion in the region over twenty-five years, and a major aspect of the plan is transportation. Quebec will be extending and rebuilding Routes 138 and 389 which cross into Labrador over the next five years. Mr. Speaker, Quebec's plan will have major effects on Labrador.

I ask the minister today: What communications he has had with Quebec to manage and co-ordinate Plan Nord's vision for transportation as it pertains to Labrador and will your government now commit to full paving of the Trans-Labrador Highway?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Province of Quebec for investing in their north, and I am glad that they are taking lessons from Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Because certainly that is what we have done in the last seven-and-a-half years, particularly with our Northern Strategic Plan, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the Leader –

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this government has invested over $3 billion in the last seven-and-a-half years in Labrador and we are going to continue that level of investment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition likes to talk about the contentious relationship we have with Quebec around resource development in Quebec. Another reason for investing in the north, Mr. Speaker, is because 2041 is coming and you better be ready.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is fair to say that the money that was just announced for transportation in Quebec will do more to grow the economy of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, than anything the Premier has just said and why she is not committing to fully paving the Trans-Labrador Highway is not even sensible, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: There is an alarming detail in the maps of Labrador being used by Quebec in Plan Nord and all of those maps label Labrador's southern border as non-definitive. Instead of using the border that was included in the 1949 Terms of Union, they are using the border set by the Privy Council in 1927. Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that Quebec's official approach to the border is absurd. I think we all agree to that, even though you say they are good friends.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Before Quebec decided to promote the idea of a shrinking border in Labrador, what communications and co-ordination did your government have with them?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the border of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the border between Quebec was set in 1927, was reconfirmed again under the Terms of Union in 1949. They are the facts, that is the law, and that is a history lesson for you.

Mr. Speaker, every time that Quebec raises this issue or incorrectly portrays the border, it is brought to their attention. We have also raised this issue in federal-provincial-territorial meetings, and we will not engage in discussion around resource development anywhere in this country or outside this country where those lines are incorrectly drawn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government said it was aware of the Plan Nord and said that they have had dialogue with their partners in Quebec.

I ask the Premier today - because this is a serious issue. This border issue is a serious issue when Quebec continues to lay claims to sections of Labrador. I ask you, Premier: Why are you not protesting it, why are you not ensuring that it is being corrected and that it does not happen again because it has been continuing to happen under your watch and you have been continuing to ignore it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this has gone on under a number of watches. I take comfort in the Constitution of this great country. That border and the determination of that border are protected within our Constitution, Mr. Speaker. Whatever Quebec wants to do in its north is Quebec's own business in the same as –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - what we do in our north, Mr. Speaker. The minute they put one foot over that border, you will not have to ask where we are. We will continue to correct misinformation every time that we have to deal with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Premier might talk tough, but her actions are something different. We have already seen the Quebec Innu cleaning out caribou in Labrador while she stood by as the Minister of Natural Resources and did absolutely nothing about it. That is the reason that we are concerned. We are concerned about the resources in Labrador and the fact that this boundary issue has not been cleared up.

Mr. Speaker, Plan Nord also includes major infrastructure improvements for rail networks. We know that new iron companies in Labrador will be using the improved rail networks to ship unprocessed ore through Labrador to a port in Quebec.

Premier, Quebec's plan for improving the mining infrastructure directly affects operations in Labrador West and on Labrador's border. What has your government done to ensure that the benefits from the mining industry in Labrador flow to the people of this Province first and not flow through the ports of Quebec?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the main plank of the platform of this government has been no more resource giveaways, that resources are going to be developed in this Province and the principal beneficiaries are going to be the people of this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, every resource development that we have done has had an IBA attached to it. That includes Hebron, Hibernia South, and White Rose Extension. Mr. Speaker, that also –

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear myself for the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: She wants to ask the questions and she wants to answer them as well. Mr. Speaker, I would not mind if she gave a right answer every now and then. She cannot even ask a right question most days.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, to conclude her answer.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, every resource development in this Province has an IBA attached to it, an Industrial Benefits Agreement, which ensures that the people of the Province get what they deserve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It may be out of sight and out of mind for the Premier, but not for the people of Labrador. Three new mines are coming on stream in Labrador producing iron ore - new mine expansions. All of that mineral, Mr. Speaker, is being transported out of Labrador and into Quebec. They are the primary beneficiary.

I ask you today, Premier: What is the long-term plan to maximize the mining industry in Labrador to ensure that the primary beneficiaries are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and not Quebecers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the direct shipping ore, there is nothing more that happens to the ore other than it is mined and transported. The ore is of such high quality that it does not require any more processing. In terms of who does the work, how it is transported –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – and what kinds of royalties are associated with it, the major benefits are in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we are quite happy to provide her with a copy of the IBA so she can see the great benefits that are coming to the people of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the Premier is not telling is all the benefits are flowing out of Labrador because of the ore that is going out unprocessed and benefiting others.

Premier, you have said Muskrat Falls power is going to cost the residents of this Province 14.3 cents per kilowatt hour. You also said excess power from Muskrat will be sold into the Maritimes at market prices. Perhaps it would be instructive to tell the people of the Province how much Nalcor is getting for power in the market right now. Let's start with the recall power from Churchill Falls that Nalcor is selling to New Brunswick Power.

Will you confirm in the House of Assembly and for the people of the Province that Nalcor is selling that power for as low as four cents per kilowatt hour?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to provide to the House information with regard to our power sales on the recall power out of Labrador. We are in the open market and in the spot market and sometimes we sell high and sometimes we sell low. What we need to ensure, Mr. Speaker, is that on average we are doing as well or better than we were selling the power to Hydro-Québec, which has always been their plan. We do not want to talk about how much historically we sold power to Quebec for and tied us into the contract and who might have been responsible for that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Hydro-Québec bought power from us because they could sell it in the market and make a good return on it. We are doing it ourselves, Mr. Speaker, and that return is coming to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nalcor and the government opposite, Mr. Speaker, are selling our power today into New Brunswick at four cents a kilowatt hour. Now, Mr. Speaker, it might be instructive as well to tell the people of the Province how that power is getting to the New Brunswick market. The Premier has stood, Mr. Speaker, and said that Quebec will not allow this Province to move energy through its jurisdiction.

If that is so I would like to ask the Premier: How is the recall power actually getting into the New Brunswick market?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a better reason for the Leader of the Opposition to stop talking when she asks her question and start listening, then she would have the information that she is looking forward to today. We have transmission rights for over 250 megawatts of power through Quebec. Mr. Speaker, a statement to that effect was made here in this House of Assembly. That fact was celebrated in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – because it was a historic day for Newfoundland and Labrador. So you really should stop talking and start listening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will start listening when the Premier and the government has something to say that is going to benefit the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, and not just because they want to pay lip service I say to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the government right now and Nalcor are selling power to New Brunswick – our power – for four cents a kilowatt hour. We also know that five years ago they signed a deal with Hydro-Québec to sell its power from Menihek generating station in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. They kept the deal secret for about two years and I am assuming it was because they were so ashamed of the fact that they were giving them the power so cheap, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier today if she will confirm for the House of Assembly that Nalcor is actually selling Menihek Power to Hydro-Québec today for two to three cents a kilowatt hour.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Menihek is an isolated system that was owned in Quebec. It produces about eighteen megawatts of power and when they wanted to get out of the power business they came to Nalcor and said will you buy this plant? We will sell it to you for a $1. Not only that, we will cover all of your capital costs. We will cover all your operational costs. We just want you to operate it for us. Nalcor said yes because it does not cost us a cent. We have made $2 million a year off that since we have done it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we know that Nalcor and the government, signed off by the Premier when she was a minister, Mr. Speaker, is selling power today to New Brunswick for four cents a kilowatt hour, to Quebec, Mr. Speaker, for less than three cents a kilowatt hour and, Mr. Speaker, we know that they want to sell Muskrat Falls power to the Maritimes for something like seven cents a kilowatt hour or nine cents a kilowatt hour. Mr. Speaker, all power being sold outside of this –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: – Province under the current government is being sold at a fraction of the cost that they want to bill the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

You tell me Premier why does it make sense for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador to pay double the cost of their electricity while you sell our power dirt cheap outside of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, let's get back to Menihek. Menihek, with eighteen megawatts of power that we bought from Hydro-Québec for $1, Mr. Speaker, for which they pay all the operational costs, all the capital costs, all the upgrade costs and they pay us. There is only one customer available to us – it is isolated and that means we cannot sell it to anybody else because there is no transmission out, that is what isolated means. Mr. Speaker, we did a PPA with them that pays us over $2 million a year for our effort of generating that plant for them. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty good deal. Mr. Speaker, in terms of our sale –

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Leader of the Opposition asked a question, I assume she wants an answer. I would ask her if she would respect the hon. Premier when she is providing her answer within the time frame that is allowed by rules of the House.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think your assumption is correct. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition wants answers, Mr. Speaker. She wants to continue with this public relations campaign that spreads misinformation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition for her co-operation.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, they are the facts on Menihek.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of Muskrat Falls, Muskrat Falls is a good project. That is being reinforced time and time again as we do our open houses across this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, judging from the municipal leaders I spoke to attending the MNL Symposium in Gander a couple of weeks ago, there remains a lot of frustration and unanswered questions regarding the implementation of the Waste Management Strategy. One region that is particularly frustrated with the lack of direction and progress is the Western Region, especially around the decision of whether there will be a waste management site in the region or will their waste be transported to the Central site in Norris Arm.

My question for the minister is this: When will government make a final decision on the strategy for the Western Region and the Northern Peninsula of our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member for his question.

Certainly, there has been a lot of work gone into the Solid Waste Management Strategy in the Province. Eastern is up and running quite well. We have some work to work out there as well, but Central will be up and running by the fall. In Western, I would like the hon. member to know that we just appointed a new Chair, Dr. Don Downer, to lead the implementation of that strategy. He will be engaging in that process, I will be engaging in that process, and we will move that strategy forward as it relates to Western.

In the meantime, this is a great strategy for the Province, very important to the Province, very important to the environment, and we will take our time in regard to the implementation process because it is such an important strategy for our Province. Up to this to date, we have over…

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.

Mr. Speaker, the emergency medical service available in the Province is a mixture of public, community, and for-profit services. In November, 2009, the Minister of Health and Community Services said that we may have to start looking at moving toward the type of ambulance service that they offer in other provinces where there is not as much reliance on the private operators. Mr. Speaker, other provinces have streamlined the provision of ambulance services by putting them under one public umbrella.

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: When will this government put in place a publicly funded and publicly managed ambulance service so that the same standards of operations and services are provided to everyone in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member opposite is aware, the ambulance service in this Province is a combination of hospital ambulance, private ambulance, and also community ambulance. Mr. Speaker, a lot of these private ambulances provide services to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, as do the community ambulances. As we look upon a review or what we are going to do with ambulances, Mr. Speaker, one has to take into account the very significant or potentially significant impact on rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this government is not going to do anything that could hurt rural Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, Mr. Speaker, everything we do is to benefit rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

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.

That is why I was asking the minister what his plan is, and I did not get what the plan was.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador is the only Province in Canada where an emergency medical responder can be the primary caregiver in an ambulance. In other provinces, an EMR would have to be accompanied by a more highly trained paramedic. In this Province, resources are not equitably allocated to sustain paramedics on every ambulance.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: How is this government going to adequately resource the system so that every ambulance can have a trained paramedic?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years we have invested significantly in the road ambulance service. The first memorandum of agreement with the private and community road ambulances was established in 2000. Subsequent agreements, Mr. Speaker, have increased the road ambulance budget by more than 300 per cent.

We recently, Mr. Speaker, entered into a deal, in 2010, where there was approximately $30 million put into a contract. Mr. Speaker, we also had funding for the four regional health authorities for ambulance services for approximately $13 million. So that is $43 million, Mr. Speaker, we are putting into the road ambulance system. Last year, we put defibrillators into road ambulances.

Mr. Speaker, again, we have a vast geography and a small population. We are trying to ensure that we provide the best possible services to the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We certainly are doing that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I look forward to the day when they are going to put paramedics in all of the ambulances.

Mr. Speaker, we are losing many of our rural paramedics to other provinces because they are not receiving the same wages as public sector ambulance operators. They are dealing with the same level of trauma, serious illness, and vulnerability experienced by people in emergency as paramedics in urban areas are and those working under the public system. As well, they are now required to have exactly the same level of training.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why aren't all of our emergency medical services under a totally public system so that everyone gets paid the same and that the same quality of care is provided to everyone in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I understand the member opposite correctly, what she is suggesting is that private ambulance operators in this Province – we should get out of that system and not pay for them any more; so that all of the people, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, who are providing services, we should say to you that we no longer need your services, and we should publicly fund the ambulance service.

Mr. Speaker, if I understand her correctly she is essentially saying we do not care what private ambulance operators in Newfoundland and Labrador do, get rid of that system because they cannot provide the service needed. Is that what she is saying, Mr. Speaker?

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.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

MR. POLLARD: I move, seconded by the Member for St. John's South, the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the provincial government in October, 2005 published "A Provincial Policy Framework for Mental Health and Addictions Services in Newfoundland and Labrador" entitled "Working Together for Mental Health" – an approach reflecting the input of mental health professionals and public consultations involving mental health consumers and advocacy and support organizations; and

WHEREAS in the 2004 Budget, the Province committed $1 million to take immediate action on identified long-standing gaps within our mental health system, create more access to mental health services and treatment, and work to reduce the stigma that individuals suffering with mental illness face; and

WHEREAS in the 2005 Budget, the Province committed: $1 million to implement the findings of the OxyContin Task Force; $740,000 to upgrade facilities; $1 million for enhanced mental health home and community supports; and $740,000 for enhanced services for gambling addictions; and

WHEREAS in the 2006 Budget, the Province committed: $1 million to enhance primary mental health services in the Province; $1 million to add nine new addictions counsellors in the Province for primary prevention and treatment, and to respond to needs identified in the Gambling Prevalence Study; and $1.1 million to construct a new provincial addictions treatment centre in Corner Brook as part of a $3 million project to provide enhanced treatment for persons with addictions, including non-medical detox services enabling a seamless transfer from detox to treatment; and it also that year brought forward a new Mental Health Care And Treatment Act; and

WHEREAS in the 2007 Budget, the Province committed $800,000 to implement the framework for the new act; $800,000 to continue with implementation of the policy framework; $575,000 to address problem gambling, particularly through the enhancement of prevention and treatment services, creation of a public awareness campaign, and funding for research; and $228,800 to establish a new Provincial Eating Disorders Program; and

WHEREAS in the 2008 Budget, the Province committed $1.7 million for further enhancements to services and programs for persons with mental health and addictions; and

WHEREAS in the 2009 Budget, the Province committed $775,800 for the prevention and treatment of substance abuse by addressing service gaps, increasing service accessibility and involving communities in preventing addictions problems in youth; and also invested $500,000 for the planning of a residential treatment centre for youth with addictions, and $500,000 for the planning of a residential treatment centre for youth with complex mental health needs; and

WHEREAS in the 2010 Budget, the Province committed $2 million for the planning and development of an adult residential addictions treatment centre in Harbour Grace; $482,900 to enhance child psychiatry services at the Janeway Hospital; additional funding for a new psychologist to enhance the eating disorders treatment program at Eastern Health; $2.4 million for continued planning and construction of a new residential treatment centre for children and youth with complex mental health needs and behavioural issues in St. John's; $2 million to further the new residential treatment centre in Grand Falls-Windsor –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

The hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

MR. POLLARD: – for children and youth with addictions; $300,000 to support new community-based projects primarily focused on mental health and addictions issues; $3.2 million to increase the rural capacity to address mental health and addictions issues; and

WHEREAS in the 2011 Budget the Province committed $4.5 million to begin the replacement of the Waterford Hospital with a new specialized mental health facility –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: –$1 million to develop an interactive e-mental health service to enhance tele-mental health services for people in rural and remote regions, and to launch a provincial public awareness campaign to decrease the stigma and discrimination, while increasing understanding of how and when to seek help; $402,900 for enhanced programming, and the addition of two rural case managers for adults in Placentia and Bonne Bay and two rural case managers for youth in Corner Brook and Grand Falls-Windsor; $195,300 for two intake workers to oversee and manage mental health and addictions referrals in Labrador West and Happy Valley-Goose Bay; –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: – $180,000 to enable the Canadian Mental Health Association – Newfoundland and Labrador Division to establish and staff regional offices in Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor; $140,000 to enable Consumer Health Awareness Network of Newfoundland and Labrador, known as CHANNAL, to hire four peer support positions for the community mental health system in the central and western regions;–

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

MR. POLLARD: – and, $76,000 to enable Choices for Youth to operate its "Moving Forward" program; $2.2 million to place five, full-time mental health and addictions counsellors in Nain, Hopedale, Makkovik, and Natuashish and provide the necessary accommodations and supports;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the significant actions this government has taken and is continuing to take to advance mental health and addictions services throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition on behalf of women in Newfoundland and Labrador who are calling on the government to reduce the age of breast screening for women in our Province.

WHEREAS breast cancer is the most common cancer among Newfoundland and Labrador women, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, with approximately 370 women to be diagnosed with breast cancer in Newfoundland and Labrador this year; and

WHEREAS we have one of the highest mortality rates from breast cancer and breast cancer in young women tends to be more aggressive; and

WHEREAS the benchmark for Newfoundland and Labrador's organized breast screening program is age fifty; and

WHEREAS women aged forty to forty-nine are not eligible to participate in Newfoundland and Labrador's organized breast screening program, while women aged forty to forty-nine are eligible in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories, and the Yukon; and

WHEREAS there is evidence that routine mammography screening of women in their forties can reduce mortality from breast cancer at least 24 per cent, but Newfoundland and Labrador still does not allow women in that age group to self-refer into their breast screening program; and

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to allow women aged forty to forty-nine to be eligible for breast screening to begin at age forty and that all women be able to self-refer through Newfoundland and Labrador's screening program.

Mr. Speaker, this petition has been sent to me by women from all different parts of the Province. I think this one is mostly women on the West Coast in the Stephenville, Kippens area who have signed this particular petition as well as the Port au Port Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, this is a concern for women all over the Province. It does not matter where you live, everyone knows someone who has been diagnosed with breast cancer at an earlier age. They feel it is important in Newfoundland and Labrador that we would have a proper breast screening program. Mr. Speaker, they are petitioning the House of Assembly simply because they know the evidence out there in the country supports this and supports it as a means of saving lives, of reducing the mortality rate associated with breast cancer.

Mr. Speaker, just recently the Government of Ontario announced they would also be bringing in legislation to reduce the age which has been a benchmark of age fifty in their Province to age thirty in terms of the particular programs that they are offering.

What these women in Newfoundland and Labrador are saying to government today is that we want you to act. We want you to reduce the age of screening for women right across the Province. We want you to have a program whereby we can be referred, self-refer under the program so we do not have to wait for a doctor or someone else to tell us it is okay for us to have a mammogram; that we would have a process in place that allowed us to have access to the tools in our Province to make an early diagnosis. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, we know we can save lives. We know the studies are saying that the mortality rate can be reduced by at least 24 per cent in our own Province alone. That is 24 per cent less women who will die from breast cancer as a result of this early screening program.

Mr. Speaker, they are asking the government to bring forward this program and to change the benchmarks in Newfoundland and Labrador so that more women have access to mammography screening in our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

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

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

WHEREAS Coley's Point Primary is a wooden structure built in the early 1960s; and

WHEREAS a consultant's report recommended that a new school be built to replace Coley's Point Primary; and

WHEREAS the student population is increasing yearly and constitutes a K-3 system; and

WHEREAS this forty-nine-year-old - nearly fifty-year-old - wooden structure should be replaced for the safety of both staff and students; and

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to take action and proceed with the construction of a new primary school for Coley's Point.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, I do not know, it may be thirty or forty petitions I have put forward over a period of time, I did not do any in this session of the House of Assembly because I thought the ones that I put through would get the word through to the powers to be and something would be done. I kept it quiet and thought that would help and we would hear something in the Budget this year, but unfortunately, that did not happen. I will be bringing a few more petitions forward because that school is a wooden structure, as I stated, and over the last two or three years there has been problems there.

I have to say that the minister of the day, of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, when he was CEO of the school board, knows full well the situation and they were pushing very hard for that school to be built. When the consultant's report was done, the Government House Leader now was the Minister of Education at the time. The report that came down, there were some issues in it that were not prime and proper for the school board system so, as she said in the hon. House of Assembly, the report was shredded. Unfortunately, that new school was shredded with it.

I am calling upon the government, calling upon the Members of the House of Assembly, to see that this issue is brought to the forefront again. Nobody thinks that this is a school that the people need built just to say we have a new school. The population is growing there; there are younger kids coming on to go to that school. To go into this particular facility, this day and age, I think it has to be dealt with.

We know it is not going to be built overnight. We hear of many good reports, whether it is long-term care facilities, other schools or hospitals, it takes some time. At least I thought, this year, there would be some preliminary work done to just say that the groundwork and the design work might have been considered.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I call upon the hon. House of Assembly to urge government to see what action can be taken this year, maybe there is money in the Budget where they can get the preliminary work started because I can assure you that the people in that area would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Labrador with regard to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

WHEREAS the Trans-Labrador Highway is a vital transportation lifeline for the Labrador communities, providing access, generating economic activity, and allowing residents to obtain health care and other public services; and

WHEREAS Route 510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway are unpaved, in deplorable condition and are no longer suitable and safe for the traffic volumes that travel this route; and

WHEREAS Labrador cannot afford to wait years or decades for upgrading and paving of their essential transportation route;

WHEREUPON the petitioners call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to provide additional funding for much-needed improvements to Route 510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Mr. Speaker, what people in Labrador are asking is that the government commit and put in place a full plan to pave the entire Trans-Labrador Highway. Mr. Speaker, that is the main highway through that region of Labrador. It is a highway that many people depend upon –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I know the Member for Lake Melville would like to contribute to the debate. Hopefully, this afternoon, he will have an opportunity to speak and tell us the reason why he and his government are not committing to pave that section of the highway.

Mr. Speaker, it is a concern for people in the Labrador region. People are using this road, thousands and thousands of people, every year. The traffic volume is going up. Now, Mr. Speaker, they are seeing tremendous optimism with the highway 138 being constructed over the next five years, giving the Labrador Straits a direct connection to Quebec City, Montreal, all that area, through the Lower North Shore road. We see that as an opportunity to start bringing more people into Labrador. We see it as an opportunity for the region and for the communities, but it is an opportunity that can only be realized with a proper transportation link. It is an opportunity where people will be able to really feel the benefits if they have a paved road.

It is not just about what is happening today, the conditions of the road today and the people who are having to use it, it is also about the future and it is about building the region for the long term and capitalizing on that opportunity. Why the government opposite does not have a vision for that particular part of the Province - does not have a vision and does not have a commitment to see that entire section of road paved and for it to start immediately is beyond me.

It is an area that will provide tremendous wealth to the Province. It is an area that today provides tremendous wealth to the Province, but will provide a great deal more. Mr. Speaker, in order for people there to realize the full opportunities and the full potential that new link will bring to the Labrador region, and to be able to increase their transportation of people throughout the area, they need to have a paved road to do it. That is the reason they are calling upon the government, and they are asking them to lay out the plan to pave this section of road, and to make a commitment to us. Do not delay it for two, three, or four years with no commitment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to call, from the Order Paper, Concurrence Motions, 2.(b) Resource Committee.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure to be able to stand here this afternoon as, first of all, the Member of the House of Assembly for the District of Lewisporte, and also as the Chair of the Resource Committee, and to be able to enter into what is the beginning of debate on concurrence in the Estimates procedure.

The Resource Committee, Mr. Speaker, looked at the Estimates for several departments, namely, the Departments of Fisheries and Aquaculture; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Natural Resources, including the Forestry and the Agrifoods Sector; we debated the Estimates for the Department of Environment and Conservation; for the Department of Business; and also for the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, including the Newfoundland and Labrador Research and Development Council, the Status of Women, the Rural Secretariat, and also Francophone Affairs.

So going through the Estimates for each of these departments was a very interesting experience, as members of the Resource Committee asked questions of the ministers and the ministers' officials throughout the process. Of course, the ministers were very forthright with their providing answers to questions, and if there were some questions that were asked for which they did not have the answers directly there with them, then in all cases, if it was requested, the information could be sent and dispersed at a later date.

What I want to do in the little bit of time that I have this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is I want to spend a little while talking about a couple of the departments and a couple of noteworthy things that I thought we should put out there this afternoon. Once I am done with that, then I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about how it falls down and how it affects some things in my district.

First of all the Department of Fisheries – and we have heard a lot. Every spring there is usually talk and there are usually some unsettling affairs that happen within the Department of Fisheries as we look to get a settlement on prices and quotas, the number of jobs and the number of people who are going to be affected. That seems to be something that happens on an annual basis. I think the Minister of Fisheries has certainly provided a lot of answers around that in the Estimates procedure and provided a lot of good food for thought.

In the seafood industry, Mr. Speaker, we note that in 2010 it performed really well. Our Province's total seafood production was valued at $942 million in 2010 which was up 13.9 per cent from 2009. In general the improved global demand for seafood, some higher market prices for crab, shrimp and also the increase in aquaculture exports, contributed to the growth in 2010. In the total landings for captured fisheries, approximately 301,000 tonnes; pretty close to what it was in 2009. In the corresponding landed value, it is $439 million, up slightly 3.7 per cent from 2009. The fisheries – and it is one of the departments as I said that we debated the Estimates for – the fisheries and the whole resource of the fishery contribute significantly to our economy.

I want to talk briefly about the Department of Natural Resources. It is a really big department, Mr. Speaker. Again we heard Estimates relative to that department and it was actually the longest meeting that we had. I think we started at 5:30 in the afternoon and we went until about 11:30, I think, at night as the minister and his officials were providing answers to a lot of questions.

What I want to talk about briefly is my take as Chair of the Resource Committee, as a member who sat in this Legislature for the past three and a half years, as somebody who sat through this session and who has listened to questions particularly around the whole Muskrat Falls, Lower Churchill Project. I listened as the minister provided answers in Estimates and I have listened in Question Period. There are a few things I would like to share, which is my own perspective on this based on what I have heard and what I have researched.

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that the development of the Muskrat Falls portion of the Lower Churchill Project is an opportunity for brighter and cleaner electricity. We are going to develop 824 megawatts of power in the Muskrat Falls Project. Now, there is a conversion factor which in actual fact comes down to something that we call five terawatts of power. So the development is, like I said, about 824 megawatts. Gull Island is a little over 2,000. The total development there would be in the 3,000 mark. We are going to do the Muskrat Falls portion right now.

Mr. Speaker, that comes after years of planning and analysis. Newfoundland Hydro, a Nalcor subsidiary, determined that Muskrat Falls is the lowest cost option to a looming electricity shortage in this Province. It has been analyzed, looked at and studied, and Muskrat Falls is the lowest cost option to a looming electricity shortage. This is contrary to what the members of the Opposition have said and may say throughout this debate, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is, in 2015 this Province will have a capacity deficit for electricity. What it means when we say a capacity deficit, it means that at peak times – when we think of peak times, a peak time might be a February morning when everybody is getting up and getting ready to go to school, and people have their toasters on all over the Province. At peak times there will be a deficit. So that is 2015.

Now, by 2019 we are told we will have an actual electricity deficit. That means the electricity demand in the Province at that point in time will be greater than the electricity we are producing. We have a problem, how do we meet the demand? We have established through analysis, objective, fair analysis, that there is going to be a deficit. Now we have to decide as a Province, how do we meet the demand?

First of all, the demand has been growing; it has been growing for a number of years. The demand has been growing because of economic growth. This Province has been growing. Economic growth means we have a greater demand for power. We have had more homes being built. We have had bigger homes being built. About 86 per cent of the homes that are being built, they tell us now, are using electricity. Domestic demand has grown. That is something that is established, this is something that has been verified.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, once you have established you have a potential deficit, you have an actual deficit in 2019, you have established that we have a growing demand for electricity, now the next step is to look at what type of option do we use to bring and to meet that electrical demand. There are several options, again from what I understand in the research I have done and in discussions I have had with the minister and his officials and the information that I have gotten in Estimates. We can look at an isolated island option. As an island, of course, we are surrounded by water. How do we meet the demand if we look at it just as an isolated island option? Well, we could develop more wind. We could develop some smaller projects along the rivers, but the bottom line is that once all of that is looked at, it has been determined that we will still not have security of supply. How about if we combine that with importing some power from the Maritimes, maybe from Quebec, or we had a bunch of smaller hydro projects? Even when that is looked at, Mr. Speaker, we still do not have security of supply. We will go back to, what are our options? Again, the best option is to develop the Muskrat Falls Project. We have determined that; all that analysis, all that study has been done by officials in Nalcor, and it has been verified by independent bodies, and so we have established that the best option to secure electricity supply for Newfoundland and Labrador in the future is to develop Muskrat Falls.

So, what that does, in actual fact I guess it is a good thing that we will bring in the power from Muskrat Falls – we are looking at about five terawatts of power that can be developed down there. To meet our demand, we only need about two of those terawatts, to meet the demand on the island and in Labrador. Emera has said they will build a transmission link to the island, and for that, they want one terawatt of power – an investment of $1.6 or $1.2 billion or so, they want one terawatt of power. So, what we have is that we have established we have a demand, we have a deficit, we need to meet that demand.

So, we are going to develop Muskrat Falls, and all of the added benefits that come from that. We have not even talked about, I have hardly heard in the House one question from the Opposition or one acknowledgement in the last while about the number of benefits that are going to happen in the development of Muskrat Falls during the development stage. We are looking at, first of all, we will have an electricity project that is going to be 98 per cent carbon free. During the construction, the project will see 8,600 person-years of direct employment in Newfoundland and Labrador. More than seventy occupations of those 8,600 person-years – 5,400 will occur in Labrador.

We have numerous jobs that will be created during the development stage. We have numerous jobs that will occur after the project is completed. We have power that will meet the demand in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have excess power that we can sell to other parts of the country, and down into the Northeastern United States, if necessary. By the way, Muskrat Falls being developed is the lowest cost and the best option ‘irregardless' of whether we sell that excess power or not – totally ‘irregardless'. I have heard the Minister of Finance explain this and he has talked about it. He said we will have two terawatts of power for the Island; we will have one terawatt of power that will go to Nova Scotia based on them building the total link across the Gulf. Then we have two terawatts of power that we can sell and whatever price we get for it is a bonus. Whatever price we get for it the government of the day can decide what they will use that money for. We can use it to build hospitals, to build bridges, to build better schools or we can use it to lower electricity rates. That is something that the government of the day will decide.

So, Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of fallacy, I would say, during this session of the House. There have been messages that the members of the Opposition have put out there. I think their messages are mistaken. What the development of Muskrat Falls will do is it will mean that electricity rates into the future will be stabilized. Electricity rates in the future will no longer escalate at a rate that is totally dependent on the price of oil. If we need other additional electricity, we do not have to ramp up Holyrood, we do not have to increase production out there at a cost of fifteen, or sixteen, or seventeen cents per kilowatt hour, because it all depends on the price of oil at the time.

This project, Mr. Speaker, means it will stabilize electricity rates. It means it will increase all kinds of jobs and produce all kinds of jobs during the construction phase. It means revenue to the Province into the future. It means everything that is good and positive, Mr. Speaker. I certainly think it is a great project and I look forward to seeing it start.

Now, Mr. Speaker, even though the Department of Education was not in my Estimates, I have an education background. There is something that I want to talk about for a few minutes before I close here. We have invested significantly in education in this Province over the last number of years. We have invested strongly in child care and education, in poverty reduction, et cetera, but I want to talk about education for a minute, Mr. Speaker.

One particular part, and for some people it might not seem big, but as somebody who has worked in the system it seems big to me. I talked just today to two school principals in my district. I called them and I said: What does the investment in new technology mean to you and your schools? I talked to Krista Freake at Lewisporte Collegiate. This is a senior high school. She said: Well, we just got a call from the school board that with this investment in technology that school is going to receive eight SMART Boards, fifteen computers, and a whole lot of monitors. Now, these SMART Boards are costing somewhere around $4,000, $5,000, or $6,000 each. She said: It is a tremendous, tremendous boost to the school and to the technology program.

I talked to Terry Spurrell, Mr. Speaker. Terry Spurrell is the principal at the middle school. I said: Terry, what does this new infusion of technology mean in your school? He said: Well, we just got a call. We are going to look at what is called a multi-point system, which are four large computers hooked up to six to eight more. It is basically, I guess, computers acting as servers. I will not get into the technical piece, mainly because I do not understand it too much myself. He said they are going to receive five SMART Boards. They are going to go with the multi-system piece. They are going to get fourteen computers and forty-nine monitors. I said: Terry, what does it mean to you?

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, because he sent me a message and he said this here: Switching from whiteboards to SMART Boards is like the switch from the old slate to the exercise book. He said: You just took us from the Stone Age to the information age. Mr. Speaker, that is just a comparison from one school principal who says this infusion means big, big progress to them in their delivery of education.

I could talk about some of the things going on in my district, Mr. Speaker, which are phenomenal. We have a big new health facility going up in Lewisporte during my tenure. We built a new stadium. There are all kinds of water and sewer projects throughout the district. We have had a big infusion in educational facilities. Lots of good things have happened over the last few years in my district. I have been proud to be the member there. I have been really pleased with the progress this government has made and continues to make. I am excited about the Muskrat Falls Project, that portion of the Lower Churchill Project. I think it is a great, great project that is going to mean more jobs for us in the future, more revenue for government -

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

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

MR. VERGE: Could I just have a minute to clue up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. members opposite for granting leave.

I think that the development of the Lower Churchill Project, the Muskrat Falls portion, is going to meet our demands, it is going to stabilize rates, and it is going to give us jobs. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing negative about that project. It means great things for us and for our future.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on Concurrence and –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. VERGE: Yes, all of the options have been looked at I say to the hon. member opposite, and this full project has been looked at inside and outside by many objective sources and it is proven the test, time and time again. It has proven the test and it is a great, great project.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege to be able to stand again this afternoon and speak for a few moments on the Concurrence debate, particularly on the Resource Committee. I was a part of the committee on several of the departments, in particular Fisheries, INTRD, and Municipal Affairs. It is good to be able to go through the Budget and through the Estimates and see exactly where the monies of the taxpayers of the Province are being spent.

Mr. Speaker, it is easy, as we know, for the government sometimes to stand and brag about how they are spending the money, but I would certainly concur that it is not always being spent in the best interests of the people of the Province. We certainly could look for ways to improve it.

I want to respond to some of the comments that the Member for Lewisporte said in his opening remarks. In particular, he talked about Muskrat Falls. There are two different opinions here in the Province in terms of Muskrat Falls. There is the one of the government and there is the one of the people of the Province. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest they are very different.

The argument that I have heard put forth in this House every day, as you know, we have discussed and debated Muskrat Falls, particularly from the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier. We have had that debate basically every day that the House has been open. I believe it has been a good debate, it has been an important debate. It has been important that we put the information out before the people of this Province, so that when October comes, they can make decisions based on what they have heard.

I would suggest, as my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & La Poile does at times, that he does not want to be the one who is going to the door and saying: I am the guy who is going to double your light bill. I can assure you that that is not going to be a very popular thing to say to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. When you hit people in their pocket, that is when it hurts. When you hit seniors who are on fixed incomes, and other people in the Province who are on fixed incomes, Mr. Speaker, and you tell them that, listen, this necessity, one of the most expensive pieces actually of your monthly budget, we are going to double that cost to you because of the development of Muskrat Falls. The defence for that, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is very hard to come up with.

What is interesting in listening to his words, and the debate of government, and the position of government has been the fact that there is a growing demand for electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador, on the island, in particular, because that is where we are bringing the electricity. Mr. Speaker, I consider myself to be at least average intelligence, and I have sat back at times in the House, and away from the House, and so on, and tried to understand where this growing demand for electricity in this Province today is coming from. We realize that there was a paper mill that operated in Stephenville that would have obviously burned a great deal of hydro power that closed. We know of another one in Grand Falls, Abitibi of course, that closed just a couple of years ago. So, Mr. Speaker, those two pulp and paper plants, in themselves, obviously would have used a lot of electricity, but they are no more, they are gone, and there will not be any more. We also realize, at the same time, that the Vale Inco piece in Placentia area, that that is in place, and that will, as it comes on stream, require power. We understand that, Mr. Speaker.

When we look at other things around the Province, and we look at other developing businesses, and we look at the population trends in our Province, and so on, not to be all doom and gloom, but I have to wonder where this growing demand is coming from. We had, as you would know, we had briefings on Muskrat Falls from Nalcor on at least three particular occasions. I know that on one occasion in particular we put the questions to the CEO of Nalcor, Mr. Martin; very clear, very specific, as to what the assumptions were based on that indication that there would be this growing demand that really generated and created the business case for the development of Muskrat Falls aside from Gull Island.

Mr. Speaker, we were told very clearly by Mr. Martin that the figures they were using came basically from the Department of Finance. In other words, it was this government's numbers that drove the business case to develop Muskrat Falls. Mr. Speaker, we have asked for those numbers but to this date that I know of, Mr. Speaker, we have never seen the numbers, they have never been given to us. They have never been taken and broken out so that it justifies, so that we can see very clearly as an Opposition when we consider the Muskrat Falls deal, the viability of it, and the necessity of it and so on, Mr. Speaker; that we can see very clearly where this shortage of power that the member was just speaking about and that government members speak from when they speak on Muskrat, that yes, this is where it is. Mr. Speaker, to show that if we do not do this indeed there will be a shortage, there will be a shortfall in the demand for electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador by the year 2015.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the government and the minister that is responsible for this particular project to table those statistics for us, to show us exactly where it is. That indeed that not on some fly-by-night so to speak projection or whatever, but based on solid, concrete data that we will indeed be short on power by 2015.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other issues that I see from the point of the development of Muskrat Falls – there are many issues of course – is the issue of doubling of our light bills. There is the issue of whether there really is a true demand, a growing demand that will exhaust our present electricity capacity within the Island. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is also the issue of the 20 per cent that we are going to give to our partner so to speak in this project, being Emera from Nova Scotia. Then the other 40 per cent, Mr. Speaker, that is considered to be surplus power that can either flow over the river or can come down through the transmission line and be sold into the Maritimes and into other parts of North America.

Mr. Speaker, we realize there is a growing demand for electricity in certain parts of North America for sure, in Canada and Atlantic Canada, as provinces like Nova Scotia want to get off their dependency on coal and so on, and we support that. That is a good thing, but, Mr. Speaker, when we hear numbers like were presented here today being actual numbers - because the Premier certainly did not defend the numbers or to say they were wrong, but when we hear numbers suggesting that we are presently selling power to New Brunswick for four cents a kilowatt hour and then we hear we are presently selling power to Quebec for less than three cents a kilowatt hour, Mr. Speaker, I sit back as a resident of this Province, as a taxpayer, as a consumer of electricity and I say: Why in goodness gracious, why would this government expect me to be willing to pay fourteen-plus cents per kilowatt hour for my electricity to support a $6 billion project that is based on a demand that really has not been established, that has been based on a demand that has been set by government to which it will not give us the statistics at least? Why would I support, for me and my family, my children, my grandchildren, be willing to pay fourteen cents per kilowatt hour and at the same time allow through that same line, through that very same line that brings electricity to me, allow it to be transferred over to my cousins in Nova Scotia, so to speak, and sell it to them, for what, possibly four, five, six, seven cents per kilowatt hour? Half of what we are paying to produce that power is what we are saying we are going to sell it to our neighbours for.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador have great issues with that. I have difficulty trying to understand the reasoning, the rationalization, the rationing of that. I have great difficulty with it, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, again, I believe that development is good. No one is disputing the desire to develop Muskrat Falls. No one is disputing the desire to do a Lower Churchill project, I should say, that involves Muskrat and Gull Island. It has been the wish of governments, certainly of Administrations in the past to see that development. It was always seen to be a great economic driver for our Province, where we would develop hydroelectric power, that we would sell it on the open market, that we would make great returns on it and so on. No one disputes that. Really, no one disputes developing Muskrat Falls if that is the option and there is a need; but, please, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the government, to the minister today, show us the need. Show us the numbers that verify what this Member for Lewisporte was saying a few moments ago, that by 2015, if we do not develop Muskrat Falls, we are indeed going to be out of electricity. Again, I just do not understand it.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the investments we are making in Nalcor; again this year, $386 million is being invested into Nalcor. I realize we own the company. It is paid for by the taxpayers. We know very little about it. It is about as secret as an organization or a company can be. Mr. Speaker, unless someone can show me where the demand is going to be, this growing demand that requires us to do this development today based on economics that it is going to cost me fourteen cents, based on numbers that we are going to sell the others for seven cents – unless someone can show me where that is essentially so, that it is absolutely necessary, Mr. Speaker, I personally cannot support a Budget that would spend that kind of money into a company, kind of open ended, if you will.

Mr. Speaker, the other piece I would like to speak to for a few moments in terms of Muskrat Falls is the subsea cable that is coming across the Strait of Belle Isle. Mr. Speaker, you would know that a fixed link has been an issue of discussion for a number of years. Quite frankly, most people considered it to be pie in the sky. They considered it to be just some figment of the imagination, so to speak, and something that we would never see.

We do know the former Premier, when he came in office, committed to doing a study on the fixed link across the Strait of Belle Isle. That study was done. The numbers seemed to be high and so on, and the issue was dropped. It was mission accomplished, it was promise kept, and it was shelved along with a lot of other good reports and strategies that have been done along the way.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest if we are moving forward with the development of Muskrat Falls, the consideration that we are giving is coming across the sea base of the Strait of Belle Isle and that we are going to come across there with a cable. Those of us in particular who have lived our lives in that region have watched the icebergs in the spring of the year that come down through there, the enormity of them, Mr. Speaker, and what they can do to the seabed and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest if there was ever a time to consider a fixed link between the Island and the Labrador portion of our Province, it certainly would be now. Mr. Speaker, not only should it be considered in terms of its connection to the transportation of power across the Strait of Belle Isle, but when we consider what Quebec has recently committed to, in terms of the road through the North Shore of Quebec, the road into Fermont, into the northern piece of it, linking into Lab City and so on, and the expectation that within short order we will see paved roads all throughout that piece of Labrador with Quebec connected in through, it would make good sense to me that if there is ever going to be a time to have a fixed link to the Island portion of our Province, that time has come, that time is now. The government has not considered that at all, it does not seem to be. It says it has considered other hydro projects, other options in the Province that would supply the amount of hydro that we are expecting and anticipating to need in the next few years, but it certainly has not shown anything where it has considered that way of transporting, making passage, so to speak, for the hydro from the Labrador side of the Province through the Strait of Belle Isle.

Mr. Speaker, the opportunity that it would provide to the Northern Peninsula, and indeed to the whole Island, but certainly to the Northern Peninsula, to have a fixed link that links the Island of Newfoundland to the rest of mainland Canada, I would suggest that potential is enormous. I have travelled the Quebec North Shore for the last thirty years, down through Old Fort, St. Paul's, down to St. Augustine, Tabatière, these areas, I am very familiar with them and have lived in them for the past thirty years or so, back and forth. Mr. Speaker, when that corridor is opened up, the change that will take place from the people of Natashquan down through to Blanc-Sablon will be tremendous. In allowing traffic to flow along the Quebec North Shore and to be able to come, uninterrupted, into the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Island of Newfoundland, I see as being just a tremendous thing.

So, I am not really sure why we are not seeing that. Obviously, the government does not see the need, it does not see it as being a viable option, and it does not see the economic upturn, in particular to the Northern Peninsula but also to the Province. I would challenge the government today to go back and look at that study that was done, to re-evaluate the numbers that were attached to it in terms of being able to do it. I believe we would find out today, with the advancements in technology, with just the education around the whole process and so on, what we have learned by other countries and companies around the world, I believe what we would find is that it is indeed a very viable option, one that is much cheaper than what it was a few years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of time left, but I would like to bring up another issue that is of concern to me from the perspective of the Resource Committee, because one of the departments in the Estimates was Fisheries and Aquaculture. Mr. Speaker, one of the communities in my district that has been devastated by recent decisions of this government through the Department of Fisheries is the community of Englee. Mr. Speaker, today it sits in limbo, as much as it did five years ago when this government decided to remove the fishing licence from that community and to basically take away its livelihood. There is no movement forward by this government to try to remediate that situation or to try to help that community, not only find an economy for the future but, just as importantly, to clean up the mess that is left by the decision that this government made.

Mr. Speaker, if you were to visit Englee today, you would find a depressed economy, you would find a dilapidated fish plant that is an eyesore, that is a hazard, that is a large safety concern, that is an environmental issue. It is sitting there and the community council, the municipal leaders, the people of that community, have put proposal after proposal after proposal into this government. They have written the minister, they have rewritten the minister, they have written the previous Premier, and they have written the Premier of today. Mr. Speaker, as of right now, there is still absolutely no commitment of anything to the community of Englee in terms of where they can expect this to go. They have done their little workforce adjustment program. The government's commitment there has lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, today in 2011, as we are boasting about all the money we are spending in the Province, that private member's motion, quite frankly, I believe it was meant to be a joke and I think it is. It sure sounded like a joke to me, to be talking about mental health and put in a three-page private member's motion to talk about all the money you spent in the past ten years. To me, it is just a boasting.

Anyway, nevertheless, not to get sidetracked too much, we have a community that is looking to this government to find a way forward, that is all it is asking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: It is asking for this government to support it financially in trying to accomplish what it sees as a way forward. It sees an opportunity in tourism and it sees an opportunity in establishing a heritage site, of having kiosks there, an interpretative centre sort of thing, Mr. Speaker. It is waiting and waiting on this government. As of right now, there is still no movement. Those are the kinds of things that concern me when I look into the numbers that government is spending and the money that it is putting forth. Then we see communities that are dying and the government is not willing to reach out and commit to them. Then they want you to stand with them shoulder to shoulder, Mr. Speaker, in this House of Assembly and support the Budget that they have put forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am not able to do that for the reasons outlined, and I just thank you. I realize my time is gone and I thank you for the privilege of standing this afternoon to speak for a few moments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to Notices of Motion just for a minute.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to return to Notices of Motion?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under Notices of Motion earlier when they were called, I was remiss when I did not move Motions 5 and 6. I will do that at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, to move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday, May 24, 2011.

Further to that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, to move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday, May 24, 2011.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this House today to stand and speak to the tabling of the Resource Committee report. As has been indicated by the chair of that report, one of the departments that the Resource Committee sat in Estimates with was the Department of Natural Resources and the Forestry and Agrifoods agency. I, as minister, had to appear here in this Chamber and answer questions that came from members opposite relative to the Department of Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, given the limited time that I have, I am going to focus my commentary on what the members opposite focused on during the Estimates debate which was the Lower Churchill project, specifically the Muskrat Falls phase one of that project.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to preface my remarks and to provide some context for members in the House and for members in our viewing audience, to say to them that when we do things as a government on this side of the House it is done with a long-term vision and with a view to a long-term plan. The decisions we are making impact the people of the Province so much that we cannot be reactive. We try not to be reactive. We cannot be changing our minds sort of as we go along. We have to understand where we are today. We have to look down the road and see where it is we need to be, and then we create a plan to get us there. Those plans typically are multiyear, many year plans; multi-decade I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker. We sometimes, because of our budgetary process, have to do one, two, or three-year plans. Annually we have to submit Budgets, but I would suggest to you that some of what we work on as a government is long term.

The Lower Churchill Project, as people in our audience who are watching today would know, is not something that just came to be in the last two, three, or four years. It is something that has been in government's bailiwick for decades. I remember as a small boy going to school hearing people talk about the Lower Churchill Project.

What we have done though, Mr. Speaker, is we have gotten to a point now where because of the duty of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to ensure that we have consistent, reliable, low-cost power available to the people of the Province, they do a study basically every year, a generation study, and they submit that plan to the Public Utilities Board. It basically is a forecasting of the electricity requirements for the Province. When they did that, what they recognized was that by 2015 the Island was going to have a requirement for new source of power. We were going to run out of power, basically. I heard someone use the term earlier that there was going to be an energy deficit. Now, what does that mean?

Well, you may remember a few short years ago in Ontario and in some of the states of the United States of America, there were what people called brownouts and blackouts. What that meant was there was not enough electricity available to meet everybody's needs at the same time so power was rationed. Certain areas of a province would be given power for certain hours of the day and other areas of the province would not be given as much power. They were rationing power.

What the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro energy study said was that we potentially could be in a situation by 2015 where we may find ourselves like that. By 2019, we would not be able to add any new systems or any new people onto our electrical system because there would not be enough power if we did not do something. That is because the Province is experiencing growth. As has been referenced by other speakers - I will not go through all the details - because of the fact that business growth is occurring, because of the fact that over 80 per cent of the new homes being built are using electricity, because of the fact we have a hydromet smelter in Argentia, because there are expansions occurring in other areas - the mining area is going to be expanding - we need more power.

When members opposite say you have not proven to me the demand for power, look around you I would say to them, it is happening. The National Energy Board of Canada predicts that by 2020 there will be a 23 per cent rise in electrical consumption in the country. Mr. Speaker, just look at what has happened in this Province over the last number of years. This Province has experienced growth, we are experiencing prosperity, and we need to make sure that we have the basic infrastructure available to allow that to continue so that the people of the Province can continue to benefit.

Having a reliable, secure electricity supply is integral to what it is we are going to do or any other government in the future is going to do as a Province. We have identified there are going to be potential shortages. Certain assumptions have to be made but there are assumptions that have been made by electrical utilities all over North America, they are reasonable assumptions. The assumption we have made in terms of growth is quite reasonable, quite conservative, it is 0.8 per cent per year in electrical consumption.

These are not wild guesses. These are not things that we are pulling out of a hat. This is not something we are doing not knowing what we are all about here. It is being done, Mr. Speaker - with all due respect to the people at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Nalcor and our own internal people at the Department of Finance who have looked at some of these numbers, these are very educated, smart people who are used to doing these kinds of assumptions on all kinds of other projects. They understand how to put this together so that the people of the Province will have all of the infrastructure that it needs, the electrical infrastructure that it needs, to be able to do what we want to do as a government into the future.

We forecasted a demand growth of 0.8 per cent a year, not an exorbitant amount at all, Mr. Speaker. We forecasted an energy deficit by 2015. By that as I said, we potentially could be into – we have a safe zone. There is a certain amount of energy that we produce and we only use so much of that. You do not use 100 per cent of all the electricity that you produce; you have to allow yourself a little bit of a safe zone. The reason for that safe zone is that if we have an ice storm and you lose electrical lines or something like that, you need that extra bit of power that you can ration it out to other areas.

By 2015, we will be creeping into that safe zone. By 2019, we will be maxed out, there will be no safe zone and we will not be able to add anybody else to the system. Should something happen like an ice storm or like Hurricane Igor, we potentially could be in a very dire situation. Nobody thinks about it until you lose your lights, until you lose your power. When that happens, people then get upset. So, the preplanning work needs to be done five, six, seven, eight, ten years in advance to ensure that we do not find ourselves in situations like that. I just give that little bit of introduction, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important that people have the context upon which the Muskrat Falls Project is being built.

Mr. Speaker, what did we do when we identified that shortage? We looked at other alternatives. There were five that were looked at. We looked at building Gull Island, a much larger 2,200, 2,300, 2,400 megawatt project with a link to the Island. We looked at Muskrat Falls, 824 megawatts with a link to the Island. We looked at what is known as the isolated Island option; the next best alternatives I would call them. That is doing some work out at Holyrood, doing some stream generation, damming some rivers – run-of-river they call it - doing a bit of wind power maybe. There are a whole bunch of isolated Island options that are there. We looked at importing power from Quebec and we looked at potentially importing power from the Maritimes by putting a cable coming into the Western part of the Island.

There were a number of options that were looked at. Those options were evaluated based upon criteria. The criteria looked at things like a security of supply and a reliability of electricity. We wanted to make sure that we had access to power and we wanted to make sure that we had access to it whenever we needed it. Security and reliability were, I would suggest to you, the most important.

There were also things like cost were included, risk associated with the project, financial viability associated with the project, and environmental impacts associated with the project. There was a whole bunch of different lenses that were put on these five options. To cut to the chase, Mr. Speaker, the Muskrat Falls option was deemed to be the best of all of those options. It was deemed to be the best for a whole bunch of reasons. The other alternatives either did not guarantee us security of supply, wind for instance. Wind is good when you have wind if you are using it as a power source. If you do not have wind, then you do not have power. It is an intermittent source, I guess, is the way I would put it to you, Mr. Speaker. It is a good backup for hydro. It is a good supplement to hydro, but it is not the one you would place in front of hydro.

Some of them would be more costly. To build Gull Island would be a more costly project obviously, require more. If we were going to look at the import route, either importing power from Quebec or importing power from the Maritimes, then there really was not security of supply because you were at the mercy, I guess, of the places you were importing it. Should they have an emergency and need the power, potentially we may find ourselves not able to access the power that we wanted to access.

For those and a whole bunch of other reasons, Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls was deemed to be the best option of the five options that I just outlined for you. Muskrat Falls will meet the needs of the Province. Muskrat Falls will allow for industrial development in Labrador. Muskrat Falls provides excess power for sale. A bonus I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, gravy, so to speak, because we are meeting our own needs and we also have some excess power right now that we would be able to sell to other places.

I hear members opposite talk about, well, you are selling it for less than what it is going to cost for our own generation. The point they are missing, Mr. Speaker, is we have to look after ourselves. We need to meet our own needs. Muskrat Falls is not being built to sell power to somebody else. Muskrat Falls is being built to meet our own needs. If we do not meet our own needs, the rest of it does not matter. We build the Muskrat Falls Project to satisfy our own needs. So that when I walk to the electrical switch on the wall of my room, hit it and turn it up, the lights come on. It may not happen if we do not do something now to address the shortages we see coming in five, six, seven years time.

We have to do something to address those needs. We have to do something to allow industrial development to continue and commercial expansion to continue in the business markets we have. To do that, we need power. It is a basic need. We are addressing that need. The fundamental principle upon which we are doing Muskrat Falls is to address our own needs, Mr. Speaker. It is going to cost 14.3 cents per kilowatt hour. That is more than we are paying right now. We are paying about 9.5 cents right now.

Mr. Speaker, I have said it in the House many times before and I am going to say it again. Our power rates have been increasing every year, year over year over year, 38 per cent over the last ten years. I indicated to you I would go and get my own power bill and see what happened to mine. I did that. It came into be, I believe it was 36 per cent, 37 per cent. Very close to 38 per cent. We are projecting that kind of an increase will continue in the years to come. Power rates, if we do nothing, are continuing to go up. We estimate 4 per cent to 6 per cent per year power rates will continue to go up for every ratepayer on the Island and in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Those rates are continuing to go up with or without Muskrat Falls.

By building Muskrat Falls, we meet the need that we know we are going to have into the future. We allow for further growth. We allow for industrial expansion, industrial development to occur, and commercial expansion to occur, and we also have some excess power that we can sell. Whether we sell that for one cent a kilowatt hour or fifteen cents a kilowatt hour, it is money going into our pocket that is above and beyond what we are building Muskrat Falls for anyway, Mr. Speaker. As has been eloquently said here in this House of Assembly by the Premier in the past, that is money that future governments then, with the sale of the excess power, can decide whether they want to build schools, hospitals, lower the rates that are being charged after 2017, whatever it is they want to do with that excess money.

The 14.3 cents is to look after our own needs. When we look after our own needs, Mr. Speaker, I just want to give you some examples of what could happen. We have done some projections. If your power bill today is $291, forget about Muskrat Falls, you are going to be paying about $400 in 2017 - because Muskrat Falls will not be on stream until then anyway. Just with the normal increase in power bills, your $291 a month that you are paying today will go to $400 a month in 2017.

Let's assume we do not do Muskrat Falls. Let's assume we do not do anything to address our own needs. Besides the fact that you will not be able to add any new people to the system, besides the fact that you will not have any industrial capacity for development in Labrador, besides the fact that commercial existing businesses will not be able to do any expansion, besides the fact that we will not have any excess capacity so we will not be able to sell any, all of that gone, the other thing that is going to happen to that power bill that today is $291 a month and in 2017 will be $400 a month, by 2025 you will now be up to $455 a month. That is the projection. Your $291 bill today is gone up to $455 a month without Muskrat Falls.

If I want to go to 2040, another thirty or so years; let's talk about our children. The $291 a month bill that you are paying today, that will be $400 in 2017, that will be $455 in 2025, will go to $625, Mr. Speaker, by the year 2040. That is what is going to happen with just normal increases in the power bills if we do not do Muskrat Falls.

If we do Muskrat Falls, besides having industrial development in Labrador, besides meeting the needs of the Province, besides having excess power that we can sell and use that revenue we are generating to do stuff with, besides the fact that businesses that are existing here will now have the capability to be able to expand and grow and hire more people and generate more economic output, let's forget all of that if we do Muskrat Falls, which are all good things and good reasons to do it, here is the best reason why we should do it, Mr. Speaker: because that $291 bill that I have today, that is going to be $400 in 2017, after 2017, which is the date Muskrat Falls will go on stream, instead of paying $455 a month in 2025, with Muskrat Falls I will pay $415 a month, Mr. Speaker, a savings of $40 a month. If I project that out, that bill which was $291 today, $400 in 2017, $455 in 2025, and up to $625 in 2040, that $625 bill that my children will be paying in 2040, if we do Muskrat Falls now, as we are planning on doing it, that bill will be $470 a month. That is a saving, Mr. Speaker, of about $155 a month to every ratepayer in the Province who is paying electricity right now with an average bill of $300 a month. That is the kind of difference we are talking about with Muskrat Falls. That is why we need to do Muskrat Falls. It is for our own benefit.

Added on to that benefit of addressing our own need and keeping our power cost stable, and having the lowest power cost that we can get, we also get the industrial development in Labrador, we get the commercial development everywhere else in the Province, for all of the businesses that are currently existing, and, Mr. Speaker, we know it is going to – I have not even talked about the environmental benefits, in terms of what it does with Holyrood. There are all kinds of other benefits: the construction that has been talked about, the jobs that have been talked about, the benefits for Labrador, in terms of the Labrador Aboriginal Training Partnership Program, and the people who are being prepared to work on the project up there. All of those things, Mr. Speaker, are reasons why we should be doing Muskrat Falls.

When the people of the Province think about Muskrat Falls, think about yourself first, is what I would say to them. Personalize it. What does it mean for me, because ultimately, I, as a ratepayer, am going to be paying that bill? If people of the Province personalize it - and forget all the other things we have talked about, all the other reasons why we should do it - you will be paying $470 a month instead of $625 a month. You will be saving yourself hundreds of dollars a month, Mr. Speaker. Your energy cost, with Muskrat Falls, will go up 0.7 per cent per year, less than 1 per cent per year. If you do not do Muskrat Falls, your energy cost will continue to increase 4 per cent to 6 per cent per year.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will finish up by saying Muskrat Falls is a project we should do for each and every person in the Province because it helps keep our costs low in terms of electricity costs. It helps ensure a reliable, secure electrical supply. Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, for the $625 versus the $470, I want to do it for the $470.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak for a few minutes on some of the department's expenditures that have been presented with regard to the Resource Committee. The Resource Committee, of course, looks at several departments of government: the Department of Business; Environment and Conservation; Fisheries and Aquaculture; Innovation, Trade and Rural Development; as well as the National Research Council or the Newfoundland and Labrador research council; the Rural Secretariat; the Status of Women; the Department of Natural Resources; Agrifoods and Forestry; and the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, you are hearing people talk today with regard to the Muskrat Falls Project, because it falls under the heading of one of those particular departments. Mr. Speaker, of course government is using the opportunity, as they should, to try and explain to people why they think Muskrat Falls is a good deal and why they are going to have to increase the rates substantially to people in the Province if this development is to go ahead.

Mr. Speaker, one defence the government cannot provide in this, and that is to justify the cost to which people in the Province will have to pay for their electricity at the end of the day. Mr. Speaker, we have continued to point that out in the House of Assembly over the last number of weeks and months that we have been in session. We have talked about things. First of all, we talked about the demand projections that government has laid out around Muskrat Falls. They are saying the demand for electricity in the Province is going to basically skyrocket over the next couple of years. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have to build this megaproject. We have to do it. You have to pay for it because we are not going to be able to meet our demand.

Where is that demand for power coming from? That is what we need to examine. We are talking about bringing a line to Holyrood to deliver Muskrat Falls power to the people of the Island portion of the Province; yet, last year the people on the Island portion of the Province only used 11 per cent of the power that they consume from Holyrood. They only used 11 per cent of it. The rest of them, Mr. Speaker, are getting cheap power from Cat Arm and from other hydro projects on the Island; they are getting cheap electricity.

So, we only used 11 per cent of the power from Holyrood last year to provide to the people of the Island portion of the Province. Now, all of a sudden, the government says we need to replace Holyrood, which means the only way we can do it is to bring power from Muskrat Falls because the demand is so great. Well, last year the demand was 11 per cent, the year before it was 17 per cent. Our dependency on Holyrood has been dropping year over year because we have more power in the grid now than we are using. We are actually spilling water today in Bay d'Espoir because we do not have the demand for electricity on the Island portion of the Province.

The minister and the Premier and the government members will have you think that our demand is so great that we have to do this project at all costs, regardless of how much you are going to pay out of your pocket. Well, I do not buy that argument and I do not buy it starting with the very basic of principles here. The very basic one is: Where is the demand? We asked Nalcor: Where is your demand for power coming from? That it is so great that we have to double up our capacity, we need to be able to bring lines to the Island. Where is all that demand for power coming from?

They showed us what their assumptions were. Mr. Speaker, their assumptions were nothing new – there is nothing new. The only project that was listed, in terms of under Nalcor's chart as to where demand is going to come from that is not on stream yet, was the smelter at Long Harbour; that was the only project. Anyone who has followed the history of the Long Harbour smelter and the Inco project that originated in Voisey's Bay will know that when the smelter was identified for Long Harbour so was the source of power. So, the source of power for that project was identified a number of years ago. That was the only new project that Nalcor was saying that they had to base their assumptions on.

Everything else, Mr. Speaker, we are already providing. We are providing for the shipyards, we are providing right now for the mine at Black Duck Pond which is due to expire - actually I think they are expecting to mine out in the next couple of years. By 2015, that mine will actually close, so that is power that will revert to the grid anyway. Notwithstanding that, if we are fortunate enough to find new deposits and the mine carries on, the power is there.

Where are the new assumptions? This is what Nalcor said: They are assumptions that have been provided by the Department of Finance. Our demand for power in this Province is based on one thing, and that is estimates of the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance is saying that they are going to double up. We have asked the minister this question and we have asked the Premier. We have said: Provide for us your figures, provide for us where the demand is going to come from because right now, we are building a project in this Province that is going to cost the taxpayers of this Province billions of dollars, that is going to double up the cost of electricity that they are going to pay, and it is all being done based on one assumption. That is the assumption that our demand for power is going to double and it is going to double because of some figures in the Department of Finance that the government have cooked up that they do not want to share with anyone.

If you want to be open, transparent, and accountable and you want the details of the deal out there, why are you hiding the demand projections? The Minister of Natural Resources just stood in his place, Mr. Speaker, and said: Oh yes, we have the demand, and we need to develop this because we have the demand for power. Well, show us where that demand is; provide us the information. It is not good enough to just put out there the messages and the spin that you want people to buy into. You have to be able to justify it, and you justify it by providing real numbers and the real information.

So, that is the first thing. Government will not tell you where they are getting their demand projections in the Department of Finance because this whole project is based on that. There are no other new assumptions that have been in the contract by Nalcor. Nalcor has told us quite specifically what they are basing it on and the only new thing is numbers from the Department of Finance.

Are they saying that the population of the Province is going to double in the next ten years? Is that what they are telling us? Are they telling us that the amount of power that we use is going to double in our homes? Is that what they are telling us? We are all going to convert to some kind of a power scheme where the amount of electricity we consume is going to double up. I do not know; I am just taking a stab at it because unless government is prepared to back up their numbers, their argument does not hold any weight with me. If you really believe that the demand is there, you show us where the demand is. You show us where we are going. Because the facts are this: Last year, we used 11 per cent of our power from Holyrood, not 40 per cent of what you are proposing to bring there of Muskrat Falls. We use 11 per cent and you are talking about replacing all the power supply on the Island portion of the Province that right now is getting clean energy at a good cost. Everyone on the Island portion of the Province today, Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the 11 per cent of the power that comes from Holyrood, is on clean energy. They are on green power. So, do not buy into the notion that this is all about green power. Today, Mr. Speaker, 90 per cent of the people in the Province is on green power. Guess what? They are getting it for a good price. They are getting it for a very good price, far less than the 14.5 cent base price that the government is proposing under Muskrat Falls. Those are facts, Mr. Speaker.

Now, for example, we have established that government has not backed up its demand projections. Every now and then the government will throw in: Well, we may need power in Labrador, we may need industrial power in Labrador. Well, I can tell the minister, quite frankly, right out, no holds barred, Mr. Speaker, there is no industry coming to Labrador that is going to pay fifteen and twenty cents a kilowatt hour for power. It is not going to happen. Take your head out of the clouds and get reasonable. It is not going to happen. It is all a spin for the people of the Province.

Now, if you are going to really provide industrial power for people in Labrador so that businesses can set up there, so that the mines can have access to power, then you do it at an affordable rate. Is government prepared to do that? Are they prepared to say we are going to subsidize Muskrat Falls power so that we get a fair industrial rate in Labrador? Are they going to continue with the industrial rates that are there, which range anywhere from about two to three cents a kilowatt to about five cents a kilowatt hour for industrial power in Labrador? Because if they are prepared to make that commitment, well make it. Do not talk all around it; do not talk it up and down. Make the commitment, be specific. Tell the people of the Province what you are going to do. Do not just spin a great story about industrial power for Labrador when Muskrat Falls base power rate is 14.5 cents.

There is no industry in the world coming to Labrador to buy power for fifteen and twenty cents a kilowatt hour for industry. It is not going to happen, Mr. Speaker. It is not going to happen. If the government is committed, lay your commitment on the table. Tell us what it is you are going to do. Tell us how many megawatts of power you are going to put on reserve for Labrador for industrial power, and tell us how much people are going to have to pay for that power, Mr. Speaker.

What we do know is this; we do know that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will be able to buy power from Muskrat Falls at almost half the cost that we will pay for it, at almost half the cost. Which means, Mr. Speaker, that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick can buy Muskrat Falls power and sell it to industrial customers, attract them to New Brunswick and to Nova Scotia at a cheaper rate than we are going to have in the Province. Now you tell me how that is a good deal? Anyone out there today with any common sense at all will look at this and know, Mr. Speaker, the difference.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the government says: Well, the project is for the people in the Province, so we have to pay. Yet, we do not know where the demand is coming from. We do not know why we have to replace all the power we are now taking out of Bay d'Espoir and green energy that we are using on the Island with Muskrat Falls power which is more expensive. We do not understand that, Mr. Speaker. There is no logic in that one.

Mr. Speaker, they say the project is for the people of the Province. We need it or we are going to be in the dark. Well, there are going to be people in this Province in the dark because they will not be able to afford the power. That is the part that this government has not yet gotten their head around. They have not gotten their head around the fact that people in this Province live on a fixed income, that people in this Province are an aging population. We have more and more people who will fall into retirement, who will fall into the fixed-income bracket. We have a lot of people who work for minimum wage. The minimum wage is not going to increase at the rates that you are going to increase people's electricity bills.

People who work, Mr. Speaker, middle-income families in this Province earning $50,000, $60,000 a year will not be able to afford a hike in electricity at the rate that you are proposing for them. This is the part that you have failed to realize as a government. You talk big, you talk about the big deal, you talk about developing a mega power project, which we would all love to see happening. Mr. Speaker, I would be the first one out there on the sidelines cheering on the project if I knew it was going to be something the people of this Province could afford. That is the part the government has not put their heads around, Mr. Speaker. That is the part they are hiding from the people of the Province.

We know that 40 per cent of the power is what they are proposing to bring to the Island portion of the Province – 40 per cent of the power – yet we are going to pay for 80 per cent of the cost. The reason for that is because 20 per cent of the power they will give to Emera Energy and Emera will then give 20 per cent of the investment in the project. The other 40 per cent of the power, Mr. Speaker, they have no sale for. If they happen to sell it to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, or somewhere else for a couple of cents a kilowatt, they will make some extra money.

What is going to happen to that extra money? Is that coming back to subsidize me as a ratepayer in this Province? Is that coming back to subsidize, Mr. Speaker, the farmer's family in the Goulds who are going to see their electricity rate double up? Is it coming back to subsidize them? Is it coming back to subsidize people in Trepassey who are going to see their light bill double up? Is it coming back to subsidize the people in Bay d'Espoir who today are getting clean energy at an affordable rate, but because they are going to be forced to buy into the Muskrat Falls scheme the government has concocted, is any of that money coming back to offset their electricity bills? No, it is not. No, it is not, Mr. Speaker. Is it coming back to the families in Piccadilly who are going to see their light bill double and the amount they pay for electricity go up? Are they going to see any benefit from this? No, they are not.

The government has said: If we can sell the other 40 per cent of the power, well then we will sell it. If we have to sell it for a lot less, we will sell it for a lot less. What we will do is that money will go back to Nalcor and it will be up to the governments of the day how they spend that money. We are not making any commitment to the people of this Province that we are going to bring in revenues on this deal and we are going to invest it back to offset the cost of your electricity. Oh, no, we are not going to make that commitment because Nalcor has to earn a profit. Emera, a private company in Nova Scotia, has to earn a profit, Mr. Speaker. We have to guarantee as a government that Nalcor and Emera Energy earn a profit.

Well, my God, wipe the tears from my eyes I say to the members opposite – wipe the tears from my eyes. I am going to tell you I will not cry if Emera Energy and Nalcor Energy do not make a huge profit on the backs of the people of this Province. That will not make me cry, Mr. Speaker. What will, I say to the members opposite, is the poor families in this Province who are living on middle incomes and low incomes, who are right now meeting their mortgage payments and their car payments, who are right now trying to meet all their monthly bills, put some money away to send their kids off to university. What is going to hurt is when their bill is double so that Emera corporation and Nalcor earn the profits that you want to guarantee to them. That is where it is going to be painful, Mr. Speaker.

Any member in this House of Assembly who thinks that that is okay, how can you be representing your constituents if you think that is okay? How can you possibly be representing your constituents? Why are you not saying to the Premier: Wake up, Premier? Wake up, Premier, and any money that you make on this deal, make sure it goes back to subsidize the power for the people that selected me and sent me here. Why are you all not doing that? Why are you sitting back and pounding desks every time the Minister of Finance says we have to guarantee Nalcor a profit, we have to guarantee Emera corporation a profit, or the Premier says it, or the Minister of Finance says we are going to make $500 million, Nalcor will make $500 million a year in profit?

First of all, no one out there, Minister, can figure out where your $500 million profit is coming from, by the way. Nobody can figure that out. We have asked you in the House of Assembly, you have not explained it. Mr. Speaker, he is saying that $500 million a year in profit will go to Nalcor. Well, why should Nalcor corporation collect $500 million a year from the pockets of people in this Province, through electricity bills, and not give something back to subsidize that cost?

AN HON. MEMBER: They are giving it back.

MS JONES: They are not giving it back, and that is the problem. They are not giving it back. The family in Trepassey is going to pay whatever the double rate is going to be on their light bill, and they are not getting anything back. It is all right for you to say we are going to leave it to governments of the day if they want to spend it in schools or they want to spend it in roads. That is fine, Mr. Speaker, but the government of the day is spending it in having parties that they do not even have, organizing them. The government of the day is spending it to give out contracts untendered in this Province – $500 million in contracts they have given out untendered. The government of the day is spending it to buy equity in oil companies, running the risk that we will pay a huge price at the end of the day if anything should go wrong in the environment. The government of the day, Mr. Speaker, is spending the money to drill holes in the ground and buy shares in companies that are turning up absolutely no results. That is the problem, Minister, with saying we are going to leave it up to the governments of the day. Well, you are the government today and you have the opportunity here to lessen the burden, to lessen the financial burden that will be placed on the people of this Province as a result of the Muskrat Falls Project, and you are refusing to do it.

You have done a sweet deal for Emera - a sweet deal. A private corporation out of Nova Scotia is now moving in and making claim to 29 per cent of our transmission capacity in this Province. We were always a public utility, we were always owned by the people, and now we are going to be owned by a company out of Nova Scotia. I heard the Premier say last week: Oh, they are moving to Newfoundland and Labrador now, they are setting up an office. Does that make it right? Does that make it right that you would give them 29 per cent of the shares in our transmission capacity? Giving away a public resource that has always been owned by the people of this Province. Now, that is shameful and that will be the legacy of the government opposite.

Do you think that the Upper Churchill was a mess? Wait until this hits people in the face in this Province. Wait until it hits them, Mr. Speaker, right between the two eyes when they have to start paying all this money out for electricity and they know that the debt in the Province has gone up by $4.2 billion and that there is a private company in Nova Scotia earning a profit off their back. Wait until they understand all of that.

People are confused right now because of all of the spin that the government has put out there. They are confused by things when the government says: Oh, we already know there is going to be a demand, but we cannot show you the numbers. We cannot tell you where that demand for power is coming from. Well, you know, why not? Why not tell us? If you know, why not tell us, why do you want to hide it? Why do you want to hide it?

When they talk about industrial power, they talk all around it. No commitment for power, no commitment on price. Mr. Speaker, you can tell anybody that you are going to give them something but if it is no good to them, what is the point? It is no good to say we are going to give industrial power to Labrador if they need it, if nobody there can afford it. So, these are some of things that are going on.

Today, we pointed out in the House of Assembly that the government has two power contracts already in place: one with New Brunswick and one with Quebec. The one with New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker, is the recall power that for the last ten years or more we have been recalling and selling back to Quebec into the Quebec grid and selling it to Hydro-Quebec. Two years ago, that changed and the government decided to go with a power sale agreement with New Brunswick. There is no problem with that. They are still transporting the power through Quebec to get it into New Brunswick. They are still paying a fee, Mr. Speaker, to get that power there. Guess what they are doing? They are selling that recall power today for four cents a kilowatt hour. They are selling it for four cents a kilowatt hour to New Brunswick. I do not know what is there, probably about 150, 170 megawatts of power, maybe closer to 200. I know they recalled about 300 megawatts. IOC uses maybe about seventy megawatts. I am not sure how much other power of it is being used in Labrador right now.

Mr. Speaker, they would rather take that power and sell it to New Brunswick for four cents a kilowatt hour than to develop transmission capacity through Labrador to give cheap power to other residents of Labrador. We have Goose Bay up there being run on diesel generation. A big town the size of Goose Bay and we have power being sold to New Brunswick out of Churchill Falls, right on their doorstep just down the road, Mr. Speaker. If the trees were not in the way, you could see it. Right from Happy Valley-Goose Bay, you could look out and see it. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they do not have enough hydro power to run the town in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. That power in Churchill Falls is being sold for four cents a kilowatt hour to New Brunswick.

Now, there is something wrong with that. There is something wrong with a government who thinks that is okay, that is an acceptable way for us to do business. Why is there no plan to bring some of that power to Goose Bay so that they can have cheap hydro power and generate enough to run their town? What is wrong with bringing transmission capacity from Goose Bay to the North Coast or to the South Coast? You want to talk about green energy; there is your green energy project. Commit to do green energy on the North and South Coast of Labrador instead of the dirty diesel plants that you have in every single community up and down that coast. Why don't you bring back the power that you are selling to New Brunswick today for four cents a kilowatt out of Churchill Falls and start using it to develop in our own Province? It is cheap power; why aren't we using it? Why aren't we giving it to our own residents? Why are we selling it for dirt cheap to other provinces so they can develop their province, they can develop business, and they can develop opportunities? What are we stuck with? We are stuck with diesel generated plants right up and down the North and South Coast of Labrador and no commitment from the government, no vision on behalf of the government to even address the problem. That is what we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker.

We are dealing with one of the largest towns in Labrador, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, living next to the Churchill Falls River, living right on the doorstep of this project and they cannot get enough power to run their town. Something is fundamentally wrong, Mr. Speaker, with a government who thinks that is acceptable. Then they get up and preach about this is the lowest cost energy that we can give to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The funny thing is, Mr. Speaker, we have low-cost energy in this Province today and we are giving it to someone else dirt cheap.

Let's look at the Menihek project. I know Menihek is not a very big hydro development project but it is still hydro power, it is still cheap power, it is still costs relatively pennies to develop, Mr. Speaker, to be able to provide that power. Right now, today, we are selling the power on the Menihek hydro station to three communities in Quebec. We are selling that power to those Quebec communities, Mr. Speaker, for three cents a kilowatt hour. What a great deal. What a great deal for small communities that are right on the Labrador border, from Quebec. What a sweetheart of a deal it is for Hydro Quebec and the government to be able to give them our power, our clean energy for three cents a kilowatt hour. Here I have businesses in my own district on the Coast of Labrador paying twenty cents a kilowatt hour to keep a garage door open so they can do lube and oil, and change the tires on someone's car because they are always punctured travelling over a gravel road.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what is happening. We are selling power to three communities across the border in Labrador for three cents a kilowatt hour. Hydro Quebec is tacking on a couple of cents. They are selling it to them for five or six cents and they are making a profit. Here we are not enough power, Mr. Speaker, in Goose Bay to run a town. No hydro power for the Coast of Labrador, the North and South Coast. Commercial businesses out there are paying up to twenty cents a kilowatt hour for power in Labrador and you fellows sit down and tap your desk because you can sell power to Quebec for three cents a kilowatt hour. You can sell power to New Brunswick for four cents a kilowatt hour and you think it is great because you can do a project to bring power to people on the Island for 14.5 cents. For God sake, shake your head. Shake your head I say to the members opposite, shake your head. Get the cobwebs out and make room for some sense because I am going to tell you right now, anyone out there in the Province sitting down today realizing that we have cheap, clean power in this Province and we are going to sell that cheap, clean power to someone else dirt cheap, for pennies, and at the same time we are going develop a mega project and we are going to sell the power to our own people at one of the largest, most expensive cost of power that we have ever seen in our history. More expensive, Mr. Speaker, than power that you are going to find anywhere else in the country, I would say today. I do not know if there is anywhere in the country today where power is 14.5 cents to produce.

Remember, that is production. That is not what you are going to pay from the wire that comes to your house, I can tell you that. From the wire that comes to the meter on your house, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day you are probably going to pay about twenty cents a kilowatt hour for your power; 14.5 cents is only your base rate. We know Newfoundland Light and Power is one of the groups that will have to put a profit on that as well before they sell it to the customers in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, where is the sweetheart deal for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Where is the sweetheart deal for us? We are going to pay double the cost for electricity, Mr. Speaker. We are going to take on a debt of over $4 billion that we are going to have to pay for through the next number of generations. We are going to make sure Emera Energy gets a profit because they are going to put a bit of money into Newfoundland and Labrador. We are going to give them the shop. We are going to give them the shop, Mr. Speaker. We are going to give them ownership in our transmission line. We are going to let them make all kinds of profit on us. We are going to guarantee that they get a return on their money. We are looking after them. We are going to make sure Nalcor gets a profit.

The only people in all of this who are not being looked after are ratepayers. The only people in all of this are the ratepayers. The government likes to say the rates are going to go up anyway as if they have a crystal ball, Mr. Speaker, as if they can see where the rates are going to be in thirty years from now. Well, if you are a good government and you are good at governing, you will make sure the rates do not soar and that the people are not going to be gouged. You will make sure that you have low-cost energy in this Province.

The government likes to say: Oh, well, our rates are going to go up anyway. Well, Mr. Speaker, there might be ten people going to jump off a cliff, but I am not jumping off of it. I am not jumping off of it, I can tell you that. So, to say that our rates are going to go up anyway if nothing changes, if we stay right where we are, is a non-starter. It is non-argument.

First of all, you have to prove it, which you have failed to do. There is no information out there to support it. The minister and the government talks about how rates have went up 6 per cent on an average each year. Anybody in this Province, Mr. Speaker, can pick up their electricity bill – anybody. I have talked to dozens of them. I have sat down at kitchen tables with families in this Province and said: Pull out your light bills. Let's have a look. Do you know what they will tell you? If you average out what the increases are in their light bills, it is an average of 2 per cent a year for the past six years. It is not 6 per cent a year. It is not 36 per cent over six years, Mr. Speaker, and nothing like it – nothing that even remotely resembles it, I say to the members opposite.

You do not have to take my word for it. Just take the word of anyone in your constituency. Walk into any house. If you are out in your district, Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, you go down to Hampden. You say to that family in Hampden, you show me your light bills for the last six years and you see if their electricity bill went up 36 per cent. You see if their light bill increased $100 or a couple hundred dollars in the last six years. It has not happened. It did not happen in this Province, Mr. Speaker. It has not happened.

The average increase has been about 2.2 per cent on every light bill in this Province over the course of the last six years. Government wants people to think that way because it substantiates their argument that it is going to increase another 36 per cent in the next six years. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not buy into that argument. To me, even if the rates are going to increase, it is no justification for you saddling me with the highest rates in our history because you want to do a project that is going to guarantee profit for everybody else, but not for me and not for the people of this Province. That is where the problem is, Mr. Speaker – that is where the problem is.

So we have said to the government: You do not want to give us all this information, you like to talk about it is going up anyway, but we will not give you the information, the demand is there, but we will not give you the information. You like to say all that. We know they are selling power to everyone else at a fraction of the cost, dirt cheap power going everywhere else while we are paying high prices. So we have said: Why not have the Auditor General look at it? Oh, no, no, no, we cannot have the Auditor General look at it; we have had two independent audits. Well, put those independent audits out there. Why are you hiding them? Why do you want it all to be a secret? Why does it have to be a big secret? Do you know something? If the Upper Churchill had been debated and the information had been put out there, maybe there would not have been an Upper Churchill deal signed as we know it today. Maybe it could have been changed. Maybe it could have been a better deal for the people of the Province.

That is like Muskrat Falls. If the government is so convinced that this is a great deal, a deal that gouges ratepayers is a great deal, why not put it to the Auditor General? Why not have the Auditor General do a full review of this project? Why do you just want to bring in two auditors from outside and hide the reports and not show them to anyone and not tell anyone what is in them? Why not have a public process and have the Auditor General do a full review of the deal? Oh no, that is not on, Mr. Speaker, because too much information might get out there then. Too much information might be known then.

So, why not go to a full review of the Public Utilities Board? Why not do that? Yes, the legislation was changed a few years ago, and the legislation says today that the government may and it is up to the government of the day what they want to do. There is nothing in legislation in this Province that stops this entire deal from going through a full review by the Public Utilities Board. The only thing that is stopping it is you: the government and the Premier herself. Because again, let's keep it all secret. Do not put the information out there; do not let people know what is going on.

Why not go through a full review of the Public Utilities Board? Why not do the hearings? Why not put all the information out there? Why not have a full evaluation by others as to whether this is a good deal or whether it is not? Why keep stuff secretly from people? Why hide it? Why do you want to do that? The Premier said: Well, if we go through a full review of the Public Utilities Board, that is going to take a full year. Whoop-de-do, I say, Mr. Speaker, a full year. Yes, we are going to borrow $4.2 billion, Mr. Speaker. Put your head around the numbers. We are going to put $4.2 billion in debt on the shoulders of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for years to come, but we cannot take a year to review this? Whoop-de-do, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I am telling you right now, if the government was serious about this, if they did not want to hide the information from the people of the Province, if they were open and transparent they would be saying to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today: listen, we want to be able to put this to a full review. We want the blessing of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to do this deal and we want to make sure it is the right deal for you. In order to make sure it is the right deal for you, we are going to have the Auditor General look at this, and we are going to put it through a full review of the Public Utilities Board.

No, no, those things are not on. They are not on because, Mr. Speaker, the Premier does not have a year to waste on a big deal that is going to cost the taxpayers of this Province billions of dollars. She does not have a year to throw away on this. Well maybe if we had taken a year on the Upper Churchill we would have had a lot more return from it today than what we do have. I think that there is a lesson there for the government opposite and for the Premier as well.

Mr. Speaker, why not put this project through a full review? Why not look at all of the costs? I am concerned about the cost here. You look at the construction costs, and construction costs have increased in this Province substantially over the last three or four years. The government is projecting construction costs on Muskrat Falls at a cheaper rate than it was three years ago. There is something wrong with those numbers. We know that construction costs are going up. We know that by 2017 and 2016 it is going to go up again. We know that construction costs today are much higher than they were three years ago. So why is it that the government is projecting that the construction cost is going to be at 2008 and 2009 levels and not at the levels that we are currently seeing? Those things need to be examined, Mr. Speaker.

We need to look at what the interest rates are going to be and how that is going to contribute to the project. If the interest rates are higher, will that mean that our rates are going to go up even more? That is something that the government is not saying. What if the construction cost goes over? We have seen and read studies that tell us that every mega project in the world has construction cost overruns. Construction cost overruns of 30 per cent and 40 per cent in some cases. What if the Muskrat Falls project is going to end up costing at the end of the day 30 per cent or 40 per cent more than what you are originally projecting? Who pays for all of that?

I think a year is fair to review the context of this project, to look at what the impact is going to be on the people of this Province and, Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair that the government would look at it and would do that.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately they are not prepared to do that right now. What they are prepared to do is continue to do deals on cheap power that we have in the Labrador portion of the Province, to sell that power to New Brunswick, to sell that power to Quebec and to do it, Mr. Speaker, at three and four cents a kilowatt hour while they look at bringing power to us at fourteen and a half cents at a base rate. We do not think that is acceptable.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the government has not been very proactive on is with regard to the boundary issue between Quebec and Labrador. This is very important and maybe many members here do not think it is all that important because like I said on the mining stuff in Western Labrador when you are out of sight you are out of mind. Mr. Speaker, it is an important issue, the boundary issue, and Quebec continues to take in regions of the southern regions of Labrador on all of their mapping and all of the publications and all of the work that they do without even a word from the government opposite.

To me it is disrespectful that they continue to do it. Now either the Premier or the government has absolutely no clout and no respect at all inside of the Quebec government or they are not pushing the issue. I do not know which it is but I think we need to clarify those boundaries and we need to ensure that they stop using them because the headlands for a lot of those rivers in Quebec are actually in Labrador. It is actually in the areas that they are taking in. So are a lot of the mineral resources that we are developing now and one of these days there is going to be an issue.

I think the issue needs to be on the record today by the government saying and dismissing, Mr. Speaker, that boundary, dismissing it and talking to the Quebec government about it. Not like the government is doing, not like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is doing: ignoring it, thinking it is insignificant, it does not mean anything.

One of these days, Mr. Speaker, we could have some real problems on our hands. We will have all of these cases where Quebec has used this boundary with no disclaimer from the Newfoundland and Labrador government because you guys do not think it is an important issue and that the mapping needs to be detailed. That is exactly what you are saying, that it is a non-issue. They do not even take it seriously, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what the Quebec government is doing in the North is going to be of some benefit to Labrador, but at the same time there are other things they are doing that is going to see a lot of resources taken out of Labrador. For example, under the Quebec plan to spend $80 billion over the next twenty-five years, in the first five years of that plan they are going to complete Route 138, which is the road that runs from Blanc-Sablon down the Lower North Shore and into Quebec, the City of Montreal. They are going to finish Route 389, which is the route, Mr. Speaker, that connects into the Labrador West area. They are going to finish those two roads.

Mr. Speaker, that will be a tremendous boost to Labrador. It will be a tremendous boost to this Province because it is going to open up access for all of us in this Province, Mr. Speaker, to drive directly into Central Canada at a much faster rate and a more direct rate than we are seeing today. Guess what the problem is? We have dirt roads everywhere, Mr. Speaker. We have dirt roads all over Southern Labrador. We have no commitment from the government to pave those roads. We have no vision from the government to pave those roads.

We started those roads in 1997. In 1997, Mr. Speaker, we started those roads in Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): Order, please!

MS JONES: We started those roads in Labrador, building the highway right up through. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, in 2011 and we still cannot get a commitment from the government to pave that section of the road. Mr. Speaker, how can you build an area –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: I know, Mr. Speaker, I am hitting a nerve on the other side. The truth is best to be spoken here. So, Mr. Speaker, I will continue.

Mr. Speaker, what we have in Labrador since 1997 – and very thankful for it too, by the way – is we have built gravel roads right through a large part of the Big Land of Labrador. Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about bringing road connections. In five years we will be driving right from our own Province, where we are now on the mainland of our Province, right into Central Canada. Why should we have to wait for that to happen? Why can't we have a commitment from the government that these roads are going to be paved, that there is going to be resurfacing of the Labrador Straits highway, that there is going to be pavement along the South Coast? Why can't the government see the big picture, the big opportunities that are going to be afforded to the people of the Province? Why can't they see this, Mr. Speaker, as an investment?

The Minister of Tourism is out today saying we are going to consider a proposal to put money into a professional hockey league in St. John's, in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, can you believe that? They are going to consider a proposal now to fund a professional hockey team. Why are they not going to make a commitment to pave the sections of road in Labrador that is going to be the road connection into Central Canada? Why are they not prepared to get with the times, use some common sense, have a vision for what is going to happen up there and see what the rate of return is going to be? It is going to be a tremendous rate of return, I say to the Minister of Tourism.

The Minister of Tourism might want to consider putting money into the hockey league, but, Mr. Speaker, he might want to consider putting money in to paving those roads so that we get a link into Central Canada where we can really see tourism opportunity booming in this Province. That is what he needs to do. The government does not talk about that. They do not want to talk about it because they do not understand it. They do not have knowledge, Mr. Speaker, of how the area works up there, of what drives the communities, of what the opportunity is in that region of the Province and that is why they do not talk about it.

One time, Mr. Speaker, their former Premier went up the Northern Peninsula. He drove down the Northern Peninsula, he looked across and he seen the lights in the Labrador Straits. He said: My God, that is the Labrador Straits over there; that is Labrador over there. We are going to look at putting a fixed link across the Strait of Belle Isle. Mr. Speaker, what was it? Just lip service to the people of the Province. They went home, the election was over, they spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars to do a study, and they came back and said: Oh, no, it is going to cost too much money. Well face reality, face reality because the long-term transportation network in this Province is going to be a fixed link, whether you buy into it, whether you support it or not, it is going to happen and it will happen, and I will tell you that it will happen.

Mr. Speaker, it will not be done to the demise of anybody in this Province, it will be done to enhance our opportunities as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. When we can have people come across the Gulf of St. Lawrence and into Port aux Basques and have them go up through and cross the fixed link and go out through Labrador. We are giving people the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to come in and out of our Province from a couple of different angles. That is what is going to build business. That is what is going to build opportunity. Just like they did in PEI, and it has had wonders in that Province, it has contributed a lot to their economy.

Mr. Speaker, members opposite think it is all a joke because they cannot put their head around the fact that we are a Province that needs to build our transportation capacity in the Northern region in order to see real substantial growth in the future. That means, Mr. Speaker, securing our Marine Atlantic services and making them affordable to people and making them dependable. It means building a fixed link across the Strait of Belle Isle. It means paving the roads through Labrador so we have that direct road into central Canada. That is the big picture, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would not be able to begin to put his head around it. That is the challenge that we have as people when we do not have a government that sees the big picture and the big opportunity that is out there.

Mr. Speaker, today I asked some questions in the House of Assembly on the Senate. The Premier was a little bit taken back; she did not want to tell the people of the Province her position on the Senate. She is going to talk to the Prime Minister, but no, she cannot tell the people of the Province on whether the Senate should be elected or whether it should not. Now, come on, give me a break. This is an issue that has been out there in the country for six years. This is an issue that every parliamentarian, I am sure, have thought about and made a decision on what side of it you want to be on, but the Premier, obviously, has not. Either that or she does not want to share it with people. She seems to think is it a non-issue. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not a non-issue, it is a real issue.

It is happening in the country today. Last week we saw the Prime Minister come into this Province and reappoint a candidate who lost in the federal election, who actually resigned from the Senate by the way to run in a federal election. Now, why anybody would do that in the first place is far beyond me, but anyway he did resign from the Senate. He went out, he ran in the federal election that he has lost now twice in fact, and then the Prime Minister reappoints him right back into the Senate. It is a great gig, I suppose, if you can get it.

Mr. Speaker, how should you be getting those Senate seats today in the Province? I think it is important to have this debate because already Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia have passed laws saying that they will have elected senators in their Province. The Prime Minister is on record, Prime Minister Harper, as saying any province that chooses to elect their senators we will stand by what their decision is. So any province who elects their senators, we will take the elected senators, we will honour that. That is what the Prime Minister has said.

Alberta has already elected two senators. We have a Senate seat that has just been vacated in Labrador by Senator Rompkey. Mr. Speaker, I should mention and say a few words about Senator Rompkey. Not to get off topic, but he served the people of Labrador with tremendous respect and dignity over the years. He is a fine gentleman. He has probably been in and out of almost every home in every community right throughout Labrador. He has a wonderful rapport with the people of that area and he was a champion of many issues, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to recognize him for his contribution to the people of Labrador, to the people of this Province for his service as a Member of Parliament and as a senator. Mr. Speaker, I am certainly honoured to have worked with him during my political career on behalf of the people of Labrador and work with him on very important issues.

Mr. Speaker, he has now taken his leave from the Senate so that leaves a Senate seat that is open. Why can't we follow what Alberta is doing, what Saskatchewan is doing? Why can't we elect a senator in this Province? Why can't we elect our first senator in this Province? We can do it but it means the government has to support it. We do have to pass a law to allow it to happen. We can, Mr. Speaker, have our first senator elected in Newfoundland and Labrador this fall, right in conjunction with the provincial election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: No problem, Mr. Speaker; if the Member for Lake Melville wants to run for the Senate seat, by all means, Mr. Speaker. By all means; that is democracy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: That is democracy. That is why I am saying we should open it up. We should do what other provinces in the country are now doing. They are electing their senators and they are sending them to Ottawa. The Prime Minister has said we will accept them. So why are we not looking at it in Newfoundland and Labrador? The timing is perfect, Mr. Speaker. We have an election in the fall. In the fall election when we are passing out the ballot boxes for MHAs in the Province, why not have people elect their senator as well?

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Combined Councils of Labrador passed a resolution at their AGM back in February. Basically, what they said is that they would like to see the next senator in Labrador elected. That was a motion by the Combined Councils of Labrador. That was passed unanimously at their AGM back in February. So, Mr. Speaker, they are already there. They knew the position was going to become vacant and they knew there was going to be a seat coming up.

Mr. Speaker, it is an open process. I know members opposite are saying: Well, what about this one running and what about that one running? Well, there are a lot of good people who could run right across our Province – a lot of very fine people. Many of them probably served here at one time or another. Many of them, Mr. Speaker, have served in other capacities in our Province. There are lots of very fine people out there who would, I am sure, put themselves forward to represent this Province in the Upper Chambers of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker.

That was one of the issues I raised today. I also raised the issue around the Public Tender Act. Mr. Speaker, this is a government that likes to say they are open, they are transparent, and they are accountable. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? In the last few years, this government has exempted nearly 7,500 contracts from the Public Tender Act – not fifty contracts for goods and services. No, Mr. Speaker, not 100 contracts, not 500 contracts, not 5,000 contracts, but 7,500 contracts, totalling over $500 million this government signed and put out the door without going through the public tendering process. This is all money that they passed out on behalf of the people without going to public tender, without ensuring it was the lowest bid, without having a full competition around it, without being open and accountable and transparent. It was not a couple of contracts; we are talking about 7,500 contracts. We are not talking about a couple of million dollars; we are talking about $500 million of work that this government handed out to people in the Province without going to public tender. Then, Mr. Speaker, they say they are open and they are accountable. Well, honest to God, in January of 2004 to December of 2004, they exempted 560 contracts from the Public Tender Act, totalling about $34 million. In 2009, because that is the last full year of data that I have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is pleasure today to get up and have a few words on Concurrence in the Resource Committee. Mr. Speaker, I know it has been said before, but I would like to just read off some of the departments that the Resource Committee was sitting with.

The Resource Committee looked after the Estimates for the following departments: Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Department of Natural Resources, including the Forestry and Agrifoods sector; Department of Environment and Conservation; Department of Business; Department of INTRD, including the NLRDC, Status of Women, and the Rural Secretariat, and of course, the Francophone Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, the members on our committee, which I was a member of: our Chair was the Member for Lewisporte; other members: the Member for Labrador West; the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island; the Member for Topsail; the Member for The Straits & White Bay North; the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the Member for Burgeo & La Poile, who was the vice-chair; the Member for Port de Grave; and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting when we sat with the different departments, and of course, the Opposition asked a lot of questions, and we referred to the book that we always do in Budget time when we meet with different departments. It is called the Estimates book, where we take each department and go down through all the spending of that department for the last year, and again the Estimates for the following year.

Mr. Speaker, there are some things in it that are very interesting to look at and, of course, it is something a lot of the public do not know. We have one page here that explains where the money comes from. It is not very long, but I will read out some of the lines here where the money of the Province comes from, where we get the money to spend in our programs and running the Province.

In offshore royalties, this year it is estimated to be $2.269 billion. Compare that to other lines, like personal income tax, with $862 million. Compare it to sales tax, $872,782,000. Gas tax, which is a bit surprising, that I thought would be more, will be estimated this year for $173,345,000. I figured that would be higher. One just below that, which is no surprise I guess, the Liquor Corporation in the Province will take in $138 million this year, is what is estimated. Our tobacco tax, not far behind that, is $135 million.

Mr. Speaker, some of the other things that we noticed in our Estimates, and probably is a little bit of a surprise too, our corporate income tax is estimated this year for $505,720,000 for the coming year. I figured that might be a bit higher, but that is good, and it is good compared to other years. We have done very well. Other sources in the Province, too, Mr. Speaker, little bits here and there that the Province takes in comes to $779,852,000. The total provincial dollars that will come into the Province in the coming year is estimated to be $5.736 billion. Of course, we have to include our equalization and other federal sources of funding that is given to the Province every year. That will come to $6.877 billion. That is a fair bit of money to come into the Province, and we have to be fiscally responsible to make sure that we expend this money in the proper areas, the proper ways, to keep this Province viable and sustainable. The money is not easy to come by, so we are very lucky and fortunate to have all these monies coming in, especially from our royalties.

Another page in this book, too, Mr. Speaker, shows where the money goes, and this is really interesting. A lot of people in the Province do not really know and probably do not understand where all the money goes. Education is estimated for this year with $1.230 billion. Compared to last year, we spent $1.145 billion. That is a lot of money to put into education, but it is money well spent in our different departments.

Now the surprise, too, this year we are showing an estimate in our health care of $2.3309 billion. That is an increase of almost $200 million this year over last year. That is certainly money well spent by this government. This government has been very responsible in making sure the health care needs of the Province are attended to and we get the best health care that we can.

Mr. Speaker, we do have to pay so much money on our debt charges, and cost of doing business and our financial expenses. That is a big cost. This year it is estimated to be $386 million. That is a lot of money that we could be spending on a lot of different things in the Province but we do have to pay our bills and we have to meet our obligations when it comes to the Province borrowing money.

Other items on the line of expenditures: social welfare, $804 million, a fairly significant amount of money. Other areas in the expenditures, of course, dealing with other departments, such as trade and industry and tourism departments, $273 million expenditure estimated for this year coming. The Legislature is estimated to spend – that is general government and the Legislature – is estimated to spend $433,402,000; a significant amount of money. Then, other departments dealing with the protection of persons and property, and departments that are involved in that kind of thing, this year are estimated to spend $291 million. Transportation and communications, still a significant amount of money, $290 million to be spent in that area. Then, of course, in the other area of labour, employment, and immigration, is almost $200 million spent in that area this year. Then there are other expenditures that some of the departments, it is mixed amongst all of the departments, and that expenditure comes to $171 million. A total of $6.4 billion, and that is where the Estimates say the money is going to go in the 2011-2012 Budget.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having said that in that part of my little few words I want to say on it, we have to zero in on some of the areas where government is spending money. The areas that is probably important to all the Members of the House of Assembly, and very important to the Province, in areas when it comes to children and seniors and the needs of the people of the Province. This year, on child care, the government decided to do a two-year project focused on development of child care, and this is in spaces in family homes. In the highlights, this includes from $2,500 to $5,000 to become regulated family child care providers. That is a very important move of the Province. The government is certainly concerned in this area, and even in the infant start-up grants of $7,500 for homes that care exclusively for children up to the age of two. It is a very important project, very important expenditure for this Province, and very important for the people of the Province. We do also have a stimulus grant to infant care homes of $200 a month per infant space. That is very important in this Province, particularly in areas of single parents and infants who need to be taken care of. This year, in the 2011 taxation year, another project is the new non-refundable child care tax credit. This is based on child care expenses currently deducted from income.

Mr. Speaker, then we stand strong on education in our expenditures this year that government put so much money into education - the amount I just alluded to - a total of $4.8 million over three years, including the initial commitment of $1.3 million to move forward with a range of initiatives in the Early Childhood Learning Strategy. Learning from the Start is the program that we are putting this money in.

An investment of approximately $11 million under the 21st Century Learning Strategy to provide additional computers and interactive whiteboards for schools; of course, my colleague from Lewisporte alluded to it and had information and facts on a school in his district, and he read off what it was doing for that school. It certainly is a great project and it is one that schools really take advantage of and look forward to doing it. The member next to me, my colleague, is certainly excited about that in his district, from the schools that he has been talking to.

An additional investment this year of $6.4 million to maintain tuition fees at Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic for the year 2011-2012.

AN HON. MEMBER: The lowest in the country.

MR. HUNTER: As my colleague just said, it is the lowest in the country. It certainly attracts a lot of people from outside of our Province. If you go around the city and go into some of the restaurants and some of the businesses around the city, and if you talk to some of the younger people who work at these businesses, they will tell you that they here in Newfoundland attending Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic and they figure it is probably the best educational facility in Canada. Certainly because of the tuitions, they are certainly agreeable with students when they want to come here, and of our own students in the Province. We deal directly with a lot of our student constituents and help them through different things: student loans and problems that they are having attending university here in the city. We get a lot of feedback from our youth and our students to congratulate this government for the fine work that we are doing for our students in post-secondary. That does not go unnoticed by the youth sector in this Province.

As I was saying, the post-secondary investment is certainly a great thing for people to recognize. This year, in the coming year, we are going to spend $19.8 million in new funding for Memorial University for maintenance projects, and a total of $36 million through to 2014; a significant amount of money to invest in our post-secondary education. Also, $7.7 million over the next two years for laboratory upgrades, a total of $13.5 million since 2009. That is a lot of money that we are investing in our infrastructure and facilities for educational purposes.

Post-secondary is very important to us, we educate our young people and then put them in the workforce. I hope they stay in our Province, and of course, we need our educated young people in this Province to work in our oil fields, work in our forestry, and work in different environmental careers, educational careers, and engineering careers. We have so many different areas that we need to train our youth and have them work in our Province in these areas. That is what is going to help us survive: an educated public, an educated people in our future who will do a great job in keeping our economy going, keeping our rural Newfoundland areas going, investing in rural Newfoundland. A lot of them live in rural Newfoundland. Today, we commute a lot from small, rural areas into bigger. That is a pretty common occurrence outside the city, people commuting back and forth. You can tell the difference in a lot of our small towns.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot things that I want to say about our investment in the Province by this government. This government is doing such a great job in investing in poverty reduction. This year, we are going to spend $140 million, a cumulative investment of more than $620 million since 2006, a very significant amount of money for poverty reduction. We are seeing some benefits and we are seeing a lot of things happening. A lot of people still complain, but if we did not do it, how bad would it be. So, we are moving forward in the poverty reduction.

This year, we are going to allow $1.5 million to develop an Adult Dental Health Care Program; something that was very badly needed and something that we figured was a good investment for this government to put into. Another program this year of expanding the Housing Corporation's Rent Supplement Program from $6 million in 2010-2011 to $7 million in 2011-2012, and $8 million for the following year, so another great investment by this government. Also, $1 million over the next two years in the Positive Actions for Student Success, which for short is called PASS. It is a program which currently supports over 250 disengaged or at-risk young people across the Province so they can stay in school. It is certainly one that I agree with, and is a great part of the government's Budget process. Also, an additional $225,000 for the Housing Corporation's Education Incentive Program which is another great program that this government has invested in.

Mr. Speaker, we invest in a lot of things with safety in the Province. We have been standing strong on safety for our residents of the Province. This year, we allowed an extra $9.2 million for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, that is for a new total investment of $33 million just in two years. Initiatives to keep families safe from violence also include $360,000 to increase safety and security at ten transition houses. It is another great investment by this government. Also, $100,000 to increase the capacity of ten Regional Coordinating Committees for violence prevention activities, certainly a great investment again by this government.

An additional $10,000 to enable the Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault Crisis and Prevention Centre to expand services province-wide; a great initiative by the government, and one thing that we welcome, Mr. Speaker. We have an additional $46,000 in the Province's eight Status of Women Councils to help women access services and programs related to social issues, including safety as well as economic well-being. Mr. Speaker, $529,000 for the continuation of the Specialized Family Violence Court in St. John's. Funding for an additional crime analyst associated with the RCMP to be located in the Trinity-Conception district. All monies well spent in the protection of our people in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many issues I would like to talk about, and there is not really enough time to get in all the issues, but just go back in history. I just want to bring back a few facts that probably people did not know, I know my colleague from Grand Falls-Buchans certainly knows, living in Grand Falls-Windsor. She can remember as well as I can –

MS SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: I probably look old and I probably am old, but go back before we had the Bay d'Espoir hydro project, a lot of naysayers and a lot of people were saying that the electricity back in that day was for the rich. That was so untrue.

I remember back when I was a young fellow, a lot of places in Grand Falls-Windsor did not have electricity when I was a very little boy. The paper mill provided power to the town and it was a fifty cycle power that was provided by the paper company through their own generation facilities. When the Bay d'Espoir power project came on in the mid to late 1960s a lot of people were afraid that they would never afford electricity, the price was going to be so high. There had to be power lines built from Bay d'Espoir to Central Newfoundland. It was so far from the truth. People were burning oil, coal and wood and the ones who could afford to have electricity had it just for lights only. Of course, after the diesel generation and the hydro generation of the mill, believe it or not, I think there was a diesel generator in Grand Falls-Windsor before the town was passed over to become a separate incorporated community. I remember that. I think it was in 1963 when the Town of Grand Falls became separate from the company; it was no longer a company town. Newfoundland Power provided power to that part of town and the Windsor part of town, which was incorporated many years before, in 1938 I think it was.

Then when we got hydro power from Bay d'Espoir, people were saying, well we cannot afford to burn any more electricity, but after a while they got used to a light bill coming in. Then they started to buy refrigerators, electric stoves and electric hot water tanks. Of course, we had all of this excess power coming out of Bay d'Espoir that we needed to sell. If the power rate was high at the time for that power, the company had a product they wanted to sell. I remember it well, because at that time when the power company said: Look, if you buy our power we will give you a special rate for electric heat, just for electric heat only, because oil at that time was cheap and coal was cheap. They encouraged people to get a grant from the power company to go out and put in another meter, another panel, and they put in electric heaters throughout their houses. That extra meter was billed on a separate bill. Then their heating costs became very, very low, even cheaper than oil and coal, and in some cases wood, when people had to buy their wood.

At that time people started getting used to electricity. We seen all across the Island, people were buying into electricity. Many communities outside of rural Newfoundland wanted to get in on the power. Some developed their own power. We had a lot of generator stations. One comes to mind in Heart's Delight, I think they had their own generator station. Norris Arm built a generator station. Then after a few years we had all of these small generator stations –

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

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

MR. HUNTER: A minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. HUNTER: All these communities went from kerosene lamps –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Green bay South, by leave.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They came from kerosene lamps, wood stoves, and oil stoves to electricity. I remember well, when I was a boy going out to the smaller communities with my parents out around the coastal areas, people were so delighted to have electricity. They were confined to their houses because they had to be there to use the wood stoves and they had to be there to keep the lights on and everything. Now, with electricity they had more freedom. The cost did not seem to be a big factor and it was pretty cheap. I think back then it was less than two cents a kilowatt hour, which was cheap, compared to our standard today.

The governments of the day came on to see that there was more and more use of electricity. The transmission lines that we built back then were not big enough anymore. Power houses that we had, we had to add on to. We added on a lot of different power houses. We added the one in Cat Arm. Cat Arm is not a big power plant but a fairly significant one. Then a few years ago we added Granite Lake and we added Star Lake, Hinds Lake. There are a lot of small generator plants.

Even after doing that, Mr. Speaker, this government has recognized the fact that this is not good enough anymore for our future. Everything is electric now. You have all these appliances, all these TVs, kitchen appliances, electric heat and water, everything is electric. We have to make sure that our future – and this is a trend that is going for many, many years. We cannot continue on a trend of escalating power costs year after year. We need to be stable. We need to be constant on our power prices in the next twenty, thirty, forty years.

In the last fifty years we went from small diesel generators in areas, even like Grand Falls-Windsor and some of the bigger towns, to a full-fledged electric power systems and power grids. Even today, that is not big enough. We have to increase the size of that and we have to be prepared for the next fifty years. If we do it right, we need to do it now. Doing it now means, yes, there is a high initial cost to doing it, but if we do not do it, how much is the cost going to be in twenty years?

Look at what the cost of doing Bay d'Espoir would be today if we had not done it back in the 1960s. We would be doing the Bay d'Espoir hydro project today at probably ten times the cost of what it was back then. That was a fairly big project. I had the experience of going down there with my brother when I was a young boy. I was working on a truck delivering, and many trips I made to the Upper Salmon and down to some of the lakes that were backed up for the watershed. I was amazed at the size of the project that it was.

Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is a must. We must do it now. We cannot wait. It must – must - be done.

Mr. Speaker, at that, thanks for the time to have a few words.

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 very pleased to be standing this afternoon and being able to speak to the Concurrence debate on the Resource Committee. We have concluded quite a piece of work over the last few weeks dealing with the Budget and getting the opportunity in Estimates to ask questions of ministers and their key people with regard to the Budget and the work done by the various departments.

I always find the Estimates time a very, very interesting time because it is one of the times when I think we most do what I think we should be doing in Legislature, and that is sitting and speaking together, talking together and pulling ideas apart, Mr. Speaker. So standing this afternoon I want to give my reflections based on my study of the Budget to date, the study of the section that the Resources Committee covers, and the study of what has been said and what I see presented in the Budget, Mr. Speaker.

The Resource Committee, of course, is very interesting. The key thing it deals with, and the part that I am most going to concentrate on, Mr. Speaker, are the natural resources in our Province and how they get treated in the Budget. It is interesting to note, and we have to because of the size of our natural resources, that the departments we deal with – one of course, Fisheries and Aquaculture, is a department unto itself because fisheries and aquaculture are so important in our Province and historically have been so important.

Then we have the department called Natural Resources, and that is the department that deals with forest management, agrifoods, mineral resources, and energy resources. I almost feel like we should call one Fisheries and Aquaculture and the other natural resources, because fisheries of course is a natural resource as well.

As we went through the Budget process, Mr. Speaker, and went through the Estimates, one of the things that concern me is the way in which this government has shown, through the Budget, where their priorities are in this Province when it comes to the development of our natural resources. When I look at the budget line for Fisheries and Aquaculture, we see a total of $44,698,300 going towards Fisheries and Aquaculture. Of that, Mr. Speaker, the total that is being spent on Fisheries Development - there are different names for it when we say the fishery, some call it the capture fishery, another one is the wild fishery, some say the traditional fishery, but we mean the fishery that is involved in going out in the North Atlantic and taking fish from the North Atlantic. We see $11,842,200 going towards that fishery, Mr. Speaker. We see $11,624,600 going towards Aquaculture. Then, Mr. Speaker, we go over to the other natural resources, we go over to Forest Management where we have $50.4 million. We go to Agrifoods where we have $30.3 million and then we go to Energy Resources and Industrial Benefits Management and we see $379.2 million.

The message, to me, is that the fishery and especially our natural fishery, or the capture fishery, whichever term you want to use for it –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - is pretty far down on the totem pole for this government when it comes to priorities, Mr. Speaker.

I understand why we have to be looking at energy issues. I have no doubt that we have to look at energy issues, but when I see $379 million down for energy with $348 million of that going to Nalcor, and I see only $11.8 million going to our capture fishery or our wild fishery, then I say this government really does not understand the nature of sustainable development. We have to be looking at the renewable resources in this Province. We have to be looking at agrifoods. We have to be looking at agriculture. We have to be looking at our forestry. We have to be looking in a new creative way at the renewable resources in this Province, which we are not doing. If we were, we would be putting real money into these areas, Mr. Speaker.

Twenty years ago, Mr. Speaker, the Northern cod fishery had to be shut down in this Province. Twenty years later, we are no closer to being able to reopen that fishery than we were twenty years ago. If we do not start putting real money into the research that is needed around that fishery, if we do not start looking at why things have not moved ahead in that fishery, if we do not start wondering what is going on, then we are losing an opportunity that we will never regain. Because if we do not start putting resources into looking at what is going on in the fishery, then we are going to be in the same place in twenty years time.

Now, I have heard people on the government side of the House talk about how important Muskrat Falls is and how important it is that we put all of this money into energy, but for the same reason if we are not putting money into the fishery - which is a renewal resource - then we are getting nowhere. We are going to be where we are in twenty years time as where we are now, Mr. Speaker.

When I look at the fishery - let's look at the fishery and look at how the money is being spent, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the difference between the money going into aquaculture and the money going into the wild fishery.

Mr. Speaker, we have, in aquaculture, when you look at the money that is going in and you look at the benefits from it, in 2010 there were 684 people employed in aquaculture in this Province, but that production value of aquaculture was $116.3 million out of a total fishery production value of $942 million. The money that we are putting into aquaculture in some areas equals and goes beyond what we are putting into the capture fishery.

In the capture fishery, Mr. Speaker, we have 21,142 people in harvesting and processing, but we do not see in this Budget that this government understands the importance of that fishery. We do not see in this Budget that this government understands the future of that fishery and what they basically are saying is that they do not have confidence in that fishery, and that is the part that is very disturbing for the thousands of people who are working in that industry. People who are working in the aquaculture see all kinds of confidence from this government in aquaculture, but people working in the wild fishery or the capture fishery do not.

This government is letting down the traditions of this Province and it is letting down the people of this Province and it is ignoring the tremendous resource that we still have in the waters around this Island, in particular, and around the Coast of Labrador. This government has to make a commitment - and they have not done it, they have not done it in this Budget - that they are going to sit down with the federal government and really make something happen. Mr. Speaker, there is a move in my own party, on the federal level, to look at an inquiry into the fishery and why the fishery is not working here in Newfoundland and Labrador as it could be working. I think that is the kind of thing that does have to happen, a serious inquiry with all people together to see why things are not working in this Province in the fishery the way it should be working.

That is one of the big issues, Mr. Speaker, there are more than that. What else are we talking about? I only have twenty minutes, so I have to touch on a number of issues. What else, Mr. Speaker, are we talking about when we are talking about the natural resource sector and how this government is ignoring the breadths of possibilities that are there for our natural resource sector?

Energy, as I said, if you look at the Budget and you look where the government's mouth is, where their money is, that is when you find out what they really believe in. The almost $380 million that is going into energy says that is where they really are putting their energies because you put your money where your mouth is, and that is what they are doing. When we look at that, Mr. Speaker, I become very concerned and so do people in this Province. Because first of all government, even though they did an Energy Plan in 2007 and that Energy Plan had all kinds of nice visionary things in it - it had no concrete plans but it had visionary statements, no plans, no timelines - and in that they talked about developing wind energy and other renewable energy, what they are showing is that all they believe in is big hydro projects, and Muskrat Falls is the proof of that.

What is disturbing, Mr. Speaker, is that they call Muskrat Falls green energy. In actual fact, it is renewable energy but being renewable does not necessarily mean that it is green. Renewable energy relies on fuel sources that restore themselves over short periods of time and do not diminish. It is true that hydro is a renewable energy, but when it comes to being green the US Environmental Protection Agency does not consider large hydro projects like Muskrat Falls green. They know they are renewable, but they do not consider them green. One is because of the emissions that are given off because of the decomposition of vegetative matter.

If a large amount of vegetation is growing along the riverbed when a dam is built, it can decay in the lake and you get methane gas. That is a major thing that is produced when dams are built, Mr. Speaker. That is not green. Dams can affect the flow of waters, can cause erosion along the riverbed, can cause flooding altering ecosystems and affecting the fish, wildlife and people who depend on the waters. That aspect is not green, Mr. Speaker, and that is why the US Environmental Protection Agency does not consider it green.

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, about Muskrat Falls is that it is very hard right now to talk about the viability of Muskrat Falls because we need more information. What I am waiting for, Mr. Speaker, and I know what a lot of people are waiting for is the report from the environmental assessment panel who was studying Muskrat Falls. Because one of the things an environmental assessment panel has to do, Mr. Speaker, is to weigh the benefits against the costs. They have to determine whether or not the benefits of a project will outweigh the costs of a project. They make recommendations where they have concerns; they make recommendations about how there can be things put in place to make sure the benefits outweigh the costs. Some of the benefits, they look at the natural environment when they look at the costs that happen, what kind of destruction happens and can that be outweighed, can that be remediated. They look at the impact on people and the impact on communities. What is the cost of that, and can there be things put in place to make sure the benefits outweigh the costs? This is what the panel has to do and they have to have a lot of wisdom, Mr. Speaker.

Usually, what a panel will say is here are our recommendations and if you follow our recommendations then we believe this project could go ahead. That if these recommendations are put in place, we can assure you that maybe - we think anyway, nobody can be sure - the benefits could outweigh the costs. Any panel has to go through that, and I am sure the Muskrat Falls panel has to do the same thing, Mr. Speaker. What is going to be the challenge for the government is whether or not it will follow the recommendations of the panel.

I sat on the Voisey's Bay Environmental Assessment Panel. We had a whole list of recommendations, well over 100, and we said all of these need to be in place. Our number one recommendation has to be put in place first, and we do not think anything else should go ahead until the number one recommendation goes ahead. What we said at that time was that until land claims were settled between both the Inuit and the Innu, then nothing else should be done. Now we all know the government did not pay attention to that recommendation. Then we had a whole slew of recommendations based on that.

I believe the government should have gone in the direction that our panel said they should have gone with Voisey's Bay, Mr. Speaker. Then we may not have had some of the things that have gone on lately in this Province, for example, the relationship between the workers and Vale Inco. We are going to have to wait, and I am going to have to wait, until I see what this panel says and what recommendations they make with regard to Muskrat Falls.

If, Mr. Speaker, they say they do not think the benefits outweigh the costs, there is going to be a real challenge to this government. If they have a lot of recommendations they put out that say these things must be done in order for the benefits to outweigh the costs, then there is going to be a great responsibility on the shoulder of this government, Mr. Speaker. Right now, just looking from the outside, I do not like what I am seeing with regard to the cost of this project and what the benefits will be for the people of this Province. That has to be proven to us, Mr. Speaker.

This is one of the areas in which this government is putting so much energy, hundreds of millions of dollars of investment going into this, while we see something like our fishery with just a pittance of money going into it. We cannot even get this government, Mr. Speaker, to agree to have a marketing arm for our fishery. While they believe so much in marketing, they market the Province, they market our tourism, they put money into tourism and culture for marketing, but they do not understand or they do not seem to understand that they have to put money into the marketing arm for our fishery as well, Mr. Speaker.

Then we look, Mr. Speaker, at agriculture. We have a whole area where I see this government not being creative. We need to develop our agriculture so that we have food security here in this Province. There is a lot of research going on that shows we could have food security here in this Province. We could lessen, to a tremendous degree, the number of exports that are coming into this Province. We need the agrifoods strategy that is being put together to include investments to expand local agriculture. We need investments going in so we can reduce imports. We also need to export more niche products, Mr. Speaker.

I heard an interesting thing on the radio today, and I am sure some of the people in the House heard it, too. One of the entrepreneurs in our Province, the Rodrigues Winery, and the plan they have to use wind power to generate energy for greenhouses so they can start producing food, Mr. Speaker, not just grapes for their winery, which maybe they are going to do, I do not know.

Mr. Rodrigues was talking more about producing vegetables and fruit that, during the winter, come in from places like California which do not have to. That you could actually, using wind energy, use greenhouses and produce our own food here. Then, of course, we have our root crop which we all know, we have our livestock possibilities, that people are out there wanting to increase in this Province. We have a very strong group of people involved in agriculture, but we do not see this government taking it seriously and putting as much money there as they could be putting. No, because the bulk of the money is going into energy.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we have our forestry. Again, our forestry is a forgotten part of our natural resources by this government when it comes to being creative, when it comes to looking at what could be done differently than what we are doing now. There is somebody out in BC, who is actually an MP from BC, who made the statement that trees grow back, but once a mine or an oil and gas project is finished, communities are again left without jobs, without economic stimulus. Mr. Speaker, we need to be looking at our forestry to see how it can become sustainable. We need more sustainable wood harvesting and we need an effective silviculture program, which is not just replanting trees that are going to be taken down and replaced over and over again, just a single focused culture. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is real creativity. We need to look at other forest products besides pulpwood. We need to become creative.

We see a $4.2 million investment in large sawmills - and I hope that the $4.2 million that is going into sawmills will help us produce more wood products for our own needs. We need wood, not just being used to be burned but we need the wood in our forests to be used to be producing products, and this is where we do not have the creativity, Mr. Speaker. Whether it is in our agriculture, whether it is in our wood products, our forestry, whether it is in our fishery, we have to get into secondary processing.

The wonderful thing about here is that we can do greater industry without destroying our environment. We can have industries that are clean. We can have industries developed, our secondary processing for example, that will be built on our natural resources, built on our renewable resources and also be done with a minor amount of destruction to the environment. We have the possibility and the potential for greater industrial growth but without destroying our environment.

If I can clue up, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the resources and where this government is putting its money and where this government is putting its focus, it does not have a long-term vision. They say they do, they say they have a long-term vision, but it is only with regard to the energy. They are not seeing that you cannot say we are going to do this and in twenty years time then we can look at the fishery. We have already had twenty years of nothing; we have to start dealing with everything at the same time, Mr. Speaker.

Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker. I am very disappointed in the lack of the vision of the government with regard to our renewable resources, and I hope that they will pay attention to some of the points that I have made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The motion is that the Report of the Resource Committee be concurred in.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

On motion, Report of Resource Estimates Committee, carried.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that we break now until 7:00 this evening to continue with our debate.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we would like to continue, from the Order Paper, with Order 2, Concurrence Motions, and I would like to call 2.(a) Social Services Committee.

The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise this evening and speak in the Concurrence debate, Social Services Committee. The Estimates that we went through over the past couple of weeks, and an opportunity through the budgetary process to go through the whole Estimates for the departments, look at last year's Actuals, and then the Estimates for the upcoming fiscal year 2011-2012. Certainly, questions asked in terms of government, and where we are moving in terms of the Budget, and how that rolls into our public policy initiatives and how we move forward over the next fiscal year. An interesting debate and questions in Estimates – we covered the Department of Municipal Affairs, Child, Youth and Family Services, Health and Community Services, Education, Justice, and Human Resources, Labour and Employment, Mr. Speaker.

All of those Estimates relate to the overall Budget that was just brought down by our government, Budget 2011, Standing Strong: For Prosperity. For Our Future. It is a reflection on what we have done to date, since coming to power, and we look forward, not only for this year, but future years. As we know, choices and decisions we make today certainly affect things in our Province in years to come, and it is important that we are cognizant of that. The decisions we make now, we make them for today, no doubt, to help things and our citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador for today, but we also look at the repercussions of those decisions, and that they are the best for the future as well, which is so important.

The Budget is all about creating opportunities, Mr. Speaker, for all of our citizens, as I said. There are initiatives here dealing with tax relief, health care, families and children – I will speak to that as I go through – infrastructure, innovation, and a key component is social programming. As this government has shown, it has a social conscience, and is progressive in terms of whether it is taxation or social programming. It has demonstrated that in the past, and this budget again demonstrates it as well.

Having said that, social programming is a balance between being fiscally responsible in terms of keeping our eye on where we are financially and certainly balancing that with our social programming and how we do that. We invest to encourage economic growth in the economy. Innovation is important and the entrepreneurial spirit. We certainly try to create the environment for entrepreneurs and the business community to strive and drive the economy.

On the other side as well, through revenues government collects, we provide the social programs we need to help our citizens in their daily lives. Certainly at times that is a challenge, but we do that within our fiscal means. I know that we have made tremendous investments in the past. This Budget again looks to that and continues to make those types of investments. I am certainly proud to be part of a government that does that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the outlook for Newfoundland and Labrador as we look forward, there are indicators we use in terms of how we are doing and how the economy is doing. What the economic indicators are, we look at things like Gross Domestic Product, the growth of 3 per cent, indicates how we are doing and how we are projected to in the coming year. We look at employment growth, approximately 3 per cent being predicted. Again, an unemployment decrease of 0.6 per cent is an indication the economy is moving forward and doing well.

We look at things like personal and disposable income growth, again an indicator of the economy and how it is doing. People have the ability to spend which drives the economy. We are looking at 5.5 per cent and 5.4 per cent respectively in those two areas, Mr. Speaker.

Again, another big indicator is the growth in retail sales. We are predicting 4.2 per cent for 2011, an indication of a growth in confidence in terms of the economy. People see what the government is doing and recognize the economy is moving forward and it is buoyant. On that basis, people are at ease to spend. They certainly recognize that and their spending in the economy is so important.

Another indicator is capital investment. Do people want to invest here? What type of infrastructure has been put in? This is significant in terms of what is happening and what is predicted for this coming year: an increase of almost 27 per cent in capital investments to almost $8.3 billion. That is a huge amount of investment and certainly, again, drives the economy and allows us to move forward as a Province. Again this year we are seeing mineral shipments bouncing back, increased 27 per cent to $4.8 billion.

An important part of our economy is certainly our tourism industry and we are seeing increases again predicted for 2011. Record levels we have invested in terms of marketing and our tourism industry over the past number of years. The marketing side has paid huge dividends in terms of what we have seen in visits to Newfoundland and Labrador and return visits. I know my area, Mr. Speaker, is significant in terms of tourism attraction. What we get along the Southern Avalon and down the Southern Shore in terms of the ecological reserve: Bay Bulls and Witless Bay. Certainly see the Colony of Avalon in Ferryland which at any particular time you are looking at over 22,000 people in terms of tourism traffic in that area. You are looking at Mistaken Point further down and Cape Race, all of those areas. You are looking at UNESCO designations with Mistaken Point and what that would mean for the area. All of that is about bringing people here. They are coming to Newfoundland and Labrador, they are enjoying it, they are returning and as a Province we are certainly putting the funds there to market it and to let people know it is there. We are certainly having great success.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk too about a couple of the highlights in terms of the Budget and things as we move forward and that we made a priority in this Budget and certainly see it significant in terms of what we need to do. In terms of the initiatives that were taken, we are looking at things like tax relief measures. We have a new energy rebate and child care credit which will put more than $44 million, annually, back in the hands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and certainly back in the hands of families which is so important.

Approximately $16 million for new initiatives to support families and young children and continue to support the work of the new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services which is certainly a priority for us and was indicated by the creation of that department.

Again, a multi-year infrastructure strategy valued in excess of $5 billion with $1 billion targeted for 2011-2012 to help maintain the economic growth and stimulus. We have seen in the last number of years, we know we have seen the decline a couple of years ago, globally, certainly nationally, in terms of what has happened around the world. Newfoundland, through some of the decisions we have made, we did not see the recession hit us as other provinces in North America saw. We were able to weather the storm, if you will, and come out on the end much better off than most provinces in this country through some of the decisions that we made. Our commitment to stimulus and growth and to continue to make strategic decisions allowed that to continue.

Again, in health care, a record investment of $2.9 billion for improved health care; $8.8 million specifically for improvements in the areas of mental health and additions. Certainly through the department for mental health and addictions, it has become a huge priority of this government and through Health and Community Services there has been an additional investment and certainly seen as a priority in terms of assisting those that need that help and in terms of building that programming infrastructure that is required.

Mr. Speaker, $1.5 million for new and ongoing education initiatives in the K to 12 and post-secondary systems. Education is the key in any society in terms of growth and providing the services for any people, and we have invested heavily right from K to 12 and post-secondary as well over the past number of years.

We have $175 million in Business Development Programs and Services, $140 million to enable new opportunities for those living with low incomes and individuals facing poverty.

Mr. Speaker, this government's Poverty Reduction Strategy has been recognized across this country in terms of our efforts and what we have done. Almost every department in government, if not every one, is touched by the Poverty Reduction Strategy. There are initiatives almost in every one in terms of dealing with it and moving forward with that to make sure as we grow as a society and as our economy grows no one gets left behind. Each and every Newfoundlander and Labradorian sees the success we are having in terms of our economy and we are able to give people a hand up and assist them where they need assistance.

Again, in terms of Labrador, the Northern Strategic Plan, billions of dollars spent in Labrador in terms of the commitment we made to the people of Labrador in terms of the wealth that we generate. A lot of wealth is generated in Labrador itself that has a return back to Labrador to build their infrastructure and their programming which is so deserved as well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, specifically there are some social programs that I want to touch on, in speaking to the Concurrence debate here. One of the major initiatives of the Budget was standing strong on child care. I have spoken before. There was a private member's motion that was introduced and I had the pleasure of introducing that; I had the ability to speak to that. Recognizing that we need to build on that area, our government has committed to, as we have announced, a two year project focused on the development of child care space in family homes. Some of the highlights of that include, Mr. Speaker, start-up grants from $2,500 to $5,000 to become a regulated family child care provider, and infant start-up grants of $7,500 for homes that are exclusively for children up to the age of two. As well, Mr. Speaker, ongoing stimulus grants to infant care home of $200 a month per infant space. We recognize we need to build on that capacity there in terms of child care and certainly through this Budget we have taken on the initiative to do that.

As well, Mr. Speaker, commencing with the taxation year 2011, a new non-refundable child care tax credit based on child care expenses currently deducted from income. Again, another area where we recognized that we need to put money back into families' and parents' hands in terms of allowing them to access that service, that funding to do it and again, a progressive measure in terms of this government and what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier, too, in terms of education. This Budget is standing strong on education, over three years included in initial commitments of $1.3 million to move forward with a range of initiatives of the Early Childhood Learning Strategy, Learning From the Start. So we recognize that youth and children at a young age need access to appropriate learning environments and we are working toward that.

We have spoken on numerous Budgets and again this year in terms of significant investments in terms of physical infrastructure, in terms of the K-12 infrastructure; $94.5 million this year in the Budget to continue to renovate or in some cases build new schools. Redevelopment of Roncalli Elementary in St. John's to name a couple, the extension and renovation of Holy Spirit High in Conception Bay South, a renovation at Gander Academy, the list goes on.

I know in my particular area over the last number of years since I was elected, we did three classrooms on St. Bernard's in Witless Bay. Young families, a growing school, it was a requirement to put on three classrooms; that was almost $1 million. As well this year a renovation to Stella Maris in Trepassey that was needed. The school is there. While the numbers have fallen over the past number of years we recognize that wherever you are to in this Province, wherever in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that you need the right services, the right buildings and if it is required we are going to invest and that is what we did in Trepassey with that investment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as well we have additional investments this year of $6.4 million to maintain a tuition freeze at Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic for the 2011-2012 academic year; a cumulative investment of almost $139 million over seven years. Sometimes you do not really see that or recognize it because it is a freeze as such, but in terms of being competitive, in terms of our post-secondary institutions, that is second to none in this Province, Mr. Speaker. We should be very proud of that, that we have reached out to our young people and made it very competitive in terms of the rates we have in post-secondary, people from outside the Province as well coming here to study, the first rate university, Memorial University, which is recognized for that, Mr. Speaker. Hats off to those at the university for the job they are doing in that.

Mr. Speaker, as well on the apprenticeship side and employment related, with a growing economy in skilled trades and those sorts of things you need to make an investment; you need to make sure you are keeping up with what is required in the labour force. We have made a number of initiatives in that area to make sure that is done. Infrastructure: Memorial and the College of the North Atlantic, that has been put in place and continues to fund those initiatives. As well there are incentives for employers, Mr. Speaker, $15.4 million over three years to provide incentives to hire apprentices especially from underrepresented groups. Again, we are reaching out to everybody to make sure that if there are requirements there for funding, that we reach out and meet those.

As well, $400,000 this year in interim funding to implement the first stages of the Provincial Strategy for the Inclusion of Persons with Disability. Again, identifying any shortfalls that are there in terms of social programming and doing what we can to reach out to build the programs.

Mr. Speaker, all of those initiatives are important to many areas of Newfoundland and Labrador, not only urban, but rural, on the Island and in Labrador. They are comprehensive. They reach out to all sectors of our economy, and that is what we plan to do as a government. All of us serve citizens from all regions of this great Province and hear day to day different issues that come up in terms of policy, in terms of what we need to do, in terms of continuing to grow the Province. At the same time, as I said before, it is a parallel approach. We are also providing the programs that we need for our citizens, no matter where they are, so that they can get access to those programs, wherever they are in the Province – certainly in a reasonable distance – to make sure that wherever they live they can do everything they need to do.

Mr. Speaker, another initiative of the Budget, too, was through the Department of Municipal Affairs, Municipal Operating Grants. I have about twenty-three, twenty-four communities that I represent, rural communities. It is an issue that you hear, in terms of assistance, certainly with what this government brought in a number of years ago in terms of funding ratios, 90-10. We talk about it a lot here but that was strategically – what an investment that was for small communities, in terms of them accessing infrastructure. Before, at 50-50 dollars, a lot of them could not access that but at 90-10 many were able to meet that 10 per cent requirement. What that has done for small, rural communities is amazing. I see it in my area, in terms of small communities like St. Shotts, bigger areas like Trepassey, Portugal Cove South, Bay Bulls, Witless Bay. They can access these funds and build infrastructure. Fire equipment, I see that with a new pumper truck in Ferryland. All of those things allow them access to those funds, which is so important.

With the MOG this year, there were changes made. A 50 per cent increase for those with a thousand or less citizens, a very important initiative. Just as an example in some of my communities. We see the increases in Trepassey, which meant an increase of almost $13,000; other areas, Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove, an increase of over $20,000; Bay Bulls, an increase of over $12,000. This goes to those communities that are run by volunteers out there, elected councils that put in – today, where things are even a little bit more complicated in terms of running a town, the work they do in terms of running the town. This extra funding helps them. It allows them to do the job they need to do. There are many demands on them, but as a government we recognize that we work with them. This again is an initiative that allows that to occur and allows them more funds to provide services to people in their communities. As I said, over the past few years in terms of the funding ratio, which this government brought into being, we are able to build infrastructure and we continue with that program today.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clue up. I just wanted to speak to the whole issue of fiscal accountability. Any government in terms of how you operate, and it is the same thing as operating your home, you operate within a range of your revenues and expenses, and what you bring in. You try and project the future years, what services you need and you pay for those.

We have gone through a process of bringing our debt from $12 billion down to just over $8 billion, to $8.2 billion I think. Within that framework of paying down our debt, we also have historic investments in terms of infrastructure, whether it is hospitals, whether it is schools, whether it is highways, in Labrador, on the Island. You name it, we have invested. We have made that balanced approach based on our commodity markets. We have done well on and off in the various commodity markets, strategic investments in terms of those revenues and what we generate; strategically identifying areas of where we need to go and putting those funds in. Not just for today, Mr. Speaker, when I started, but for years to come, in terms of our energy plan which was announced a few years back, in terms of initiatives we have taken on that side. Those are things that are going to pay off in the long term, Mr. Speaker. It is not just for today, it is for our kids and for our grandchildren.

Looking towards initiatives like Muskrat Falls, initiatives like that, as we look towards 2041 with the Lower Churchill coming back to us, that is the long term. This government looks at today, but we also look at the long term as well. This Budget from a fiscal point of view, from a social program point of view, and from the perspective of being progressive is moving forward in that direction. I applaud our government for the initiatives we are taking. I look forward to further debate in the Estimates, as we move to tonight. I am looking forward to hearing the comments of my colleagues here in the House.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate the opportunity to have a few words with respect to the Concurrence debate. It is amazing how many people actually follow the debates on TV. I had an e-mail during the supper break, someone asked me: What do they mean by Concurrence debates? Well, of course, trying to explain it to someone is not always easy. It is a process for the Budget, just to clarify. Once the Minister of Finance drops his Budget, there are a whole series of committees that break off. We have three of them, and they each take so many departments of government in each of those committees. They have what they call Estimates meetings.

Once the Estimates are concluded, because it was only a committee, of course, those committees all have to report back to the House to see if the whole House of Assembly concurs in what the Estimates Committees have done in the Estimates. Basically it is a concurrence, because a committee, for example, that dealt with the Business department might not have the concurrence of the whole House for some reason. I do not know of any reason why that has ever happened, but that is the process.

Once the Concurrence debates are done, there is three hours for each of the committees. There are three committees: there is the Social Services Committee, we are dealing with now, of course; the Government Services Committee; and the Resource Committee. We did the Resource Committee earlier today and now we are on to the second one. There is usually a time limit of three hours in which to conduct your debate and then a vote takes place on each of those heads of that committee.

We are into the Social Services Committee. It is a pretty broad-ranging debate, because you are talking money here. When you are talking money, of course, you are talking about how it impact people's lives, how it impacts the programs of government, and how much money they have to spend or are willing to spend. Is the government money being spent properly, for example? People have different opinions on that. I may think a certain government initiative is great because it does certain things. Other people may think: No, that is not the priority and the money should be funnelled or spent somewhere else. I guess you are always going to have that, and it is government's role, of course, to try to find that balance as to how they spend the money that they do have. Albeit, the government members of course will always concur with everything that government does because they are not allowed to agree and will never agree, the Opposition, of course, point out sometimes these things that government does that are not so earth-shattering, that are not always as upfront as the government would have you believe. That is the role of an Opposition, is to say it is not all sugar coated as the government members would make you believe. There are some loopholes sometimes, there are some traps. They put spin on things and they are not doing things as they profess to be doing them or, in some cases, how they committed to do them. That is always the case. I will get into that a bit later.

There have been many, many instances where this government has committed to do stuff and have not done it. Now, most people would call that breaking one's promise. No doubt, this government has broken its promise on several occasions; for example, the whistle-blower legislation. I just use that as an example. There was an incident where they were going to bring in legislation so that anybody in government, who found something wrong and wanted to report it, could report it without fear of action being taken against them. It is to protect the employee. Because there may be somebody in the department who is doing something that could even be criminal and they feel they have an obligation to report it, but today what happens quite often, if you report something you have no protection and if it reflects badly or poorly upon government you are just likely to find yourself out in the cold without your job. Now this government committed to bring in that legislation four years ago, and for every year since then when the media have asked and the Opposition have asked, they always say: we are not ready for it. They have always had excuses.

That is the same reason, for example, they committed to be open and transparent, but anybody who has followed the news in the last number of years in this Province has seen, this government is anything but open and transparent. In fact, this is the most secretive government we have had in our Province since we joined Canada in 1949, absolutely. You would not know sometimes but you were behind the Iron Curtain. I am sure you could live in the communist Country of China and get easier access to information than this government allows to be written about, talked about, and discussed. You need only ask any MHA in Opposition; you need only ask any media source in this Province about the roadblocks that government puts in ones way when he or she tries to get access to some information under the Freedom of Information Act. It is absolutely amazing! You talk about going through the steeplechase in a horse steeple, it is unreal. This government creates roadblocks beyond belief.

Anyway, back to the Estimates again. It is funny, because the Estimates are supposed to be an opportunity where anybody who sits on the committee - and the committee is made up of government members and Opposition members. They usually last three hours and anybody can ask a question. Sometimes you grill a minister if you want a piece of information and you feel that he or she has not given it to you or they are not being upfront or there is more information you want. That is the purpose of Estimates. You can get into more in-depth discussions and debates even, more so than in the House, for example, in Question Period.

To give you an example of how little government members want to know. I have sat on three Estimates Committees here in the last four years covering all departments and I have yet, in all of those years, I have not heard a government member ask one single question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I take that back, because the Member for Kilbride asked one question about three years ago when I was there. Now, it was a very mundane question, but other than that. Can you imagine that we have expended hours and hours of estimates and government members have not asked one single question?

Some people out in the public watching that would say: well, they must have blinders on. Surely they must have a question about something in this big, massive document here called the Budget. There must be at least one question out of $8 billion being spent that they might have a question about. No sir, Mr. Speaker, not the one. Not one question do they have about their district or anything else. Now some have said puppets. I say no, no, I do not know about puppets. Maybe they have questions but are afraid to ask them, I do not know, but it would certainly be impressive if their constituents knew they were concerned enough that they actually participated in the process and asked questions about it. They never asked a question, but then again, that is not unusual because government members will not bring in a petition.

You can have a problem in your district if you are represented by a government member, but if you want to bring it to the attention of the House of Assembly by way of a petition, kiss it goodbye. You have zero chance. They are not allowed to get up and petition their own government. There is absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker, that is improper about that. In fact, it is part of the democratic process, but the government members of course do not see it that way.

Just a couple of points; the Estimates are important, they should be televised. Government members should participate and they do not, but of course we get an opportunity here in front of the cameras to have a few words as well.

Speaking of district stuff and what members should do. Of course, I believe the first and foremost obligation of an MHA is to look after your district and your constituents, and that can range from anything. It could be any kind of problem, and it does not necessarily have to be provincial. I get calls for CPP, Employment Insurance issues. You name it and we get it. You have to be a bit of a psychologist, a lawyer, a psychiatrist, a politician. You have to be it all if you are going to deal with all the issues that exist in your district fairly and properly. You have to do appeals for people, for example, take them through the government maze when it comes to the red tape, how to get through the government red tape and so on. Because people need answers, and quite often they just cannot easily access it themselves and therefore they need some assistance getting through it.

Mr. Speaker, there are other issues as well that you get to deal with and there are some good things you get to partake in. For example, on Friday past I had the opportunity to be in Isle aux Morts with my good friend Raymond LeFrense, who is the Mayor of Isle aux Morts, the council and the town clerk, Lydia Francis, and we opened a new town hall. Now, here we are with a community of about 1,100 people, they had a town hall that was attached to their fire hall, and, as you can imagine, when the fire department were doing their job, the fumes from the fire trucks would often go into the town hall, and that would lead to a nauseous-type atmosphere for the Town Clerk to work in, and the other staff. So, we had to get it changed. So, someone, who is no longer a resident of Isle aux Morts, was kind enough to donate the land across the street. He said: It is my former town, I still love my town, and I know you need a town hall. So, he donated the land; that was the first step. Then, over a period of four years, we applied for different grants, different projects, used Community Enhancement Programs, and on Friday, past, opened a little facility. It is not a big facility; maybe about twenty-four by twenty-four, but it serves the community needs. It is up to date, it is totally wired for the communications of today, and the town deserves it, the town needed it.

They were so driven and committed to what they knew they wanted. They were not impatient, they did not ask for it today and expect it tomorrow, and over a period of four years, we accomplished that. It is only through councils like that who volunteer their time, and town staff who are dedicated, that you can take those steps. Now, of course, we still have a ways to go, because now we have to do some work on what was the former town hall-fire department, to turn that into a fully functional fire hall, because it was not big enough to start with in the first place. At least now we have the premises left to work with. So that was a great opportunity to take part in that.

Now, there are all kinds of issues, of course, that keep coming up and we only get twenty minutes in this debate to comment on them so I will not get an opportunity to discuss it all. There is Muskrat Falls I would like to talk about – a hot and heavy topic. There are lots of problems with it. Government will tell you it is a great thing, they do not tell you it is going to double your light bill, but it will. The people who are watching these proceedings on TV, of course, they know. When the fall comes, you are going to get a red guy, you are going get a blue person, and you are going to get an orange person - the NDP, the PCs, and the Liberals - knocking on your door. One of those persons, if you elect them, is going to double your light bill. It is as simple as that, they are going to vote to double your light bill. So it is pretty simple to those out in rural Newfoundland. Who are you going to vote for? Are you going to vote for the person who is going to double your light bill, or are you going to vote for the person who says no, no, there has to be a better way, we do not take our resources and give them away to Nova Scotia; we do not give our resources to Emera?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: This is a government, Mr. Speaker, who talked about no more giveaways. Can you imagine, no more giveaways, this government says?

The Leader of the Official Opposition pointed out today we are going to have three new mines in Western Labrador. Guess what, folks? All of that is going to be taken out of the ground, put on trains, and shipped to Quebec. No insistence upon processing, none of that in there, ship it out to Quebec somewhere and let other people process it. In contrast, look at what happened on Voisey's, it was insisted upon when the Voisey's Bay deal was done, you must build a smelter here in this Province. You just cannot take it and ship if off to Ontario or Sudbury or Thompson, Manitoba and process it. We want a smelter. Now, they had some fuss about where we going to put it, you cannot tie us down to this place or that place. We said: Okay, fine, that is not a problem, but you are going to build a smelter here. Do not tell us you are going to build it in Nova Scotia and do not tell us you are going to ship it all to Thompson, Manitoba. Now, that was a difference in philosophy of how governments operated. This government is going to allow these three new mines to ship everything out of the Province - no more giveaways - whereas the former Administration did not do that.

They will have you believe one thing but when you go back and check the facts historically you see that something quite differently happened. They will also have you believe, of course, that the coffers or the pots in our Province are full of money today because of things that they did as a government. Folks, they did not do Voisey's. They did not do Hibernia. They did not do White Rose. They did not do Terra Nova. They did not do any of those things. That was done by a former Administration before this group became government. They did not do any of that. They tried to do some things. They are going to put an expansion on Hibernia. They are going to extend upon White Rose, no doubt about it. They are going to do Hebron, no doubt about it, but none of that stuff is done right now or being done in some cases. Some of it has started, some of it has not.

Now, that is factual. That is as factual as you can get. So, the money that this government right now are spending is not money that they created for you. It is not money they created. It is money that former governments created and they have the ability right now, because the price of oil is gone through the roof and because the price of minerals are doing quite well, this money is pouring into the coffers and this crowd get to sit back and decide how they are going to spend it. They will take credit for actually putting it in the pot.

Now, there is quite a difference, Mr. Speaker. If I were to say to you here is a pot of money, you go off and spend it, as opposed to you create a pot of money. This government did not create the pot of money, they will have you believe that they did, Mr. Speaker, but they did no such thing.

Another issue I notice was in the media today, and it is relevant because it is going to come back to this government too, and that is about the hockey issue. I heard about the AHL franchise. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is going to take a look at it, do not know what they need, a travel subsidy or whatever. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador - I am sure there are some people who are not hockey fans. This person happens to be a huge hockey fan, into several pools, involved with the Mariners of (inaudible) that won the Herder Cup here in Newfoundland, kids who were involved throughout – not a question about it; do not question my hockey interest.

Mr. Speaker, if you are going to find anybody outside of the City of St. John's who is going to support for one moment that this government is going to take the taxes of the people of this Province and even consider putting them into an AHL hockey franchise. To think that a government would even consider such is absolutely imponderable, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about tax dollars, money that this Province has to look after what is in the best interests of the people of this Province. Now, surely they are not going to foist this off and say: Well, we cannot make a decision right now on such a proposal when it comes to government because that is not going to fly before the election. We cannot be seen touching that before the election because there are going to be a lot of people who might oppose that, so we will put that off until October.

Mr. Speaker, if that is what is in the wanderings, in the minds of the government, surely they should come clean long before the election and tell the people where they stand on any such proposal. God forbid that they say: No, no, we are not going to look at it, we are going to put it off - like they put off a lot of stuff right now until after the election - and then we will deal with it after the election. That is called posturing, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what that is, that is electoral posturing. Do not make a decision now that might impact us negatively in the fall. Let's hide the piece about the double light bills, let's hide the piece about any request for hockey teams.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question about it, we have our moose issues. We have lots of issues and we have lots of moose issues, but we do not need to make the Manitoba Moose one of our issues I will guarantee you that. We have a lot of moose in rural Newfoundland –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I see them every weekend when I travel home, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I have seen enough moose for my lifetime on our highways, but I certainly do not want to see a moose issue when it comes to the Manitoba AHL when it comes to spending the people's tax dollars. I am going to have some fun down in La Poile and down in Rose Blanche and Burnt Islands when I am going to knock on the doors and say: By the way, there is a proposal before government. They are wondering if we should put some of your money into the moose. They said: How many are you going to kill? I said: No, no, they are not talking about killing them; they are talking about bringing in a hockey team. Would you believe the kind of reception I am going to get in Burnt Islands, Rose Blanche, and Isle aux Morts? I will get my butt kicked from one end of town to the other, Mr. Speaker. I will be kicked from end of the district to the other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: To imagine, I have people who need dialysis. I have people who need long-term care. I have people who need housing. I have people who need jobs. I have people who need help and this government would even consider spending their taxpaying dollars on a hockey team. Now, that is so far-fetched it is unbelievable.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have any worries about seeing anything about the hockey proposal between now and October. It is a great thing if they did; I am looking forward to it. There is only one thing they can do, they have to say hands down or I will tell you there is going to be some music and some moose they are going to have to face from rural Newfoundland on such an issue - no question about it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will get a chance to speak again later. I had a whole pile of notes here but the moose distracted me. It distracted me to think that our Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation could even contemplate such a thing - normally, a very sensible fellow - who would even think about doing such a thing. I will be back later on and I have a few other arrows in my quiver that I would like to discuss from that point of view. Mr. Speaker, I shall return when my time is due.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to rise this evening as well. I had a whole speech that I was going to give to but the members gave me lots of fodder to get into over the next twenty minutes and I am going to take advantage of some of it.

Before I do I just want to, first of all, as other members have done, thank you for the opportunity to stand today. As a number of members have talked about, Estimates provides a time in this House when we come together. We have a committee that has an opportunity to meet with the minister and officials of the department and ask questions. The member opposite is absolutely right, they get a change to ask questions about pretty well anything they want, anything in the department, anything in the Estimates book, anything. It is a great process, Mr. Speaker, because sometimes you get to dive through issues in Estimates that you would not normally in Question Period in the House of Assembly.

I have to say it was very interesting. The member opposite made a comment I thought was very interesting about the activity, from his perception, of government members on the Estimates Committee. Let me speak from my perspective, Mr. Speaker, because there are two members from the Opposition party who sit on my Estimates Committee and one member did not ask one single question, Mr. Speaker. In my Estimates Committee a few days ago, one Liberal member of that committee asked not one single question. That is the kind of interest that the Opposition party has in what is going on in the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, one of the biggest social departments in this government – one of the biggest social departments.

We deal with people who are down and out, hard on their luck, those who are on Income Support, and persons with disabilities. We deal with the Poverty Reduction Strategy. We deal with the Housing Corporation, Mr. Speaker, all kinds of issues. Can you believe that two members of the Liberal Party sit on that Estimates Committee and one person sat through almost three hours and asked not one question – not one question? Those are the members who want to be the government in this Province, Mr. Speaker. The members of that party want to be the government in this Province, yet they did not have enough interest in persons with disabilities, for example, to ask one question. Now, I say to my colleagues: Are we surprised?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KING: Less than two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I stood in this House and I heard members opposite tell us if they were governing they would not be consulting in this Province. They do not want to hear about poverty in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. KING: No, Sir. They will sit right here in this House; they will sit here and they will govern from this building on the West Block. They are not interested in going to the Coast of Labrador to hear what people have to say.

We talked at length about the new policy we are going to try to bring forward with the Provincial Advisory Council for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities. We went across the Province into every nook and cranny that we possibly could, and we sought feedback from everybody we possibly could. The Leader of the Opposition stood up and chastised me, as minister, because I allowed my officials to go and ask for input from the public. So, should we be surprised that one of the members opposite chose not to ask one single question in Estimates? I say no, Mr. Speaker, but I digress. I want to get back on track for a moment because there are a couple of (inaudible) that I want to talk about, and I will go back. Members made a couple of very interesting points that I want to touch on.

There have been a lot of very good investments over the last number of years. I am very proud, as minister, of a social department to talk a bit about the social progress we have made. Over the last two terms, and in particular the current Budget, we made significant investment, particularly in an issue that is very important to all members of this government, and that is poverty. Mr. Speaker, for the first time, a record-breaking figure this year of more than $140 million this government has invested to fight, combat, alleviate, and assist poverty and those in poverty in this Province – more than $140 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: That is no small feat, Mr. Speaker, because we are talking about some very substantial investments. We are talking about a wide range of things. For example, in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, we are investing in more affordable housing throughout the Province. We are talking about providing further rent supplements; supplementing rent so people can afford to live, Mr. Speaker. We recognize on this side of the House because we consult, we know how hard it is for people when they are in poverty situations to make ends meet, to find homes that are acceptable to them and to put bread on the table. We recognize that because we consult. We do not listen to the members opposite and stay in our seats and do nothing, we consult. We recognize that and that is why the Minister of Finance on Budget day announced more than $140 million investment.

The member opposite talks about getting beat around his district, and he might very well, more than he cares to think about, but I will tell you what I will hear in my district, I will hear a lot of praise when I talk about things like the adult dental plan, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about the adult dental plan and the number of people in this Province will gain from that benefit announced in the Budget, Mr. Speaker.

The number of seniors, in particular, all across the Province, seniors, pensioners, all kinds of people will benefit because it is a good investment. It is an investment in people and it is going to put money back in people's pockets and that is what makes it a good addition to the Poverty Reduction Strategy, Mr. Speaker.

We have taken a lot of good social directions. I want to touch for a moment on a another one that is very significant and, to be frank, I am looking forward to an opportunity when the Premier and I get to talk more about our provincial policy on the status for the inclusion of persons with disabilities. I am really looking forward to that because we did something in this Budget that I do not know if it has been done very often before, but with the support of the Premier we have put in a notional allocation to support that policy and that framework in the absence of any framework whatsoever. That was done because this Premier and this government recognizes that we are going to support a strategy for the inclusion of persons with disabilities and we did not want to wait until the strategy came out, we wanted to demonstrate to people that we are going to support that.

We have a notional figure of, I believe, the Minister of Finance might correct me, but somewhere in the area of $400,000 which will be intended to kick start the initiative, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the day when the Premier and Ms Joanne MacDonald, who is going a wonderful job leading our Provincial Advisory Council, and all of her colleagues have the opportunity to share with the public the results of a strategy that has been developed by consultation, the Tory way, not the Liberal way of sitting in here and writing it ourselves, the consultative way of going across the Province and talking to people and hearing about their concerns. That is what I look forward to.

Let me touch a bit more on the consultations because that is one that really stuck with me, I have to tell you. I have never ever heard a member stand in this House before and say as a politician that you should not consult with people. Let me tell you, one of the things that we learned through the poverty reduction consultation process is that we are doing some things really good. There are things in that strategy that are really effective and people find very beneficial. We are also doing things that are maybe not so good.

One of the benefits of consulting people - particularly people who are affected by poverty and people who stand to gain the most or lose the most depending on the decisions we make relative to that strategy - is that you get to talk to people first-hand and hear what their concerns are. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we found in that consultative process is we found a way to make our strategy better, if that is ever possible I might add, because the strategy has been heralded right across Canada as a model for any Province.

We are going to improve it and we have a document out now sharing with people what we heard in the consultation process and we are going to improve it. The improvements are going to be made because of one thing, Mr. Speaker, because we went out and consulted. We listened to people in the Province, we heard what they had to say, we came back and we reacted and acted based upon the recommendations they provided. That is the importance of consultations, I cannot say that enough. If people's voices are not heard, then you cannot make the appropriate decisions that affect them, Mr. Speaker.

Let me touch on just a couple of other things that I think are very important. Then I want to talk a little bit about some of these impacts on my particular district and on the South Coast part of the Province. I want to pick up on a couple of points that the member opposite made that I think bear repeating really, but maybe with a different slant on it than he placed on it. Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of initiatives that we touched on in the Budget that I want to remind people of because some of these initiatives that have been announced over this Budget or a previous Budget or two but they bear taking the opportunity to remind people.

I want to talk a bit about, for example, free textbooks and the elimination of school fees in education, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk a bit about that because no one recognizes more than families - particularly families who are hard done by or who are on a limited income, Mr. Speaker. No one recognizes more the hardship of having one, two, three, four, five children going to school in September and you are going into August and you are facing peer pressures. You want your children to go back to school, you want them to fit in, and you do not want them to be segregated. You want them to feel like they are the same as everybody else, that they are equals. They are no better, they are no worse. There is nothing worse, Mr. Speaker, as a parent, when you have to look your child in the eye and say that I just cannot do for you what most other kids need. The elimination of the school fees and the provision of free textbooks put money back in the pockets of those parents and it made life better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, let me just take that a step further though, Mr. Speaker –

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: (Inaudible).

MR. KING: That is right, and thank you, Premier, for reminding me. That is every parent in the Province, not a select few. That is every parent, every person sending a child to school benefited from that initiative.

Let me take this a step further, Mr. Speaker, because there is a piece to that announcement that a lot of people do not often think about and it is this: If you are a parent and you are in a situation because of financial woes and financial difficulties and you are trying to deal with your children, you are in stress at home. You have stress at home, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it. I have experienced it through my professional career when I was a teacher. If there is stress at home, parents are not parenting the way they would like to and children are not able to learn the way they ought to. There is more than a monetary gain, Mr. Speaker, by eliminating the school fees and providing free textbooks.

We also made life better at home for parents and their children and that perhaps is worth more than the monetary value of eliminating the fees and providing free textbooks, Mr. Speaker, because we made life better at home for families. That is very important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments - I know my time is on the latter part - and talk about my district for a moment because there is some significant announcements throughout the last Budget that are going to have a tremendous benefit on my district. I want to take a moment and I am going to touch on them this way because I am very, very disappointed to be here today knowing that the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite do not support this. The Member for Burgeo & La Poile talked about moose hunting or some rubbish of sort that he was babbling off about over there, going door to door in his district. Well, here is what I am going to do in my district. Members opposite do not support dialysis in Burin, Mr. Speaker. I was appalled, appalled to hear the Leader of the Opposition stand in her place and say that she do not support dialysis on the Burin Peninsula. I will tell you what, when I go door to door, every single door I knock on will know that. Every single door that I knock on I will be telling them what the Liberals stand for because the member opposite is right, you need to stand in your place sometimes. I will tell you, whoever they send down the Burin Peninsula to run in my seat, they are going to answer for what the members opposite stand for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Here is what they do not stand for, Mr. Speaker, because people need to know. A big issue in my district right now, Mr. Speaker, is roads. I have a road from Point May going through Lamaline that is in terrible condition. It is probably not the worst in the Province I will admit, Mr. Speaker. It has been a challenge for the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transportation after years and years of Liberal neglect to get us back to where we need to be. I admit that. It is a challenge.

People in Point May need to know that this Liberal government does not support doing their road. What they support is tearing the pavement up and going back to cow paths, Mr. Speaker. They need to know that because somebody is going to knock on the door in Point May and say: Will you support me and defeat your local PC candidate? Well, they need to know if I get defeated and they elect someone else, that person is going to tear the road up. They are not going to fix it. This party across the way does not support that, Mr. Speaker.

Guess what else they do not support? Lo and behold, and they are unanimous across the NDP and all, they do not support the elimination of the 8 per cent tax on home heating fuel. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? Anybody in this Province who follows politics over the last two years, who has watched TV or sat in this House, has listened to members opposite talk, shout, moan, and babble at the Minister of Finance about the hardship on families of the 8 per cent fuel tax. So what did we do? We eliminated it. What did members opposite do? They stood in their place and said: I will not support your government taking that tax off fuel. They do not support it, Mr. Speaker.

Now, you tell me: Where do politicians get a bad name? It is when you stand up, you advocate for something, and you are not prepared to stand on your beliefs, Mr. Speaker. I said that last week and I will say it again today because there is a choice that members make. Every single member in this House makes a choice when you stand to speak and you stand to vote. You either accept something and say that the pros outweigh the cons so I can live with it, or you say the cons outweigh the pros and I cannot support it. We do it every single day, Mr. Speaker. Every member in this House does it.

Members opposite have said very clearly they do not support enough measures in this provincial Budget to stand in their place and say it is a good thing for my district so I am going to support it. So forget the fact they do not support dialysis on the Burin Peninsula. They do not support fixing the road from Point May to Lamaline in my district. They do not support municipalities in the Province. In some cases, the Minister of Finance doubled the Municipal Operating Grants. They are going to vote against it. The Member for Burgeo & La Poile ought to tell the people in Port aux Basques when he goes up: I want to get re-elected, but I am not supporting you getting an increase in your operating grant. No, sir, you elect me but I will not be voting for you when that comes across. People need to know that, Mr. Speaker.

We talk about the importance of education, yet again we are going to freeze tuition and we are going to put all kinds of investments in Memorial and College of the North Atlantic, and those members opposite are going to stand in their place and say: Thumbs down, too bad; students in my district do not deserve it and I am not voting for it. Now, can you image, Mr. Speaker, any member representing students in this Province going to stand in this House and say no to that? Can you imagine? Unbelievable!

Well, how about this one? I had to talk about this one, and I ask my colleague, the Minister of Education, for a little leeway because it strays a bit into her territory, but I have to talk about this one. One of the biggest issues we face relative to education, in the last two or three years, is the whole issue of apprenticeship, apprentices needing work, Mr. Speaker. I tried to deal with it when I was the Minister of Education, I am still involved with it with our new minister, and we had the good fortune under our new Premier, this year, to announce $15.4 million to support apprentices in this Province – $15.4 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Now, what does that mean? Well, it means all kinds of things. It means that if you are a new graduate in this Province and you have not been able to get your training, well, we are going to take $15 million and put it where our mouth is, and we are going to say: Your government is here to support you. We announced a little while ago, Mr. Speaker, an offshoot of that, an apprentice hiring subsidy. If you hire a new apprentice in a business in Newfoundland and Labrador, guess how much we are going to give you toward that, Mr. Speaker? It is not 50 per cent, and it is not 70 per cent – 90 per cent. You hire an apprentice and we will pay 90 per cent of the wages for the first year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Ninety per cent of the wages to help some young man or woman coming out of one of the trade schools, looking to get a start in life, looking for a leg up. That is all they want. We are doing our best to help out, we are freezing tuition, now we are going to help them not only freeze the tuition to keep education costs down, now we are going to try to help them into the workforce by giving employers a chance with free money – 90 per cent free money, Mr. Speaker. What do the members opposite say? Too bad. No, you are not getting my support. The kids in St. Anthony do not need free tuition, they do not need that, I do not support that, I will not stand in my place and support that, and I certainly will not stand in my place and support kids coming out of St. Anthony and getting jobs with employers because this government is giving them 90 per cent money.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are dealing with. The same member who stood in his place on any number of occasions and talked about – as all of us, many of us did here – the importance of dialysis; again, I say, on the Burin Peninsula, they do not support that, but, Mr. Speaker, they do not support the one in St. Anthony either. Now I ask you, I ask members, how can any member go back to their district and say I am voting against a Budget that is going to put dialysis in my community? How can they do it, Mr. Speaker? I do not understand it. I just do not understand it.

I said a few moments ago there comes a point in time in everyone's political career when you make choices and you weigh the pros and you weigh the cons, and the good and the bad. You have to make decisions. Are the pros high enough that you support something or too many cons? Well, Mr. Speaker, I would hate to be the person going knocking on doors in St. Anthony and say: Well, dialysis was in the Budget but that was not enough for me to support it. I would hate to be the person knocking on that door, Mr. Speaker, because I will tell you, I think they are going to have a few things to answer for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. KING: Time to clue up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do recognize, Mr. Speaker, it is very likely the member I am talking about is going to stand up behind me, so I will deviate off that train of thought for a few moments.

Mr. Speaker, by way of conclusion, I want to say this, we came into the New Year with a new Premier. We came into a new Budget process. We have delivered a new Budget. We are probably closer to the end of this sitting of the House than we are the beginning and I want to say this to you, I have never been prouder and more eager to go back to the public and ask for a chance to get re-elected because I believe -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: - we have delivered, not only for the Province but I will stand on what this government has done in my own district on the Burin Peninsula. Above all else, I am absolutely excited, like everybody, to go to the polls with a fresh face and strong leadership because I guarantee you we have lots of great things in store under the new Premier.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I trust that I will get the same co-operation from the House as the previous member just did who spoke, in terms of attentiveness.

Mr. Speaker, let me say, first of all, I have a lot of respect for the minister and I think he must have really wrestled with some of the things he just said in his speech a few moments ago. I do not believe that standing and supporting or not supporting, and in particular not supporting, an $8 billion Budget means that you have not seen anything good in it and do not support some of the items in it. I have been very open in my times when I have stood in the House to acknowledge what has been good in the Budget, to acknowledge what I felt was being done that was instrumental and beneficial first of all to my district and certainly to the Province. Mr. Speaker, to suggest because you do not support the Budget overall that you are against dialysis in Burin, for example, or that you are against dialysis in St. Anthony, or you are against some particular piece of funding, I would suggest that is a stretch for reality at the very best.

I can name all kinds of things in the Budget that I do not support. The two or three things – as the member talks about going back and knocking at the door and saying I support the dialysis, at the same time I am sure that a lot of his constituents, as mine and yours, Mr. Speaker, are going to say: But do you also support doubling my light bill in three or four years time with the development of Muskrat Falls? Mr. Speaker, it has been the absence of the information around Muskrat and it has been the investment that this government is making into Nalcor that is really putting us into a deficit net debt financing in this Budget. That really bothers me in particular, and I speak for myself. I do not speak for someone else.

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about supporting transportation, supporting road repairs. Well, Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I have absolutely no idea what road repair if any is going to be done in my district. As a matter of fact, we do not know what is going to be done across the Province unless there has been a secret memo that has gone from the Minister of Transportation through to the members because there is no public document suggesting where the monies are going to be spent this year.

When you say: Do you not support $250 million in road infrastructure, whatever the case might be, well where is it? Where is the money going? Mr. Speaker, it is the same thing year after year. Again, a government should be able to have a better idea of where they are going to go with their infrastructures from one year to the next rather than waiting for a Budget to come down then trying to divvy it up and decide exactly where the funding is going to go. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to support a Budget when you do not know what is in it.

Talking about roads, this government put a new road into a small community in my district a few years ago – a good road, I might add, as a matter of fact – into the community of Conche, a much needed road. Mr. Speaker, they stopped at constructing a new road, they stopped at the point of putting the final topping onto it, which is obviously the asphalt. It was a promise by this government. It was a promise by their previous member, who was a minister of this government, that that particular part of the finished work would begin in 2009. It is 2011, it has not begun. There is no intention for it to begin, Mr. Speaker. Within another two or three years I would suggest, if it is not done, Mr. Speaker, that road will have to be taken and it will have to be rebuilt all over again.

When you talk about transportation monies and supporting a transportation budget, I have no idea where that kind of support can come from because we do not know where it is going to go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about my district first and foremost, as I am sure most, if not all, MHAs in this House of Assembly are concerned, but I am concerned about the Province as well. We listen to the members and the ministers in particular boast about all that the government is doing, the great vision they have, the strategic planning that is second to none, and so on. I can give you examples of things that have happened in the District of The Straits & White Bay North, and the Northern Peninsula that I find to be very disappointing from the perspective of a direction government would want to take a particular part of the Province.

I am thinking from a tourism perspective, Mr. Speaker. If you go back eight or ten years ago on the Northern Peninsula you had one of the most effective, what I believe to be, tourism organizations in the Province, if not in the country in the Viking Trail Tourism Association. It had a good grip on where it was going. It understood what it had to market. It understood the market it was trying to go to. It had a funding source through government first of all; it had a staff that was very competent.

Mr. Speaker, year over year the members of the VTTA, the Viking Trail Tourism Association, were able to have their input as to where they were going to spend their dollars. Mr. Speaker, it was decided by this government a few years ago that the Viking Trail Tourism Association did not need to exist anymore. We will have our destination marketing boards. We will just take that part of our Province, Mr. Speaker, and we will integrate that into the Western Destination Marketing Organization. From Corner Brook, the office there, we will have some input from the Northern Peninsula. Basically, we will allow them to administer the marketing, the tourism strategies, and the development of the tourism association and so on for the Northern Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you that Route 430, the Viking Trail as it is known, is the longest themed road in Newfoundland and Labrador. On that road, Mr. Speaker, on that trail there are two of the most recognized sites in all of Canada. One of them of course being Gros Morne and the other being L'Anse aux Meadows. Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous upside to having a focus that is solely focused on the development of the visitor base, if you will, at Gros Morne, compared to what visits L'Anse aux Meadows, and also into St. Anthony to visit the Grenfell historical properties. Mr. Speaker, that has been severely handicapped by the removal of funding to the Viking Trail Tourism Association. I hear it from tourism operators, to the point now where they have had to institute fees in hotels and restaurants and so on along the Northern Peninsula, almost like an airport tax levy, to give them some money to keep functioning, to help them develop brochures, to help them retain their identity as an association. I believe that is very, very unfortunate, and I believe it is because someone has missed the mark in understanding exactly what we are trying to do with tourism in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the two unique identities, if you will, that we have on the Northern Peninsula, and that we had when this government took over, was of course the Vikings. We all know the history. We know of the promotions that have been done around the Viking settlement and so on. It is one of the things that attract a tourist to the Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland.

The second unique identity that we have on the Northern Peninsula is that of Grenfell. Mr. Speaker, we were very, very proud for decades, for generations, to have a wonderful organization out of St. Anthony that served the Northern Peninsula and Labrador well. It was, again, under the watchful eye of this government that felt it no longer needed a Grenfell Health Board on the Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland. Let's take that, let's amalgamate that with Labrador, and let's let that new board under its new leadership and under the leadership of the Department of health, let's allow them to do whatever it is they feel necessary to do to reorganize that whole thing.

Mr. Speaker, the result of that today, and the result really is not felt yet today, I would suggest, to the degree that it will be felt in years to come. St. Anthony has been degraded to what will eventually become a clinic, all because of what took place under the watchful eye of this government. Mr. Speaker, I have lived in Labrador. As a matter of fact, I have spent probably nearly half of my adult life in Labrador or close to it, so I have an appreciation for Labrador. I have lived on the Southern Coast of Labrador, I have lived in Western Labrador, I have lived in Central Labrador, and I have travelled the North Coast. I understand Labrador and I have an appreciation for it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what has happened as a result of what took place with the Grenfell health board in St. Anthony, is that now Goose Bay has this wonderful infrastructure that I am not debating at all that they need, and St. Anthony has been downsized to a trickle. Again, you expect to stand and applaud this government because it is putting $300,000 into dialysis, and I do, I appreciate that. Those who are in St. John's who can now go back home and receive their treatments applaud it as well, but, Mr. Speaker, at the same time it is the instruction of this government and it is the direction this government is going that literally is destroying health care on the Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, we had our air ambulance services removed from there last year, as we all know; very political. We suggested it is working as well as it did, I suggest it is not. Again, we are not saying that Labrador did not need an air ambulance service, but what has happened in the removal of that air ambulance, suddenly it is in Goose Bay, no referrals coming into St. Anthony; absolutely none coming into St. Anthony. Everything is bypassing the hospital that has served that area for so long, some of the best surgeons in the Province, some of the best specialists in the Province, and now, Mr. Speaker, we are flying them all into St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot wait for next year to see the Estimates and see the numbers that the Auditor General puts out in this Province to see exactly what it has cost us to move the air ambulance out of St. Anthony into Goose Bay and then to see how much better our service is. I am not suggesting it is worse for Labrador, certainly not, but I can assure you it certainly is not better for the Province and it is certainly is not more cost effective. It is those kinds of things that really leave such a sour taste in the mouths of the people of the Province.

I go back to my colleague, and I do not always agree with everything my colleague says and he does not always agree with everything I say. I go back to his point of the announcement today of the AHL team coming to Newfoundland and Labrador, to St. John's. I hope it does. I would love to see an American Hockey League team, because I love hockey as well. I spent my days and mornings as a young parent in the hockey rinks, as many others did, taking my son to hockey at 5:00 o'clock and 6:00 o'clock in the morning and going to the AHL at the old arena here in St. John's first when they came back some twenty years ago or so, whenever it was.

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to you today that if this government for one moment thinks that taking money and spending millions of dollars or whatever that number might be, of a commitment into an American Hockey League franchise into St. John's, if they think that will go over well in rural Newfoundland, I want to suggest they are gravely mistaken. I can tell you when it comes time to knock on doors, I have no problem knocking on doors and saying I do not support that. I support taking that money and putting it into, for example, the Town of Englee cultural interpretation centre that has had an application in to this government now for two years, trying to diversify its town, trying to get rid of some of the old eyesores that is there from the closing of the fish plant by this government five or six years ago, from the taking of the licence away from the community and putting it into another community in the Province, wherever it might be.

Mr. Speaker, this town has put presentations into the former Premier. They sent letters to our present Premier, they have sent letters to the Minister of Fisheries, and they have sent letters to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. They have done their homework. They put together very good documents and, Mr. Speaker, today it really is not even on this government's radar. It is not even a project, I would suggest, that is even being contemplated or discussed or even considered as an option in Newfoundland. I would suggest that before we go spending money, with all due respect, in hockey teams, we might want to look a little closer at some of those things for sure.

My colleague, as well, mentioned the committee work and he was challenged because there was one member who asked a question at some committee meeting in the past three, four or five years, whatever it was. Well, I have been involved in four pieces of the committee, four departments if you will, being ITRD and Municipal Affairs, Education and Fisheries for the past two years and, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I do not remember a government member asking a question in any of those committee meetings.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the answers are coming from. Probably there are no questions, I do not know. Perhaps there is a different forum, but just to make the point that there are no questions being asked by government members in those particular committee meetings. Mr. Speaker, I suggest none of us know it all and I would suggest that asking questions is a good way to know it and to find out information. You spend three hours in here, and I do not know who the hon. member was referring to when he talked about a Liberal member who did not ask any questions with HRLE, but I can point out a lot of government members who never asked any questions with ITRD, with Education, which I assume is not important, with Municipal Affairs and with the fishery, which we all understand is not that important to this government probably anyway. So before we start pointing a finger across here, it is always good to look around your own home and see what is on the go there as well. Again, just to say that in twelve or twenty-four hours or so of debate that I have experienced in the last two years in Resource Committee meetings, Mr. Speaker, I have never heard one question asked by a government member in that whole time.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that concern a lot of people in this Province about this particular Budget is the move that has been made in recent days by the Department of Justice. It is a move that I have had a lot of e-mails on, quite honestly, and calls because of people in my district who have been affected by it. I know senior people in the department who basically have – I know one individual who has basically retired early because of the change that has taken place now in terms of wildlife conservation and so on, and wildlife moving from Natural Resources to Justice.

Mr. Speaker, we have people who have upgraded their education, they have taken courses, they have done things to qualify themselves to protect their jobs, to ensure that their seniority would work for them, to ensure being able to see at one point where they would go from a part-time seasonal employment to full-time seasonal employment.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to people in the last couple of weeks, on occasion, who basically have been disqualified from jobs that they were doing because it has been moved from the Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Justice and they no longer are able to apply for it. They are showing inefficiencies in the system of what we are doing in terms of people who did a particular part of conservation work before, not able to do it any more, not able to participate, not able to help in the removal of nuisance animals and so on that we debated here in the House, Mr. Speaker. It really calls into question again: Do we have all the facts? Have we really debated this issue enough? Have we really talked about this move enough so that we fully understand the implications of doing it?

I would suggest that there has to be infrastructure in Justice that would be similar, I would suggest, as what is in Natural Resources, given that is where the people came from. I am talking about when it comes to a head office, satellite offices, and regional offices and so on. All of those pieces of infrastructure have to be in place. What is the gain? Where have we improved what we are now going to offer our people in this Province in terms of protection, in terms of safety, in terms of protection of our wildlife and our fishery and so on in our inland waters? Where is it that the moves that we have made – where are the improvements?

AN HON. MEMBER: Stay tuned.

MR. DEAN: I will stay tuned, I would say to the hon. member, but I can assure you right now that you need to tune into the people who are working in those two departments, the people who are involved in this move. Because I can tell you what I am hearing from them and what we are hearing from them is that this move, first of all, is not necessary; number two, it is creating inefficiencies, it is creating bad morale, I would suggest, in the workforce and it is adding a cost factor from this Budget that is totally, totally unnecessary.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will stay tuned. I will stay tuned with interest to see where people come back to me and prove me wrong, so to speak, or prove the allegations wrong that are coming to me from people who are employed in these departments and who have done an hon. service, some of them for many years. Whether they are forestry or whether they are wildlife, Mr. Speaker, they have done an hon. job. They have taken their work seriously. They have been committed. Mr. Speaker, today they just feel, again, betrayed in a lot of cases by this move. They do not understand the necessity of it. Mr. Speaker, it is those kinds of issues, when you are looking for something in the Budget that does not make sense, it certainly is no problem to find that there.

Mr. Speaker, there are other things I could talk about, but I will get a chance to speak again this evening later on as the evening progresses. I thank you for this time and being able to speak for those few minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion is that the Report of the Social Services Estimates Committee be concurred in.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

On motion, Report of the Social Services Estimates Committee, carried.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will continue with Orders of the Day, Order 2, Concurrence Motions.

With that, we call 2(c) Government Services Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Government Services Committee be concurred in?

The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Budget Estimates is always a great exercise to be able to learn more about government departments and, of course, be more informed about the operations and the revenues and expenditures of each department. I would like to begin by naming the Budget Estimates under the Government Services Committee. We reviewed the Estimates of the Department of Transportation and Works, the Department of Finance, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Public Service Commission, the Department of Government Services, Intergovernmental Affairs, Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector, Labrador Affairs, and Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I would also to thank our committee. Committee members were: the Member for Port au Port, who served as vice-chair, and yes, he did a very good job; the Member for St. John's East; the Member for The Straits & White Bay North; the Member for Kilbride, of course; the Member for Bay of Islands; the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the Member for Burgeo & La Poile; and the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, it is a great exercise actually to just review the Estimates of the different departments. We did review some big departments with some big expenditures and, of course, the first one that comes to mind is the Department of Finance. I must say that the Minister of the Department of Finance was very generous and co-operative with his response for questions and things that we were asking about, but it also enlightens us and gives us more depth on the operations of that particular department, Mr. Speaker. Actually, what comes out of that Department of Finance and the investments – and I know the minister this year said that he wanted to put more money back into the pockets of the residents of this Province, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that just stand right out this year is the energy rebate and the 8 per cent that is going to be rebated on our home heating and our electricity. It is going to amount to roughly $38 million this year out of our provincial coffers, Mr. Speaker. Of course, eliminating the 8 per cent HST is not going to affect the actual rebate that they get on the home heating rebate, as well, Mr. Speaker. So that is just another incentive by this government to just put more money back into the pockets of the people in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, another one of the initiatives under this year's Budget is the child care tax credit, which came under our Department of Finance as well. That will give each person, per child, a $535 tax credit this year, and the total amount from the Province will be $3 million for this year. One that I was definitely interested in was the firefighters' tax credit of $231. Mr. Speaker, like all the members here in this House, we all have quite a few volunteer firefighters in our districts and a lot of volunteer departments. Over the years, we all know the good work that they do. In the past, this government, through Municipal Affairs, has brought in some fantastic cost shares that the municipalities and our volunteer fire departments can avail of, and they do great work. I know that the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, back in the disaster last year through Hurricane Igor; it was the volunteer firefighters who actually came to the rescue of a lot of people in the Province. To see this tax credit brought in this year for $231 for a firefighter, for approximately 6,000 volunteer firefighters in the Province is just another great initiative.

Mr. Speaker, as well, I was involved in small industry, small business years ago, and any time you can give small business a tax break it is always good for the economy and good for that business. Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of small businesses in this Province that have less than ten employees; however, each year we have sort of increased the payroll tax exemption, and this year we are going from $1 million to $1.2 million in payroll tax exemption limit. This measure will put $2.3 million back into the hands of the Province's employers and they are very important employers, Mr. Speaker. These initiatives you learn about, and it comes out in the Budget. It is what people were looking for. We are very fortunate that we are able to do this because we have had years of neglect and not being able to put anything back into the pockets of our residents and our taxpayers, Mr. Speaker.

Through the Department of Finance in the past couple of years - I recall back a couple of years ago, I was out to one particular function and there were a couple of seniors who came along to me and said: Look, one of the things we should look at is to eliminate the sales tax on insurance, on homeowners insurance and on auto insurance. Well, we did that, Mr. Speaker. This government has done that. We lowered the income tax, we kept the home heating rebate and we also have a seniors' tax benefit that this government brought in just recently. All of this of course is putting money back into the pockets of the people who deserve it and need it. Also, Mr. Speaker, it improves consumer confidence in the Province, no question about it.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other departments as well that we reviewed was Transportation and Works. This year we have an investment of more than $1 billion in Budget 2011. We also have a multi-year infrastructure strategy currently valued at more than $5 billion. Mr. Speaker, this is huge. Our infrastructure was basically neglected for years. After 2003, when this government came in, we had the opportunity to try to put money back. I know my colleague for Ferryland earlier talked about labour force indicators and what works for rural areas. Basically, they say that if you can increase communications and improve on transportation and education, then you can improve the lifestyles and the economy of those areas. We have certainly done that as a government, Mr. Speaker.

I can go back, because sometimes you just sit there and you listen to the Opposition. Of course, they are always full of doom and gloom and you did not do this and you did not do that. Well, I can tell you something they did not do in the District of Exploits, Mr. Speaker, and that was invest in roads. The roads in that particular district, like every other district I would say in the Province, was just terribly neglected. I know since 2005, Mr. Speaker, we have been able to upgrade and pave quite a few of the roads in the Province, including the District of Exploits. We are talking about going from Bishop's Falls to Botwood with new road, and from Northern Arm to Point Leamington with new road.

Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of things – and I recall, I said: I would like to know what actually was invested in roads in the ten years prior to my being elected there. We went back ten or eleven years and I think the total invested in about a ten-year period was around $200,000 a year. It came to about $2 million in ten years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) road.

MR. FORSEY: Yes, it is terrible. You could not even do a kilometre of road. Well, of course, they did not do a kilometre of road. I grew up there and lived there.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the Premier's district.

MR. FORSEY: Oh, yes. By the way, Mr. Speaker, that was the Premier's district as well. So I can imagine what the rest of the roads were like in other districts.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I can get up and say that this government, the Department of Transportation under the new minister has placed a lot of emphasis on road infrastructure. I think to date, since 2005, we have been very fortunate. I think we are somewhere up around $15 million in roads and bridges just in the Exploits district alone, and people know that.

We had, I think it was 14,000 visitors last year. I heard the Minister of Tourism talking about the increase in tourists in this Province last year. In Botwood alone, they had 14,000 visitors. In Leading Tickles, a small community where I came from, where I grew up with a population of less than 500 people, they had 10,000 visitors last year go through that community. That is phenomenal, actually.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: That is because we are doing a great job with our tourism advertising and we are also doing a great job to make the roads safer and more comfortable for people when they are coming in, and the tourists, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KENT: There is a big festival coming up in July, too.

MR. FORSEY: A very big festival coming up in July.

Mr. Speaker, some of the things that we have been doing: The Provincial Roads Improvement Program, including funding to complete repairs and road infrastructure damaged by Hurricane Igor, various roads and bridges projects on the Trans-Canada Highway, funding to complete the Kenmount Road overpass, funding to continue widening and hardening the surface of Phase I of the Trans-Labrador Highway. That is phenomenal.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition up earlier talking about – it seems like when the Leader of the Opposition gets up she is more concerned about what she can and what she should do with Quebec and her relationship with Quebec. It is like she has some kind of a –

AN HON. MEMBER: Alliance.

MR. FORSEY: Alliance with Quebec – thank you very much – an Alliance with Quebec more so than with her own Province. She talked about the road that Quebec is promising. By the way, the key word is promising, like the Liberals have done over the years, is promising. The Quebec Government has promised to put the road in from Blanc-Sablon up the North Shore up to Montreal, which is roughly about 300 kilometres. I know because I have been down in that area many, many times. I have driven through the Southern Labrador road and I know when you leave Lodge Bay and go to Mary's Harbour – I have been there in June and I could not get through the rock cuts because there was too much snow there.

The Quebec Government, when I was going to Southern Labrador, Mr. Speaker, twelve, fourteen years ago, I heard the very same thing, that they are going to put a road through to Montreal, up through the Labrador North Shore. Well, my goodness, that is great. She is concerned, that is all she is worried about. Well, this government finished what they tried to start, a road that went right from Southern Labrador right on up through to Goose Bay, and also up to Labrador City, Mr. Speaker. This year, we are investing in the funding to continue the widening and hard surfacing of Phase I of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Transportation and Works is always very near and dear to my heart because it involves – I know some members enjoy talking about ferries and some do not, but I am certainly going to talk about ferries because I think it was back in the early 1990s, when the Liberal government were in power at the time, the federal government came down and said we can give you a few million dollars now if you would take over the transportation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Oh my God! They said: My goodness, we will give you over $300 million. I think it was like $340 million, Mr. Speaker. Well, the government of the day, which was the Liberals, said: We will take that. Even though we need new ferries, what odds, we will get them next year. So, they took the money and put it into the general coffers, nobody saw either ferry refit or anything else. This year, Mr. Speaker, like in the past and like in years to come, we are investing $39.3 million to continue with vessel replacement in our vessel replacement strategy, Mr. Speaker.

The MV Grace Sparkes and the MV Hazel McIsaac are all ready to go. Actually, I think they are already in the water. They are on the water sailing. The Minister of Transportation has also invested $17.9 million allocated towards the purchase of the remaining two of four new water bomber aircrafts that were announced in 2009, Mr. Speaker.

There has been a lot of investment in municipal affairs, education, and all the way down through. What a minister! What a minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, like I said, we have reviewed the Estimates of a number of different departments. One that I would like to touch on for a minute is, of course, Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs and our Northern Strategic Plan. By the end of the current fiscal year, the provincial government's spending in Labrador, since 2004, will have exceeded $3 billion in our Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador. This, in itself, is just major, major investments in Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

Transportation and Works: As I said about the Phase I of the Trans-Labrador Highway and also $2 million to complete a new weigh scale inspection facility near Wabush. Mr. Speaker, more so than just the transportation for Labrador and the money from that, I remember sitting down and listening to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and she talked about her passion for Labrador and the type of investments that this government has made in Labrador. She was pleased to note that in the areas of Aboriginal land claims and self-government that we, as a government, continue to make historic progress in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. Also, to continue the implementation of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and eventual completion of a land claims and self-government agreement with the Innu will provide Inuit and Innu with access to resource royalties and impact and benefits agreements.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also talked about her role with this government in bringing an Aboriginal lens to all activities of government that concerned Aboriginal people. Mr. Speaker, she has done a great job for Labrador and the people of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: We forget sometimes about the investments in the districts and in the Province. I was really intrigued with her address to the committee when we met to review the Estimates. Some of the things that she highlighted, I think it is worth repeating because she was so dedicated and still do have such a passion for Labrador.

MR. KENT: (Inaudible).

MR. FORSEY: Yes, I will tell you more, the Member for Mount Pearl North.

An investment of $2.2 million to place five full-time mental health and addictions counsellors in Nain, Hopedale, Makkovik, and Natuashish to provide the necessary accommodations and support; $1.2 million has been committed for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to construct four public housing units for lower income residents requiring smaller housing units in Hopedale. There is also an investment of $357,000 to support programs and services in the Innu communities of Natuashish and Sheshatshiu; $656,000 will be provided over the next three years to support Memorial University's Native Liaison Office, which provides Aboriginal students information on services, course selection, registration, tutoring, and accommodations; a commitment of $6.3 million has been made to support ongoing remediation efforts at the former military site in Hopedale; and $1 million has been allocated for implementation of a three-year Labrador Caribou Management Initiative. These are some of the things that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs explained to us during our review of the Budget Estimates, Mr. Speaker.

I guess probably the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition themselves would like to get up and preach doom and gloom, Mr. Speaker. I recall back a few years ago, long before my time, when they were in power and the bit of money they did have, they went off to Ireland probably buying Waterford Crystal and all over the country buying artwork. That seemed to be where their emphasis was on and not on the social and economic well-being of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. Education was another major, major investment by this government. I can recall when I came in here six years ago the Budget was less than $1 billion. Today, it is at $1.4 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time, I see my time is up. We can all go on and on but I really appreciate this opportunity, and I will be supporting this Budget.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand in the House today and speak to the Government Services Committee, the Estimates. As you know, Mr. Speaker, what the Estimates are is basically an opportunity to scrutinize government spending in all departments and where that money is being invested in the Province. Over the course of the last number of weeks we have continued to meet as committees here in the House of Assembly. It has not been broadcasted live so maybe a lot of people at home do not realize that. Every single department - all eighteen departments - are debated either through the process of a committee which meets after the hours of the House of Assembly or before the House opens each day, or it is done right here on the floor of the House of Assembly as part of our Budget debate.

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of weeks we have had critics for various departments in the Opposition come in here and ask questions of government ministers about their departments. Today, when the Member for Grand Bank was speaking, he was leaving the impression that MHAs in the Opposition were not asking the questions. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me just tell you what happens in that process because you will be absolutely amazed. I have done a number of these departments and I do all the ones that I am responsible for as a critic which includes Health and Community Services; Child, Youth and Family Services; Natural Resources and the Forestry and Agrifoods section; Labrador Affairs; Aboriginal Affairs; and the Status of Women. These are the ones that I am responsible for. My colleague, the Member for Burgeo & La Poile, is responsible for so many others. My colleague, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, is responsible for some others. My colleague, the Member for the District of Port de Grave, is responsible for others. What we do as an Opposition is come into the House of Assembly, we know we have three hours to question in those committees, sometimes we do it in an hour and sometimes we take the full three hours. It depends on how much the expenditure is; it depends on the size of the department.

Mr. Speaker, outside of the Opposition members, no one else asks questions. There are three and four MHAs from the government side who sit on all of those committees. Personally, outside of the Member for Kilbride, I think it is the only time I have ever heard a government MHA asking questions in the last number of Estimate Committee meetings that we held; not one other MHA. They come in, they sit there, they never ask questions on behalf of their constituents, they never ask where government money is being spent, or how it is being spent in the department. Outside of the Member for Kilbride who did ask some questions in one of the committees that I was in – I cannot speak for the others – he did ask some questions with regard to issues in his constituency.

Mr. Speaker, for the Member for Grand Bank to stand here tonight all gracious and say that members in the Opposition sit through the committees, or on committees, and do not ask questions is entirely false. We are critics for certain departments. We ask the questions for our own departments.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, on a point of order.

MR. KING: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I remind the member opposite that people in here put their name on a ballot to represent people, they get elected and when they are elected they are elected to do a job. There is no point standing in this House moaning or weaning or complaining about your workload. Number two, I challenge the member opposite to go to the minutes of my Estimates meeting and show me where every Liberal member of that committee asked a question. That is the only point I made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to tell the member opposite, I do not need him to do my work for me and I do not need him to tell me how to do it. So you put that on the record, I say to the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, every committee has a number of appointed members and, in fact, in order to make up the committee, the House of Assembly may appoint all of our caucus on one committee, but only one member will come and that is the critic for that department and they are the ones who ask the questions.

We have spent, Mr. Speaker, here in this House of Assembly, up to three hours asking questions of a department, either myself, one of my colleagues, or the Member for the NDP, with no questions at all from the government members. I say to the Member for Grand Bank: Check the record, look at Hansard and find out who was actually asking the questions in those committees and who is actually doing the work, I say to you, the Member for Grand Bank.

Mr. Speaker, that is the process that we go through and it is important to explain it to ensure that the public understands it so they are not misled by comments being made by members like the Member for Grand Bank.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the member also talked about the Budget and members voting against initiatives in the Budget. I want to speak to that for a minute because I think it is important. First of all, I am going to preface this by saying to the Member for Grand Bank: Can you find for me a Budget ever in the history of this Province that every party in the House of Assembly agreed on and voted for? If you can find one, Mr. Speaker, that would be really something because I have never been aware of it. Are there things in Budgets that the government does and invest in that we support as an Opposition? Absolutely, there is. There are always things in Budgets that we support. Do we support all of the spending of the government? Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We have a choice: We either endorse the government's mismanagement of money on behalf of the people or we condemn it. We do not have an option to cherry-pick in a Budget as to saying we want to support this component, that component and another component. That is not how it works.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House of Assembly lobbied, and lobbied very aggressively. We held government accountable. We brought pressure to bear on government on many of these issues that were done in this Budget. Why would the member say we do not support them? Of course, we support them, of course we do, and we support them wholeheartedly. Do we support where the government is investing some of the money in this Budget? Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, we do not even support the spending that government has on most of their departments. For example, we do not see the need for a Department of Business. For one thing, we do not even see the need for a Department of Business. A department that government is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in every year to give the minister a job, to keep an executive staff employed, to do what, Mr. Speaker?

Every year they have a budget in the Department of Business that they are supposed to invest in and bring business into this Province. We have not seen it happen, it has not been happening. The money is carried over every single year without being spent, without creating opportunity. We have seen the Department of Business only as a cash cow for the minister. That is it; a salary for the minister is all we have seen.

We have seen the government separate the Departments of Labrador Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs. Why? So they could put two of their colleagues in Cabinet. That was the only reason, Mr. Speaker. What purpose has it served? What benefit has it served the people of Labrador? Mr. Speaker, if the minister was worth his salt, he could carry the load for Aboriginal Affairs and Labrador Affairs. That is what I would say, could carry the load. Instead, Mr. Speaker, they are spending an extra $250,000 in that department of taxpayers' money just so they can give one of their colleagues some responsibility in the Cabinet. Now if that is not a waste of money, what is?

Those are just a couple of the departments where they are spending money. We did not hear the Member for Grand Bank talking about that, Mr. Speaker, when he was up. Yes, of course, there are things in the Budget that we support. We have outlined them in the House of Assembly, we have outlined them in press releases, we have asked questions about it, we lobbied for it and we still support it today.

To say, Mr. Speaker, that we do not support dialysis for patients in this Province is absolutely ridiculous, and the member knows it. He must actually think the people in this Province are stupid enough to believe what he is saying. He must actually think that the people out there are actually stupid and they are going to believe that no one in the Opposition will support dialysis equipment for the people of the Province.

For God's sake, we are the same people who stood in our place every day questioning the Minister of Health, asking him when he was going to do this, when he was going to make the investment, when he was going to bring dialysis equipment to these parts of the Province. To stand here today and say I am going to knock on doors and tell people: Oh, you did not want dialysis on the Burin Peninsula or up on the Northern Peninsula. It is childish, Mr. Speaker, and ridiculous; in fact, undermining the intelligence of the people of this Province, undermining the intelligence. He thinks he is so smart because he is undermining the intelligence of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by trying to convince them of something so ludicrous. To stand there and say: Oh, the Opposition do not support reducing the HST on home heating; when it was the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, the NDP and the Liberals who were bringing that into the House of Assembly for years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: My colleague, the Member for Burgeo & La Poile, was the first person to present a petition in this House of Assembly on reducing the HST on home heating. In fact, Mr. Speaker, do you know where those petitions started? They started with a woman named Elizabeth Harvey, the same woman who just got the tax break for fishermen. She was the first person to start a petition in this Province to have the HST reduced on home heating fuel and it came to this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Grand Bank would stand up and try and convince people today in the Province that the NDP and the Liberals do not support reducing HST on home heating. Give me a break, Mr. Speaker, give me a break.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am inciting them a little bit. I am hitting a nerve over there, it is quite obvious. They cannot contain themselves, but there is a lot more to come. Mr. Speaker, I have another forty-seven minutes left, so I suggest they settle themselves down and listen because they may start opening their eyes and learning a little something about what is going on.

The Member for Grand Bank would try and pull the wool over the eyes of the people of this Province, try and lead them to believe something that is completely false and untrue, because, Mr. Speaker, there are lots of things that we support in this Budget, lots of initiatives that we lobbied for, that we helped spearhead in this Province in terms of creating petitions and having them brought here and raising the issue on behalf of the people of the Province, and we are going to keep doing that. When government funds those initiatives and brings them in to benefit the people of the Province we will certainly applaud that, just like we have with those initiatives I have mentioned. Does that mean we are going to support everything the government does? Come on, you are living in a dream world, I say to the Member for Grand Bank. You are living in a dream world. It is only you who sees it with rose-coloured glasses.

What we will do is we will always scrutinize the spending of government because that is our job. That is what we are paid to do in the Opposition. We are paid to look at where government spends the people's money and to determine whether it is in the best interest of people or not. When it is not, it is our job to question it and it is our job to oppose it when it is not in the best interests. That is exactly what we have been doing, Mr. Speaker, and exactly what we will keep doing because we think that is important. So, there are lots of great initiatives that are being done and there are lots more that could be done.

My colleague, the Member for Exploits, talked about transportation. He liked to talk about the fact that back in the Liberal days there was not a lot of money being spent on roads in the Province. Well, let me just tell you, back in those days our Budget was about half of what it is today. It was just when we were signing all the deals on big oil and we were signing deals on mining development. We had a vision for where we were going in the Province. Today, Mr. Speaker, those funds have materialized, those benefits have been materializing for the people of the Province.

The members opposite walked into government in 2003 like a group who had just won the jackpot. They walked into government when oil was starting to be pumped, revenues were starting to come in, and then they had the luxury of deciding where that money was going to be spent, but, Mr. Speaker, they did not choose to spend their money on people. In many cases they chose to spend their money on big corporations and big companies. That is what we have seen from the government opposite. We have seen them purchasing equity in companies, big oil companies. Why? So the Premier could waltz herself around Texas at the big oil shows. That is the reason we have equity in the oil industry today, so we can go to Texas and wear the big hat, go around the big mining shows and wear the big hat and say we are from Newfoundland and Labrador. We just spent the people's money to buy equity; we have a right to be here now. We will waltz all around Texas, Mr. Speaker, spreading the message. That is where the people's money went, Mr. Speaker, so the Premier and the minister could go to the big oil shows and have a seat at the big board table and wear the big hat. That is where the money went. Do we support that? No way. We do not support that, Mr. Speaker, we do not support that.

We think there is a better need; there is a greater need and a better way to spend the people's money than buying equity in oil companies so that we get a warmer welcome when we show up. Our job, Mr. Speaker, is not to wear the big hat in Texas. Our job is to wear the big hat at home and to make sure when we develop the oil industry in this Province that we get the maximum benefits for the people of this Province. That is where the big hat is, Mr. Speaker. The big hat is in making sure we get the benefits for the people of this Province first and foremost. That is what it is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Our job, Mr. Speaker, is to make sure we develop the oil industry in this Province to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are the primary beneficiaries. Our job is to get the maximum royalties from our resources. It is not to spend the people's money to buy equity in an industry. That is not our job, Mr. Speaker. That is the job of business, not the job of government.

Our job, Mr. Speaker, is to create an environment for the oil industry to flourish in this Province. Our job is to ensure we get maximum royalties from any company that develops in this Province and that we show a real return for the people of the Province. It is not about spending their money so that we can buy our way to an oil show or buy our seat at a table. That is not what it is about, Mr. Speaker. It is not about who we know, and who we can rub shoulders with. It is about making sure we get a return for the people of the Province first. Mr. Speaker, that is what needs to happen.

We have tremendous potential in this Province, both in the oil and gas industry and we are hoping to see a lot more exploration going on in that industry. We need to find new reserves. We have not found any real new reserves in a long time and the oil that we are pumping today is going to start falling off, it is going to start getting pumped out. That means our revenues are going to start going down in terms of what we are taking in. So we need to find new reserves. We need to be able to develop new oil projects in this Province and we need to be able to do it ensuring that we are going to maximize the benefits for the people of the Province and not just buy shares in oil companies so that we can feel like we have more clout and we are a bigger player and we have a big hat. I do not see it that way.

Mr. Speaker, the same is in the mining industry. The potential in this Province today in the mining industry is phenomenal and a lot of it is in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Premier questions today in the House of Assembly about the mining industries in Labrador West, because for a lot of people in the Province they are far removed from the western region of Labrador, and where all the mining activity is going on, so they do not always see what is happening. I can guarantee you if that mining industry was happening out in Placentia, or out in CBS somewhere, or even in Long Harbour, people in the Province would probably be a lot more tuned in because it would be more on their doorstep in terms of visibility. So, lots of times we do not get the attention that we should be getting with what is happening with the mining industry in Labrador. Tremendous potential there, a lot of investment being made by the mining companies, and there is going to be a tremendous opportunity for employment, for business development, and for spinoffs in the Labrador Region.

Mr. Speaker, we also have to realize that a lot of these benefits are going to Quebec as well. Right now, there are three new mines that are either starting, or being developed, or proposed for the Labrador Region. We have expansions in both IOC and new acquisitions by Wabush Mines. What we are seeing is the Quebec government making major investments in the Port of Sept-Îsles because they know that all of this iron ore in Labrador's mines has to go out through the Port of Sept-Îsles. They also know it is going out unprocessed. They know that there is tremendous opportunity, and they are investing so they can capitalize on it. What is the government in Newfoundland and Labrador doing? Absolutely nothing, turning a blind eye to it; not even maximizing our opportunities out of these industries.

I know that there are IBA agreements. I know there are agreements with the Aboriginal people, with the Innu in particular. Where are the benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Where is the real benefit for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Is the Premier saying that she is prepared to sign off on mining developments on the border in Labrador for a few piddly jobs? Is that what she is saying, and all the ore can go out of Labrador and all the resources can be built up in the Port of Sept-Îsles to support the Labrador mining industry? When is she going to start looking at the big picture in terms of how we are going to deal with this, how we are going to maximize that return for the people of our own Province? What do we need to do? What investments do we need to make as a government to make that happen, in order to do that? Why should all these benefits be going to Quebec, Mr. Speaker, and not going to Labrador?

That was one of the issues that I raised today in Question Period and, of course, I got no answer from the Premier or from the government because they have not thought about these things; they are not on their radar. It is not part of the bigger picture for them, and they have no vision when it comes to Labrador, and they have certainly demonstrated that time and time again.

Mr. Speaker, this is just one small piece of it, in terms of what is happening with the mining industry, but what is happening with other industries across Labrador? I talked about it today. I talked about the fact that today they are selling power in Churchill Falls to New Brunswick, recall power that we are recalling and selling it to New Brunswick for four cents a kilowatt hour. That is what we are doing. Cheap, green, clean power is being sold, cheap, to New Brunswick. Why is it not being used in Newfoundland and Labrador? They talk about developing industrial power for Labrador, why aren't we using that for industrial power? Why aren't we trying to bring in customers to use that power right here in our own Province? Why are we selling it to someone else for dirt cheap? Why are we allowing towns like Happy Valley-Goose Bay to operate without enough clean hydro power to actually function as a town? Why are we leaving the North and South Coast on commercial diesel power, paying almost twenty cents a kilowatt hour for commercial power? It has to be the highest rate in North America that they are paying. Here they are right on the edge of the Churchill River, here they are watching that power being sold to New Brunswick for four cents a kilowatt hour.

Where is the vision on behalf of government to deal with those issues, to plan further ahead, to look at transmission for the rest of the region of Labrador, to look at using that power to bring in industrial customers and to be able to set up tremendous opportunities and developments for the people of Labrador? Why are none of these things happening? Because it is easier, Mr. Speaker, to get their four cents a kilowatt hour from New Brunswick and wipe Labrador off the map, and that is exactly what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador Affairs, of course, is only one of the departments that we are debating under this Estimates Committee, but it is certainly an important department. It is one that needs to have more teeth. This department needs to have more teeth. To have a department for Labrador Affairs and only give them a couple of projects to be able to manage that amount to about $1 million or $1.5 million, in my opinion, is not a department that has clout, it is not a department that has power, and it is not a department that has teeth. It is not a department that can influence real growth and real opportunity in Labrador. I have said this time and again in the House of Assembly: Why don't the government make some real changes to ensure that if you are going to have a Department of Labrador Affairs, that they actually run the affairs of Labrador, that they create that opportunity? Why is it that we never hear them talking about the issues that I am bringing up today? Why is it all just streamlined through other departments? What is the purpose of having a department if you are not going to give it real responsibility?

I know that the Department of Labrador Affairs delivers the Air Food Subsidy, a program that we started as a Liberal government. I know that they do a snow grooming project, another initiative that we started as a Liberal government. We know that they are carrying on with those two initiatives. We have no problem with that, but we think that there is a bigger role for this department, and that needs to happen.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other critical pieces, I guess, in Labrador is around the Trans-Labrador Highway. I know that the government opposite likes to say we contributed money and we built highways in Labrador, and I acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker. The new section of highway in Labrador was started in 1997 after a number of years of no construction of highways across Labrador. It was done with a major investment, Mr. Speaker, to be able to connect roads to all of these communities.

Now, we are talking fourteen years ago that this started - fourteen years ago. Since then, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the highway come down from Goose Bay to Cartwright. We have seen it to Cartwright Junction. We have seen it from Cartwright Junction coming into all of the communities linking them in, with the exception of a couple that I think deserves to be looked at and considered for highway connection, although government here has kind of wiped them off their radar altogether.

Mr. Speaker, what the people in Labrador are saying is: Listen, this is great. Since 1997 we have been getting road construction, but we need to have more. Today, we need a commitment that this road is going to be paved. If the government opposite does not submit a proposal to the federal government asking for pavement, how will it ever become a priority for the federal government? How can we go to the feds and start lobbying for money to pave the rest of the roads in Labrador if the government opposite does not believe that it is a priority and will not submit a proposal to have it done? That is the very minimum, the very least, that they would be doing.

Mr. Speaker, it is not only Labrador that has issues around transportation and the highways and the ferries and all the rest of it. Last week, we heard the Mayor of Bell Island. He was on the radio apparently - I did not hear this, but somebody was telling me that he said the ferry problems over there he could not blame it on the MHA and he could not blame it on the minister, but he was going to blame it all on the bureaucrats in the Department of Transportation and Works. I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that no one in the government came out to explain that it is the government and the elected officials who make the decisions, not the bureaucrats; unless, of course, it is the bureaucrats who run the government opposite. Maybe that is the case. Maybe it is not the ministers who run the government at all. Maybe it is the bureaucrats who run the government opposite. It was all very confusing, because, Mr. Speaker, we know on this side of the House of Assembly and most people in this Province know that the authority to make decisions rests with the government.

If there is a problem on Bell Island with the ferry, the authority is in government to make a decision on how they deal with it. That means the Premier, the Cabinet, the MHA who happens to be a government member, are all accountable and all have the authority to make any decisions with regard to that ferry service. Whether they are going to replace the vessels, whether they are going to build new vessels, whether they are going to bring in alternate vessels, whether they are going to run longer services, whether they are going to run shorter services, all of these things, Mr. Speaker, are all within the purview of the government. It is all within their grasp to make the decision, and I would say to the mayor and the people of Bell Island that you need to get after your MHA. You need to get after the minister to make the right decision on your behalf if that is what you are looking for. I can guarantee you it will not be a bureaucrat in the Department of Transportation who makes the decision on where the ferry service in Bell Island is going to go or what it is going to look like. Anyone who actually believes that obviously do not understand what the power and the control of government is and the authority that they have to make decisions.

Mr. Speaker, right across the Province, obviously there are issues around transportation, whether it be roads or bridges, whether it be ferries, whether it be air service, there are always issues. We get e-mails all the time; we get calls all the time. Obviously, there is money being invested. This year over $200 million, $245 million or something is being invested into roads in this Province. Mr. Speaker, everyone out there has issues, they have needs, and they want to see some of that investment. We know it is not an easy decision for government to make in terms of where you spend the money because there are lots of needs out there.

Mr. Speaker, there are some needs that are far greater than others and there are some communities in this Province that have been completely left out. I know that, because I have a community in my district, in Black Tickle, that has not seen any road money for ten years. In the last eight years under the current Administration they have never gotten one cent for their roads, not one. They have a gravel road through their community, they are cut-off from everywhere else, and they have to use ferries and planes to get in and out of the community. Mr. Speaker, there is no end to the calls and the e-mails from that community every time they have to take a patient from the hospital to the airport over that road because it is so bad. It is a gravel road. After eight years you should realize, as a government, that you have to put some money into it, you have to upgrade it, you have to put some crushed stone on it.

Mr. Speaker, there are communities like this - and maybe they are not important to the government. Maybe they are not important because they are small and they are rural. Maybe they are not important. They are not on the radar so they get left out and they get omitted. Mr. Speaker, there are lots of communities out there like that. For example, in Conche, I keep getting e-mails from up there with regard to their road, which is a gravel road as well and the fact they need to have work done and they want to get their road paved.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of money to be hove around this year. There is a lot of money that the minister has there to allocate, so we will wait and see where that money is going to be spent. We are continuing to raise the issues and the priorities for our districts, Mr. Speaker, and for other districts in the Province where people are contacting us. We will continue to ask the government to do that.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of other issues that I want to speak about, one is the Rural Secretariat. Because the Rural Secretariat, if you were to hear the name you would say great, wonderful, we have a Rural Secretariat in this Province, but what do they do? What does the Rural Secretariat do, Mr. Speaker? We are spending on average $1 million to $1.5 million annually. For the last eight years this government has spent nearly $10 million in the Rural Secretariat. What has the Rural Secretariat done in this Province? I would like to know.

I would like to ask the people in Jackson's Arm, Mr. Speaker, because the people in Jackson's Arm last year had their plant closed down. They had 120 workers out on the street. The plant is still not reopened. What has the Rural Secretariat done for that community? What have they done for the people in Englee when they their plant closed down? What are they doing today for the people in Port Union? Because these are all rural communities who are going through a transition in the fishing industry, a transition that is an absolute mess because the government opposite has not been able to lead a path forward for the industry, because they have no vision and no idea as to where this industry should be going. What have they done? They left the fishing industry out there in limbo, absolute limbo, Mr. Speaker, with no direction. That means they have left rural communities in limbo with no direction.

Their solution is the Rural Secretariat, of which they have sunk $10 million in over the last few years. What does this Rural Secretariat do? What is their job? What are they doing for the people in Port au Choix today? What is the Rural Secretariat doing for the people in Hawkes Bay who cannot even ring a credit card through in their business because they do not have high-speed Internet access? What is the Rural Secretariat doing to bring employment opportunities and new industry to rural communities in this Province? What have we gotten for our $10 million? Now that is a very legitimate question. What have we gotten for our $10 million? Because I have yet to see anything; I have not even seen a document, Mr. Speaker.

What I do know is that the Rural Secretariat meets on occasion. I do know a lot of people have been resigning from it because they have not seen it going anywhere. We know that they meet. We know they have had meetings out in Humber Valley Resort, Mr. Speaker, one of the big resorts in the Province. We heard the Rural Secretariat had meetings out there on the backs of the taxpayers, had everything paid for by money from the taxpayers, but what exactly have they done for rural communities in this Province? What have they done for communities like St. Lewis? What have they done for communities like Makkovik? What have they done for places like Bonavista, Port Union? What have they done for Botwood? What have they done for Springdale? What have they done for Triton? What have they done for those communities, the Rural Secretariat? You tell me what they have done.

I challenge the member for Springdale to find one person in Springdale, pick anyone at all out of the phonebook and if I call them up today and I say to them: What has the Rural Secretariat done for you in your rural community, because we have spent $10 million on them as a government in the last few years? What would they say to me? What would they say in Harbour Breton? What would they say in St. Alban's that the Rural Secretariat has done for them? An interesting question, Mr. Speaker, because it is the people's money that is being spent. The concept sounds like a great one. The terminology sounds wonderful, Rural Secretariat. It sounds big, glamorous, powerful on behalf of rural communities, but really, what have they done for $10 million? I think that is the fundamental question.

Mr. Speaker, many of these communities are fishing communities. They are very dependent upon the fishing industry, dependent upon the tourism industry in particular. Some of them are based around agriculture, and those are very fundamental industries for those regions, but what has been happening in the fishing industry in particular? I am going to talk about that for a minute because I think it is really important. It reaches to the very fibre of our rural society in this Province. For over 500 years we have lived from the sea in this Province. Mr. Speaker, we have had to sit idly by while federal laws, government inaction and lip service on action plans basically ripped their entire fishing industry apart. In the last number of years, Mr. Speaker, through a cod moratorium, we have not been able to rebuild the cod stocks. There is no management strategy on behalf of the government to rebuild cod stocks in this Province. It absolutely fell off the radar of the government. It was a key plank in their platform in 2003, and since then we have not seen anything.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that not only do we need to focus on the present when it comes to the fishing industry in this Province, but we need to focus on the future of that industry as well and what that industry is going to look like. Mr. Speaker, the government has had no direction in the fishing industry. We had the Minister of Fisheries write me a letter. He wrote me a letter last week, or the week before or something, asking me how to deal with the lobster fishery.

Now, can you imagine? This is a minister of the Crown. This is a government, Mr. Speaker, that is supposed to be leading the fishing industry in this Province; that is supposed to be leading a solution in the fishing industry in this Province for the many men and women in Newfoundland and Labrador who depend upon it. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? The lobster fishery is only open for a couple of weeks and the minister decides: I am not going to deal with the crisis in the lobster fishery until I know where the Leader of the Opposition stands. Well, Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the fact that he values my opinion. I appreciate the fact that he puts all of his confidence in me to give him direction in the fishing industry and where we need to go.

Mr. Speaker, a government of the day, they are handed a crisis in this Province with lobster fishermen, they have nowhere to sell their product, there is a stalemate between the union and the processors. They are looking to the minister for direction, they are looking to the minister to bail them out, their government to give them a solution. Guess what he says? I will see what the Leader of the Opposition has to say first. If the Leader of the Opposition says it is okay, then we will be able to go forward with it. That is basically it. While everything was in a crisis, while everything was in limbo, while there were fishermen in this Province with 400 pounds of lobster in cages tied up to their wharves, the minister was waiting for me to give him a response on how to deal with the industry. Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most ludicrous things that I have ever seen in terms of leadership by a minister and by a government.

Mr. Speaker, that was their solution. Guess what? The letter bought them time. It bought them enough time that the union and the processors came to an agreement and then, once again, the minister and the Premier did not have to do anything. Sit back and let people sweat it out, let people fight it out in the fishing industry, and eventually it will resolve itself. That is their solution. That has always been their solution as a government. If we sit back long enough, we take a backseat long enough, we delay it long enough, somebody else will figure it out; somebody else will fix it, Mr. Speaker. We are not getting our hands messed up in that. We are not getting our hands messed up in the fishery in this Province. Oh no, we are not going to mess our hands up with the fishery in this Province. If we sit back long enough and do nothing, someone else will fix it; someone else will figure it out.

Mr. Speaker, that is what has been happening with the fishing industry in this Province. That is probably a pretty simple characterization of it. It is very much in layman's terms, Mr. Speaker, but it is exactly what has been happening.

From the day this government came into power, they have provided no leadership in the fishing industry. That is why, today, we have seen community plants close down under FPI. This government is the same government that brought in the legislation, Mr. Speaker, to be able to do away with FPI in this Province, to do away with it, to sell it all off to a private company. This is the government that passed the legislation to do that. We have seen plants close in this Province. We have seen plants close, Mr. Speaker, and plants downsized in this Province, and that was a result of the government opposite. That was their statement; that was their only direction that they have given in the fishing industry.

Then, Mr. Speaker, things started to get out of hand, so they had the Fishery Summit. What came from the summit, Mr. Speaker? A whole lot of squawking and no lot of action; that is what came out of the government. They spent days squawking about the summit, standing up every day and talking about the big summit on the fishery: Oh, the big summit that is going to give direction to the fishing industry. What has happened? Absolutely nothing has happened. Nothing has happened, that is what we see.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, then they switched gears again and they said we are going to do the MOU on the fishery. Now, Mr. Speaker, me being so naive actually thought the government was going to do something with the MOU. Can you imagine that I would actually even think that this is one time they are taking the fishery serious? They are going to do this MOU, they are spending $800,000 on this, they are holding all of these meetings, they took eighteen months to do the work, and how naive was I to sit back and think that something was going to come of that that would give some direction to the fishing industry? Mr. Speaker, I tell the minister: He will not fool me the next time. He will not fool me the next time into thinking that there is something being done. He will not fool me by getting up every day saying we are doing the MOU on the fishery, we are waiting for the MOU, we are doing this, we are doing that, and what did they do at the end of the day? Absolutely nothing.

There was no program out there, Mr. Speaker, for guaranteed loans for fish processors in the Province. There was no program out there for guaranteed loans for fishermen in this Province. There was no early retirement program for the fish plant workers in this Province, Mr. Speaker. We did not see any of those things. No, all we seen from the government was false hope on behalf of the people that we are going to lead the industry and then, all of a sudden, they pull out the rug from under everybody and they walk away. Their strategy in the fishing industry is this: Lie back, sit on our hands, let it waltz its way, and let every community fend for themselves. That is what this government's attitude is in the fishing industry.

They believe, Mr. Speaker, that the industry is going to rationalize itself. I am sure that it will rationalize itself, but what will it look like? Without the leadership, without the programs, without the support, without giving people the options, without investing in the fishing industry, it will continue to be in disarray. It will continue to be ad hoc in terms of how they deal with things, and will continue to see rationalization that is going to be harmful to people and harmful to communities because it is not part of a bigger strategy and a bigger plan. This government is afraid of it. They are afraid of it, Mr. Speaker. They are afraid to show leadership. They are afraid to take the industry in a direction that it needs to go, and they are afraid to touch it, Mr. Speaker, so their solution is to sit back and to do nothing.

Mr. Speaker, that is some of the things that we have seen from this government in terms of where they have not shown any real commitments in this Budget, where they have not shown any real leadership in this Budget, and there are many others, there are so many others. If I were to get into all of the social programs I could be here all night, but I will try to touch on a few of them.

One that I am going to touch on, Mr. Speaker, is an issue that is very sensitive, a very sensitive issue. It is an issue that affects many families in this Province who have children, and adult children, with physical and intellectual challenges. Many of these families are aging families, where the parents are getting older and are unable to provide for their adult child, and they are concerned, they are very concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with two cases of this again in the last week. One case where there is a young woman, forty-seven years old, who has physical and intellectual challenges, whose parents are eighty-six years old and seventy-three years old and they cannot care for their daughter anymore. Not only are they burnt out, but they have their own challenges because of aging, and they cannot provide for their daughter. There is nowhere in the area where they can find the kind of care they need for their daughter. I know this because this one case is in my own district and the other case is in Central Newfoundland that I have been dealing with. In this case that I have been dealing with there are no services available. The only option this family has is to turn to long-terms care facilities, and we know that is not an acceptable solution. We believe government needs to design a program that reaches out to many of these families who need this service.

We have people in the Province right now - there was a case there a little while ago, last week in the paper of this lady sixty-nine years old who needs to have care for her child. She can no longer provide the care that her son needs. She has been pleading with government to help her find a solution. There are many cases like this in the Province, Mr. Speaker. What are the options for these people? One of their options is community care homes. Well, most of those are on the Avalon Peninsula and just outside of the St. John's area.

Community care homes have their own challenges, Mr. Speaker. They are underfunded, they cannot provide the services that many of these clients need, that many of these individuals need because of their severe disabilities and the physical and intellectual challenges they have. Where else do they look? They are looking to government for some forms of home care to help them out, so they can get further care so that their loved one can remain at home and be able to be a part of the family. That kind of service is not there for them.

The only other option is to look to long-term care facilities. We already know in this Province there is a wait-list in long-term care facilities right across the Province. We already know there is a wait-list. We know, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to be putting forty year olds, thirty year olds and fifty year olds in long-term care then those are beds that are going to be taken up from seniors who need that care as well. It is a real problem, it is a real issue, and it needs to get dealt with. Government does not address this in their Budget. They do not make any mention of it, anything that is going to help Ms Drover out there or Ms Howell in my district. There is nothing to help those families who need that kind of care for their loved one. They have been singing out, they have been pleading with the government, Mr. Speaker, to be able to get the support they need to allow them to stay in their own homes or to be able to seek the services of community care homes and so on. Like I said, those homes are underfunded, and therefore they are unable to provide the kind of care that is needed. I think government needs to adopt a policy to look at this issue, to be able to meet the needs and the demands of these particular families who are out there and to provide them with the supports they need.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, there are personal care homes. Personal care homes are going to be one of the homes that we are going to rely on more and more as we see our population aging. We are going to start having a greater reliance on personal care homes than we have ever had. It is time to start looking at the designation of personal care homes and the levels of care they provide. I think it is time to start looking at how personal care homes can provide for a higher level of care for many of our seniors because we know we are not going to get them into long-term care facilities. We know those services are not going to be there. How do we fit more of them into the personal care home model? I think government needs to look at that. I think they need to look at how these homes are being funded.

When you look at how much it is costing us to be able to put our seniors into long-term care, Mr. Speaker, it is costing us a lot more money to keep them in long-term care as opposed to keeping them in personal care homes. I think we need to look at that, and we need to look at how we can expand the role of personal care homes, look at how we can create a different model to provide for more of the services that we require for our aging population, and how we financially support these homes so that they become stable, so that they can provide a good quality of care for our residents and the people who need it. We would be all there to see that happen, but it did not happen in this Budget. Although the need is great, it did not happen and it did not get addressed.

One of the other issues, Mr. Speaker, that keeps coming up in my office through phone calls and e-mails is the moose situation, the moose on our highways. Mr. Speaker, maybe a lot of members in this House do not take that issue seriously, but it is a very serious issue. When you get families on the other end of the phone who have lost loved ones in moose accidents, people who have been injured themselves and their entire lives have been changed as a result of moose accidents because of the disabilities and the injuries they sustained and the disabilities they now live with, it is a very serious issue and one that this government has not been taking seriously.

This year, I have to say, for the first time they did increase the number of moose licences. That is a start, but it does not go far enough. Why is government not prepared to look at the options that have been done in other provinces? Why are they not prepared to look at fencing in areas where there is a high density of woods, where there is a lot of moose? Why are they not prepared to do that? Why is it they are not putting pressure on Parks Canada to start putting some of this fencing in through the park areas where we know there is a lot of moose on the highways in those areas? Why have they not developed that as part of a plan? Why is it they are not trying some of the new technologies that has been developed in other provinces in the country to scare moose, to keep moose off the highways?

This year we have had over 700 moose accidents in this Province. I know the minister got up one day and disputed the numbers, but we did have them confirmed after by the RCMP. In fact, the numbers we were using, Mr. Speaker, there was a far greater number of moose accidents than the numbers we were using, but the minister at the time tried to lead people in the Province to believe that it was a lot less. That was not the case, but there are hundreds and hundreds of people in our Province who will have moose accidents again this year. It is a serious issue. It has left so many people with injuries that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives. It has taken so many lives on our highways of our people in this Province, and it is an issue that the government needs to look at.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that there is a class action lawsuit on the go right now that is being led by Ches Crosbie, and I know that it is being done because people take this very seriously, and they are not seeing action on behalf of the government. They are not seeing a commitment on behalf of the government to deal with this particular issue, which is a very critical issue.

Again, Mr. Speaker, another issue that I wanted to raise very quickly is the issue around breast screening for women in this Province. This is, again, a very serious issue and one that the government could have addressed in this Budget, but they did not do it. Mr. Speaker, why they are not doing it is beyond me. In fact, what the minister has continued to say is that they are going to refer the issue to a cancer care committee. Well, that cancer care committee is yet to be put in place. That cancer care committee that the minister has been talking about for almost a year, since early in the fall, has still not even been appointed. It has still not even been appointed. So, to stand in the House and to say that we are referring it to a committee that they have not yet appointed, to me, shows once again that they are not taking the issue seriously.

Well, a number of provinces in Canada today have already agreed to reduce the age for breast screening in their provinces to age forty. Ontario has just announced that they will do the same. Why is it that the government in Newfoundland and Labrador is not doing that? Why is it they are not doing that when all the studies out there indicate that it is a good thing, that it saves lives, that it will reduce the mortality rate in this Province alone by 24 per cent? Do you know that in this Province this year over 370 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer? We have one of the highest mortality rates due to breast cancer of any other province in this country, and we are asking the government, the women of this Province are asking the government to bring in a new benchmark for screening, to reduce it from age fifty to age forty. It is a very sensible, very practical, very responsible initiative that the government could be implementing, and they could be doing it immediately, just like the other provinces across Canada, but no, they are not prepared to do it.

Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion, because my time is almost up, I want to say that there are lots of things in this Budget that we have supported and will continue to support. There are lots of initiatives here that we think are good initiatives, but there is lots of money being spent in this Budget that we feel is not appropriate: such as the $378 million that will go to Nalcor corporation this year; such as money that is being spent to buy equity in oil companies; such as money that is being funnelled out to large corporations and companies; such as all the other things that I outlined here where investments are being made but not in the best interests of the people.

Mr. Speaker, we would love to be able to support the Budget of the government, but we cannot because we do not support all of the funding initiatives that are outlined here. We see a better way. We see better areas where money could be spent. We see greater leadership that could be shown in many areas in this Province, on many of those issues, and government is failing to do that. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, we have no other choice but to vote against the Budget as has been presented, even though we recognize that many of the things here are things we have lobbied for, we have fought for, and we have supported as an Opposition, but we will continue to do that. We will continue to be the voice of the people, and we will continue to hold the government accountable to making wise spending decisions on behalf of the people of the Province.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I always enjoy speaking, certainly after the Leader of the Opposition. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that as I sit here in the House and I listen to some of the tripe, which I really call it, from across the way over the course of the last couple of hours, I want to say that since the last time I rose in this hon. House, a lot of things have changed up in the Big Land. The Big Land turned blue, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition because she had something to do with that. She had something to do with that, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a couple of comments about the federal election. It was certainly a great campaign up in Labrador, and I will say that we are absolutely delighted that the new Member of Parliament for Labrador, a Labradorian, an Innu, Peter Penashue, who is now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I will say that this is the first time in a long time that the people of Labrador had a Cabinet minister, but not only a Cabinet minister for Labrador; this gentleman is the Cabinet minister for the Island and for Labrador, for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that he is looking forward to working with all regions of the Province - in conversations I have had with him - as we certainly promote the issues of our Province to the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, I sit here today and I listen to the hon. leader talking about all the doom and gloom. I want to say, Joe Chesterfield turned her off probably about an hour ago because people of the Province know the difference. They know the difference of what this government has done for this Province under the leadership of our previous Premier and under the leadership of our present Premier, on a go-forward basis. Many great things are happening in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I can sense the frustration of the Leader of the Opposition. I can sense it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I want to share this with you because it sort of gives us a sense of what is happening in the Opposition. I remember just last Thursday – you know, you get a lot of things on your BlackBerry - here we got an e-mail inviting me, with a bunch of other Liberals, to a telephone conference call at 10:30 a.m. Island time: Please be advised that our leader, Yvonne Jones, is requesting a conference call at 10:30 a.m. Island time – make sure it is Island time – tomorrow morning. The conference call information is 1-888-848-5559 and the participant pass code - just to make sure I was going to join - is 7993182.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just you?

MR. HICKEY: Well, there were others there but I was the one so blessed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out, that e-mail was obviously sent in error. If it was not sent in error, I can assure you that I would not be inviting the Member for Lake Melville to sit in on my conference calls, so I hope he did not sign on. I do not know if he signed on or not. I am going to sit down and wait to hear if he signed on or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

MR. HICKEY: Then I get a second e-mail (inaudible): Good evening; count me in on the call.

That was fine. Then I get an e-mail from the Leader of the Opposition telling me that everything is cancelled for tomorrow because they can't (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, when I get those types of e-mails, I know they are desperate over there. They are desperate over there when they are sending me e-mails.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition to advise her staff to take me off her e-mail list.

Anyway, it is always good to have a bit of fun, but to a serious note I do want to make some comments regarding what is happening in Labrador and throughout our Province. Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years, particularly since 2003-2004, we have spent an unprecedented amount in Labrador; some $3.1 billion has been spent in Labrador. To listen to the Leader of the Opposition over there, you would not know but we were the poorest region in some Third World country. I can tell you what, Mr. Speaker, that is the furthest thing from the truth of what is happening in Labrador right now.

I want to talk a little bit about - we cover the regions - the Member for Labrador West, what is happening in that member's district is unprecedented anywhere else in this Province, the Fort McMurray of the East. Mr. Speaker, with a brand new hospital and a brand new college building and with the extension and the work that is ongoing on the Trans-Labrador Highway over in Labrador West, I can tell you the people of Labrador West should be proud of the member that they have elected because this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I also want to certainly recognize the work of my colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Because while the member over there can talk about the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, insult the employees, insult the ministers and tear it down, I can tell you what, that department is doing good work, and the men and women in there are doing good work for the people of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: All we have to do is to look at the Member for Torngat Mountains and the work that she has done in all of her communities up there. There is more work to be done, but I can tell you what, this is the best political team Labrador has ever put (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: This is the best team we have ever put in this Legislature representing Labrador. She can sit over there and she can talk about, oh, they do not do anything, and we have only a couple of files. We are in on the files, Mr. Speaker. More important than that, for the first time, we have two Cabinet Ministers at the Cabinet table with our colleagues making decisions in this Province with the interests of Labrador in hand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, things are going well in Labrador. I can tell you what, I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition. In the last federal election she was a great help and we certainly saw a great victory, because the people of Labrador see what is after happening in the last eight years. They still remember what it was like before 2003. They saw what it was like before 2003. There was no connection to the South Coast of Labrador. Back then, the roads were shut down in March. The hon. member put the gate up in Lodge Bay, and then put another gate up in Red Bay. I have to say, I always chuckle when she comes after my good colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Works, talking about the roads, because her plan was very simple: March comes, close it. When the snow all goes, we will open it. That was the Liberal plan.

MR. DENINE: How about the rock cuts?

MR. HICKEY: Oh, the rock cuts. Thank you, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl South, thank you for reminding me of the rock cuts. If there is one thing that the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair will have as a legacy are her rock cuts that she established between Mary's Harbour and Red Bay, Mr. Speaker. When I talk to people from down there and I talk to some of the seniors from down on the South Coast of Labrador, they say: John, I never thought we would ever be able to get in our vehicles and drive to Goose Bay. I can tell you what, Mr. Speaker, we can do that, and I can tell you we are making great strides when it comes to transportation between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Labrador West. We will see another 160 kilometres of pavement laid on Phase I of the Trans-Labrador Highway, but she stands here in the House of Assembly with her petitions, there is nothing happening in Labrador, boats are getting lost in the potholes. Mr. Speaker, nothing can be further from the truth.

Then she talks about the ferry, the same ferry that she lobbied for, wrote letters of support for, she was the one who wanted the Apollo. We got the Apollo, it served us well. I will agree with her, the time has come for us to change it out. I want to commend the good Minister of Transportation and Works and his colleagues for the attention that has been addressed on the Trans-Labrador Highway this past number of years, Mr. Speaker. Great things are happening.

This year alone, Mr. Speaker, we will invest some $68.2 million on the Trans-Labrador Highway on Phase I. We will invest another $3.4 million provincially and we will lever another $1.5 million to realign the Pinware River on the Trans-Labrador Highway. We will invest another $2 million, Mr. Speaker, to complete a new weigh scale inspection facility near Wabush.

Mr. Speaker, there are other programs that we are also involved in, and I want to highlight a few of them because it is so important to the people of Labrador. We are going to invest a total – and a full credit, I say to my colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains - amount of $6.3 million over the next three years, including $2.2 million in 2011-2012 to remediate the old military site in Hopedale, something that was long overdue - long overdue. We have continued with our Foodlift Subsidy program, a $230,000 investment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that my colleague from Torngat Mountains spoke very clearly on, and lobbied for hard inside of our government, was the investment in public housing on the North Coast of Labrador, and $1.2 million will be spent to construct the housing units for the residents of Hopedale.

For the residents of the Inuit communities on the North Coast who register their home heating tanks in compliance with the storage tank regulations, we as the government will invest another $1.5 million to reduce the costs incurred with those installations. We will continue, Mr. Speaker, to provide for subsidies totalling over $20 million annually to reduce the cost of electricity and home heating for the residents of the coastal communities, the North Coast communities.

Mr. Speaker, the Northern Strategic Plan of Labrador is a very, very important document. It is our plan for Labrador. It is a five-year plan. We are in the last year of the plan, Mr. Speaker. We will have invested over $650 million in the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador.

When it comes to university, we will invest $656,000 over the next three years to support Memorial University's Native Liaison Office. We will invest $3.6 million to complete the construction of the College of the North Atlantic in Labrador West. We will continue with the investment in the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair's district of two new schools, both in Port Hope Simpson and in L'Anse au Loup.

We will invest another $200,000 in Labrador Travel Subsidy Program, Mr. Speaker. We will further enhance the Medical Transportation Assistance Program by allowing for the prepayment of 50 per cent of the cost of economical airfare for medical travel for all residents throughout our Province, a great initiative for those who are sick and need to come to central locations for therapy and for treatment. We are investing to enhance mental health and addiction supports in Labrador. What I have highlighted is just a few of the moments when I outline a significant overall investment our government is making in mental health and addiction services in Labrador.

We will invest another $23.7 million, Mr. Speaker, this year toward the construction of a new $90 million regional health care facility in Labrador West. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, about the hospital in Labrador West. That area over there was represented by the Third Party for a number of years, and I can tell you the people of Labrador West certainly felt it. When you walk into that hospital and you see the dilapidated state that hospital was in, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you there was no question that a new hospital for Labrador West had to be done, and sooner the better. I am absolutely delighted for the people of Labrador West, particularly what is happening over there in the mining sector.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a few minutes about justice programs because justice programs in Labrador are something that is very important. We will spend some $357,000 to support justice programs in Natuashish, Sheshatshiu that build on the success of the Innu Healing Path Initiative. We will also look at $100,000 to update our Aboriginal Consultation Policy to ensure there are open lines of communication for dialogue on the development of projects and other key issues. We will spend another $100,000 to continue the land use planning for the Labrador Inuit settlement area.

Mr. Speaker, I only have a few more minutes but I do want to cover off a couple of other points. There was some mention earlier about Labrador-Grenfell Health from the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. I want to say that health care right now in Labrador is probably the best it has ever been. While we have some challenges in certain sectors, I believe the changes that our government did were for the betterment of the people of Labrador because for too long, Mr. Speaker, and I have said this in the past and I will say it here again today, for too long health care of the people of Labrador was about the economy of St. Anthony rather than the health care of the people of Labrador. That was why the people of Labrador, in 1991, voted for its own board of which the member, the Leader of the Opposition at the time was the Mayor of Mary's Harbour who also agreed with that. Mr. Speaker, we have enhanced medical services in Labrador. We only have to look at the kidney dialysis unit, the new chemotherapy unit and all those investments that we have invested in health care in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, something that was long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, this is a time in which Labrador is shining. I can tell you, just this past weekend I attended the graduation for the College of the North Atlantic and over 100 young people graduated at that graduation ceremony. Every one of them were proud that the college was working, but they were proud that they knew there were going to be opportunities for them with the Lower Churchill project, with the mining sector that is happening in Labrador, and all the good things that are going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador is a bright shining light in our north. I can tell you we are going to continue to invest and we are going to continue to ensure that the benefits go to the people in the communities of Labrador. It is a great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to be part of this government team that has made a difference, after fourteen years of Liberal rule in which we saw basically our resources going out and nothing coming back in.

Again, it is a great pleasure to stand on my feet this evening and to have a few words. In closing, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much and I will listen to see what the others have to say.

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 very happy to have the opportunity to speak to the Concurrence debate on the Government Services Committee.

The Government Services Committee is probably in terms of the Estimates process and the process we go through in the Budget, one of the smaller ones because not all of the departments that are listed under the Government Services Committee actually meet with the committee. In committee we met with the Departments of Transportation and Works, Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, Government Services, and the Department of Finance. It is an important committee because there are a number of things such as Executive Council and the Consolidated Funds Services of the government. The Legislative branch of government all come under the Government Services Committee, but some of those discussions do not take place with the committee, they take place here in the House of Assembly in committee, in the full House of Assembly.

I would like to speak a bit, before I get into the content of the Government Services, about a couple of the comments I heard here tonight and to explain the role of the Opposition when it comes to the discussion of the Budget or it comes to anything that has to do with decisions that are being proposed by government. I think it is important that the public know this and that I say it because of some of the comments that were made here tonight.

The reason why we have a democratic process and we have more than one party represented in the Legislature is that there have to be voices who are critically analyzing the decisions that are being made by government; that is the role of Opposition. Even though I say that I am saying this so the public will know it, the thing is I know the public knows that and I think I just want to let the government side of the House realize that the public does know that. Because it is the public who come to members of the Opposition and speak to us about things that they are not happy about with government decisions. They expect us to stand in the House of Assembly and to bring those concerns to the government publicly in the House of Assembly. So that is why, Mr. Speaker, when decisions are made by government with regard to schools that are affecting the lives of people and they are not happy with the process of how decisions are getting made, they lobby, they demonstrate, and parents, teachers and students come to us and ask us to bring the issue to the House of Assembly, to speak publicly.

When people have problems with, for example, our health care system, whether they are people who are working inside the system or people who use the system, both come to us. I have both groups of people come to me, Mr. Speaker, and sit with me, meet with me and want me to bring things into the House of Assembly, to speak publicly to their concerns. Whether it is decisions of government, whether it is a piece of legislation or whether it is the Budget, it is my responsibility, as it is the responsibility of the Official Opposition, it is also the responsibility of any other party in Opposition to stand and to share with the government the issues that people bring to us, to share the analysis we have of why the Budget or any other decision may not be adequate in order to try to have some discussion and to bring out the other side.

I, too, have to respond to what I heard the Member for Grand Bank say. It is my job to do that and if I did not do that, I would be reneging on why I was elected. I would also be neglecting the voice of people who come to me with their concerns, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I look at this Budget and there are many things in the Budget I like, and the thing is people know the things that I like in this Budget because they are things that I have stood and spoken to in this House of Assembly. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I support the fact that the provincial portion of the HST has been taken off home heating. Why? Because I stood and over and over and over again spoke to that issue here in the House and questioned the Minister of Finance over and over again on that issue. The people in the Province know where I stand on that, Mr. Speaker, and they do not need me to vote for the Budget to know where I stand on that issue.

Of course I care about the fact that seniors are getting dental care. When the government brought in dental care for older children –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - at that time, two years ago, I stood at that time and said we needed dental care for seniors. Of course I am happy that dental care is in there for seniors, Mr. Speaker.

As well, dialysis; am I going to say that I am not happy that there are dialysis machines? My own father spent his last eight months on dialysis. Of course we should have more dialysis machines and people should not have to travel hours to get to their machines. Of course they should not, and of course I am happy that is in the Budget. Mr. Speaker, it is really disingenuous of any member on the other side of the House to say that voting against the Budget means you do not agree with details in the Budget, and the public knows that. The public is well aware of that, Mr. Speaker. They are well aware of the role of Opposition. They understand the system that we operate in here in this House.

If we had a minority government and the minority government needed to sit down and negotiate over the Budget, that would happen. We have times, not here in this Legislature but certainly in the federal Legislature, we have had years when the minority government worked very well that way, when Lester Pearson was Prime Minister and when the NDP held a balance of power with the Liberal government, federally, and we were able to get things like health care. Our whole health care program came in under a minority government, but this government is going to vote for their Budget, it does not matter. This Budget is going to pass, and I know that. So, my putting my voice of Opposition out makes sense, Mr. Speaker. If I did not, I would not be honest with the people who have come to me and shared their concerns. They understand why I am voting against the Budget. For example, people who are really concerned - and that is an awful lot of people - about having early learning and a child care system, they understand that this Budget did not deliver on that, Mr. Speaker. They know that it was not delivered, so they will understand when I vote against the Budget because that was not delivered in this Budget.

They will also understand, Mr. Speaker, people who are really concerned about home care, the lack of home care, the lack of adequate long-term care, they know that we do not have a home care and long-term care plan in this Budget. They are going to be understanding when I vote against the Budget, because they know what they wanted in that Budget and it is not there. They do not see a plan, here is day one – even if it took five years to get to the end of the plan, it is not there. So, they are not fooled by that, Mr. Speaker. They understand when I vote against the Budget why I am voting against it. People who are really concerned about a plan for affordable housing, who really believe and who have recommended to this government that there be a division of housing –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – so that we would have a division that actually deals with housing, they understand why I will be voting against this, because there is nothing for a division of housing and there is no plan for affordable housing.

Mr. Speaker, this is why we are here. These issues come up, we are not the only ones who bring them up. The issues come up when government holds its consultations, and people can go in and they can say what they want. I sat in on one of the consultation sessions with regard to home care and long-term care. I do not see anything in the Budget anywhere near the wonderful, creative, visionary stuff I heard presented in the consultation –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS MICHAEL: I do not mean by me, Mr. Speaker, I mean by people in the community. I am not talking about myself. They were presented with ideas that were visionary with regard to home care and long-term care. Those things are not reflected in this Budget. So, Mr. Speaker, people understand what we are doing. People understand what we have to do because they are asking us to do it. The people who know that their voices were not heard in that consultation say: Keep it up; do not give up. That is what they are saying: Do not give up; keep at it.

Mr. Speaker, this is the thing that is so frustrating about being in this position; because I, too, have a responsibility to represent people - not just the people who are sitting in government. They have a role to play and I have a role to play and the Official Opposition has a role to play. People understand that, Mr. Speaker. They understand it. That is the thing that is really, really frustrating, when I hear somebody like the Member for Grand Bank stand up and say the things that he said, Mr. Speaker. It is totally unacceptable, totally unacceptable.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to look at some of the things that I heard -

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment on a point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention to some of the comments of the member opposite. It is fair enough for the member to disagree with points being made in this House but the kind of language and the attitude being displayed I think is less than acceptable. The member is entitled to her opinion. The fact of the matter that she does not agree with the housing plan that the president of every organization in Newfoundland and Labrador responsible for housing agrees with is up to her but the fact of the matter is you cannot stand in this House and argue that you support A and you support B and she supports C and D, when it comes time to vote on a Budget you vote against it. You cannot have it both ways. You either stand for what you believe in or you do not, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

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

I expressed an opinion and the Member for Grand Bank expressed an opinion, and that is what this House is about. Expressing an opinion is not arrogance, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are here for and I have expressed my opinion. I totally disagree with the member and what he just said, but that is my right. We can agree on points in a Budget and vote against it. That is the process we are in, in this House of Assembly. That is the parliamentary system, Mr. Speaker. That is the parliamentary system.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of the issues that are bothering me under the Government Services Committee, some of the things that we heard. In Estimates, when we met with Transportation and Works one of the issues I raised with the minister and with his officials was the whole issue of the ferry system, and I am going to do it in the broader way. It is not just the Bell Island ferry; it is the system that is very problematic.

The minister made it very clear, and I was glad he made it clear and I understand from the news today, I think he has made it clear to the people on Bell Island as well, that the Bell Island ferries themselves are not part of the five-year plan and there is probably going to be nothing happening with those ferries in terms of replacing them for another ten years most likely. I was glad the minister answered that clearly in Estimates, that was fine, but my problem, Mr. Speaker, is with the system that means there are periods of time when they can be without a ferry at all or they can be down to one ferry. The system allows that to happen. Because of the fact you have a swing ferry that has to get shared, and during that period of time you can have one of the two Bell Island ferries needing maintenance, they can be down to one ferry. What happens to the people on Bell Island when that happens, like we have seen this week and which happens throughout the year on a number of occasions, the inconvenience – and it is not just inconvenience, it is very serious. You can actually have people having their jobs in jeopardy because of the lack of a ferry system, Mr. Speaker. It is inconvenience but more than inconvenience, they actually are not getting to their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we have a system that is not working for all people using the ferry. Bell Island is a daily commuting island. People are going back and forth on a regular basis for their livelihood, Mr. Speaker, in both directions. Some people work over there. People over there, about 300, commute and come over to this side every day. The system does not work for them. We cannot have an island with daily commuters on it who cannot depend on being able to get the boat. People may think it is exaggerated but there are people in this room, not just myself, who have been on that island and have seen the cars at 4:30 in the morning in the line up when there is only one ferry running, Mr. Speaker. So the system is not working.

I put this out to the minister; the system has to be fixed. Even if, and I accept the explanation the two ferries that are assigned to Bell Island in particular, that those two ferries, as was put by the minister, their shelf life is such that they are not ready to be taken out of service yet and it is going to be quite a number of years before they come out. Well then something has to be done to ensure those people they are not going to be losing jobs, they are going to be able to go to work without having to get up at 4:00 o'clock in the morning, get home 7:00 o'clock at night, and that is a reality; that they know they are cared enough about by this government and that this government has enough commitment to that island to help keep people on that island, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: The people who are there have stuck with it. They have stuck with it all these years because they love that island so much. It is where they were born. It was where they went to school. It is where a lot of them worked for a long time when there was work there to be had, and where some of them have retired because they worked on the island and are retired on the island. To have to go through what they are going through, it is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker.

I put to the minister that something has to be done. I am not happy with what I am hearing in the news. I just cannot believe these people are being told, what you have is what you have. It is not acceptable. We had the discussion in Estimates, all of this has happened since and I just have to put it out here. We have to figure out a system whereby you do not have this possibility of that island being left with the one ferry. I feel I have a responsibility to bring that out and I think we do not have a strong enough plan with regard to the ferry systems on this island. I know we have two more boats being built, but that is still not going to help the Bell Island situation. Because having the swing boat, the possibility of going down to one boat because of the second boat having to be on dry dock is just not acceptable, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing I would like to speak to, it is over now but what we saw happen this past year, Mr. Speaker, with the behavioural aide workers on the Burin Peninsula was just unacceptable. I just could not believe this government allowed those fifteen workers to be out on strike for over a year and then to end up with the small pay increase they got. This government says it cares about people.

During the presentation to the Social Services Committee I heard the Chair speak about the great economic outlook that we have and speak about the fact, Mr. Speaker, for example that the personal income and disposable income growth of 5.5 per cent and 5.4 per cent respectively is a sign of strength. Well, when I think about workers, like these fifteen workers on the Burin Peninsula, that is not a great economic outlook for them. They are not the ones who are being talked about, Mr. Speaker. When I think about people on minimum wage, they are not the ones who are being talked about, this wonderful economic outlook of 5.5 per cent. When I think about people who are on income assistance, Mr. Speaker, when I think about them and think about how little they have, that is not a great economic outlook for them.

Mr. Speaker, this government sort of whistles in the dark. They take that statistic and make themselves feel good and they do not think about the people for whom that is not a reality. That is what really bothers me.

I was just asked, Mr. Speaker, I am saying it is not true; no, I am saying it is not true for everybody. That is what I am saying. That is a problem with this government, it does not understand the issue of equity, of trying to make the imbalance between those who have and those who have not get smaller, because right now, Mr. Speaker, it is getting larger. The gap in this Province is growing between those who have and those who have not.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I will be voting against this Budget, because that gap is growing and every statistic –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Just to wind up, Mr. Speaker, please, by leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Just a few seconds to say that is one of the main reasons why I cannot vote for this Budget, because every analysis we have done shows us that the gap between those who have and those who have not - or as used to be said, the rich and poor - is growing and I do not see measures in this Budget that are going to help close that gap in this Budget.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: The terminator.

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I have been called a lot of things.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to get up and have a few words tonight on the Concurrence debate. I think this is the first time I have been up in the House of Assembly during this session. I had prepared a speech one day on livestock insurance and crop insurance but some of the townies beat me to it. I did not get up that day. I knew a little bit about that stuff and I had expected to get up but I did not, but anyway, that is part of the system.

I have attended over the years – I am here five years now. I have been up at five different Estimates Committee meetings over the years. I have asked some questions, not serious questions. I just asked for some comments about things going on, nothing more than I would do in my ordinary day. Many times in my ordinary day I will pick up the phone if something hits my mind and I will phone some department, some minister, or I will meet a minister out in the hall. I will talk to ministers at caucus and I will ask them questions about something that hits me. The same will happen if I am at one of these Estimate Committee meetings, and I will offer some suggestions.

I remember three years ago at one of the Estimate Committees talking about, we were doing the Estimates for the Department of Transportation and Works and we got into a conversation about the use of – just say if you had different crews, if they had their own paving machines, we talked about that and the cost of it and all that type of stuff. That is just a part of what goes on. Now, I got a few compliments from the other side but feel assured I am not going over there. I have no intention of going across the floor unless I am going to talk to some of my colleagues on the other side.

Our government is very concerned about the most vulnerable people in our society, especially children. This concern is such a priority that over the past three Throne Speeches child care matters have been key focus issues. Government has made substantial investments in the area of Child, Youth and Family Services.

Budget 2010-2011 provided funding to set up a new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services; $5.2 million was earmarked for program growth and for the further development of multidisciplinary teams and other improvements to the system. There were 223 new positions created, most of them were social workers who were given the proper training to deal with children. It was not just an ordinary social worker who had to deal with all kinds of issues; they were given specific training to deal with children's issues. The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services has, as its primary focus the safety and well-being of children.

Also, Budget 2009-2010 provided $1.3 million to enhance the foster care rate structure with an additional $1.1 million for the following Budget year. Now, how significant is this? We were having trouble getting foster homes and with all the extra funding provided for the fee structure and also the advertising and everything else, I think we are starting to get a handle on this problem also.

In the 2010-2011 Budget, an additional $1.8 million was allocated for more positions in this new department; $21.8 million was allocated for residential costs for at-risk children, and $400,000 to commence replacing of the computerized case management system.

Budget 2011-2012 continued the investment in Child, Youth and Family Services by providing funding to create child care spaces. We are moving into a new era of child protection with legislative reform, recruitment and retention programs, mandatory professional training, quality improvement programs, a new system for managing complex cases, workload assessments, standards for documentation and improved information technology. With all of these improvements in the next few years you are going to see a very efficient, very worthwhile, well-working Child, Youth and Family Services Department in this government. I think it will solve a lot of the problems that were there before when this service was a part of the health boards.

Mr. Speaker, opportunity and economic growth are fostered by investments in child care, K-12 education, post-secondary education, apprenticeship programs and people with disabilities. Our government has made substantive changes in each of these areas over the past few years. In the area of child care, a two-year pilot project was introduced this year for the development of child care spaces in family homes. Highlights include: increased start-up grants from $2,500 to $5,000 to become a regulated family care provider; infant start-up grants of $7,500 for homes that care exclusively for children up to the age of two. Also, ongoing stimulus grants to infant care homes of $200 a month per infant space; commencement with the 2011 taxation year, a new non-refundable child care tax credit based on child care expenses currently deductible from income.

In the area of education, a total of $4.8 million over the next three years will be spent, including an initial commitment of $1.3 million to move forward with a range of initiatives in the Early Childhood Learning Strategy; an investment of approximately $11 million under the 21^st Century Learning Strategy to purchase additional computers and interactive whiteboards for schools. A visit to any of our schools today and you can see all this stuff taking place. I was at Hazelwood Elementary, I think a week or so ago, and you could see the kids using these whiteboards they call them. It is well beyond my range but the kids certainly know how to use them.

We also have a $94.5 million investment for new and continued K-12 infrastructure, including funding for new projects. There is planning for the extension and redevelopment of Roncalli Elementary in St. John's; planning for the extension and redevelopment of the former Regina High School to create a new intermediate school in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Planning for the extension and renovation of Holy Spirit High in Conception Bay South; planning for the extension and renovation of Gander Academy; planning for the refurbishment of Holy Heart Regional High in St. John's; planning work to provide new capacity to address growing enrolment in the Portugal Cove-St. Phillip's area, and in the areas of Torbay, Flatrock, Pouch Cove, and Bauline; planning to address capacity issues at schools in the rapidly growing Conception Bay South area. Not to mention, that in the Budget of 2010-2011 we had half a million dollars allocated for planning and the commencement of the West End High School for St. John's. An additional investment this year of $6.4 million to maintain the tuition freeze at Memorial University and College of the North Atlantic for the 2011-2012 academic year; a total cumulative investment of $138.8 million over the last seven years.

Investments in post-secondary infrastructure: $19.8 million in new funding for Memorial University over three years for maintenance projects, a total of $36 million through to 2013-2014; $7.7 million for Memorial University over the next two years for laboratory upgrades, a total of $13.5 million since 2009; $3.2 million in new funding for the College of the North Atlantic for repairs and maintenance over the next three years - all of this stuff is in our Budget this year; $7 million over the next three years allocated to College of the North Atlantic for laboratory and shop modernization, in addition to $2 million in funding provided under the Skills Task Force; $15.4 million over the next three years to provide additional incentives to employers to hire apprentices, especially from under-represented groups.

In the last two weeks, I have had three individuals from my district come with me over to industrial trades and they have applied for this incentive. They have applied to get this – what would you call it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Targeted Wage Subsidy.

MR. DINN: Yes, a Targeted Wage Subsidy, that is what it is. For the first-year apprentices, 90 per cent is offered to the employer to hire these people. Now, what an incentive. One guy that I brought over last week, one phone call - when the employer found out that this 90 per cent was available he was hired on the spot. Because where are you going to get somebody to go to work and have to pay only 10 per cent of their wage, especially in plumbing? When he is in his second year apprentice, if he is still there, he will get 80 per cent of his wages covered. So, a great program, a great way to get employers to hire our apprentices and give them the work experience they need and the hours they need to continue on with their training.

Also, $400,000 this year in interim funding to implement the first stages of the Provincial Strategy for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities. I attended one of the consultation sessions last year that we had for disability people. As a matter of fact, I arranged for some people in my district to attend and they were very, very vocal. They got up and spoke and were glad to have an opportunity to present their case, to let people hear out their story. I think this is something governments need to do and I am glad that we do this.

Now, that is some of the stuff in this Budget. When I look at education and think about what we have done in the past, we have done a lot in the past. As a matter of fact, one of the things I always applaud this government for was eliminating the interest on the provincial portion of student loans. You do not realize how important this is.

I had an e-mail today from a resident of the Goulds, a constituent of mine who has the federal portion of her student loan still not paid. It must have gotten backed up a bit, or something happened. I think they had some problems. Anyway, she owed $7,000; that was the federal portion of her student loan. The interest on it was $10,000 built up over the years. We have no interest rates; the federal government still maintains theirs. What we have done is very, very important and very attractive for people.

We have provided free textbooks for all children in school from K-12. We spent millions on school maintenance and school improvements. We removed chalkboards and carpet, we fixed windows and doors and ventilation systems. We spent millions on school equipment, equipment for gyms and laboratories and cafeterias. We have hired additional teachers. Back a few years ago the big concern was teachers getting laid off. We have instituted programs where class sizes are reduced, and many of the teachers who were scheduled to be laid off were never laid off. As a matter of fact, others were hired so that now there are probably more teachers in the school system than there were seven or eight years ago.

The children in my district go to ten schools. In the last six or seven years nearly $12 million has been spent on these schools, upgrading them, improving the maintenance and everything else in those schools. Our investments in education are unmatched by any other government I would say in the history of this Province. I do not think any government ever spent the money that we are spending on education.

Mr. Speaker, our government has and is demonstrating a strong commitment to helping the most vulnerable people in our society through poverty reduction, housing programs, violence prevention and child protection. In those areas we have invested $140 million this year alone in poverty reduction, accumulative investment of more than $620 million since 2006. Several have mentioned the Adult Dental Health Care Program, which is $1.5 million this year and it will be $6.1 million annually in the future. Additionally, we have added $2.4 million in funding for the Supportive Living Community Partnership Program. We have allowed an extra million dollars to the Housing Corporation Rent Supplement Program.

Also, we have given an additional $115,400 to the Murphy Centre in St. John's to expand access to academic programs. We eliminated the claw back of income tax refunds for Income Support clients. Now that is very important because I have had, in the past, calls from people on Income Support who were waiting to get some kind of an income tax refund and they never did get it because it was clawed back on them. We have provided funding to expand the employment transition programs to new locations.

In the area of safety, we have brought in initiatives to keep families safe from violence, including $360,000 to increase safety and security at ten transition houses; $100,000 to increase the capacity of ten regional coordinating committees for violence prevention activities; an additional $10,000 to enable the Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault Crisis and Prevention Centre to expand services Province-wide. We provided $529,000 for the continuation of the Specialized Family Violence Court in St. John's. We provided funding for a crime analyst associated with the RCMP to be located in Trinity-Conception district, and $108,300 for an RNC officer to be hired for a Child Exploitation Prevention Unit in Corner Brook. All these things are in our Budget. A lot of these are in our Budget this year and very good initiatives that should be supported.

Mr. Speaker, I have two-and-a-half minutes left. Before I finish up, I want to make a couple of comments on some of the issues that have come to the floor of the House of Assembly over the last few months, over the last few weeks anyway. One of the ones I want to talk about, and I hear it all the time, everyday we hear about the Muskrat Falls deal. I look at Muskrat Falls as planning for the future. We are not, as a government, going to sit on our hands and wait for the day to come when we are going to find ourselves probably out of power or having to ration power. I think it is better for us to do what we are going to do, go ahead and do the Muskrat deal. If the power is not needed on the Island or in Labrador, then we have an asset that I think would not be very hard to sell. I would say there will be lots of people, lots of places in Canada, larger centres that would grab up our excess power. I would rather gamble on producing the power than sitting on our hands and waiting for the future to come and finding ourselves without it.

Another thing that we talk about and get criticized for here is our government's takeover of the Abitibi assets; the land, the water, the forest and the power. I think that was a very, very wise decision on our part. Can you imagine the value of these assets? Just take the land alone, the land that we have taken back from Abitibi, we expropriated this. That land will be worth billions up on top of billions of dollars, not counting the trees that are on that land, not counting the water that runs over this land, not counting the power that could be generated from the water on this land. I think we did something that is very, very sensible and very important for the economic growth of this Province in the future probably when the oil is gone. I shudder to think what would have happened to these assets with Abitibi going under and what they might have done with those without us having any control of it, but now we do have control and we own them. The wood potential alone is worth millions of dollars.

I just want to mention one other thing, and that is the criticisms we get sometimes about Labrador. Our Leader of the Opposition got up earlier and talked about not getting any pavement for ten years. Maybe it might be an idea for the Member for Labrador West not to give up politics and run in that district the next time. He has gotten an awful lot.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of good things have been done by this government, especially the financial path that we have taken.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DINN: Okay. I am finished, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege again this evening at this late hour to be able to stand and participate in the Concurrence debate on the Resource Committee for Government Services.

Mr. Speaker, again, I find it somewhat intriguing to sit back and listen to the government members as they speak and as they have just spelled out all of the investments that government is making. I suppose without that angle there would be nothing to talk about for them, that is all I can understand. To fill up that fifteen or twenty minutes of speaking time, it is important that we rhyme off all of the investments we have made over the past eight years, and accumulate them and total them so that the tens of millions becomes hundreds of millions, and it eventually becomes billions of dollars. We can all leave the House of Assembly feeling so good about what we have done and we can feel we have accomplished something, Mr. Speaker, that really justifies our existence I suppose, I do not really know.

Instead of talking about the issues that concern those in our districts, the constituents we represent and the issues that we are trying to work on and so on, Mr. Speaker, I never hear those kinds of things being talked about in this House by government members. To talk about the schools we are building, the arenas we are building, the tourism monies we are spending and the playgrounds that were put in place. Well, Mr. Speaker, I went to a school. From the age of five until I graduated from high school I went to three or four different schools, long before eight years ago. I have to say, for that day they were decent schools but times come when schools have to be replaced, arenas have to be replaced and new ones built and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are fortunate that we are in a time when there is money to do those kind of things but I do not think we need to be taking too much of the credit because of all the good things that we have done and without that there would be absolutely no way we would be experiencing and enjoying the things that we have today. I just find it is somewhat short sighted.

Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to the government members talk about all of these investments - and, Mr. Speaker, they are good investments. They are necessary investments. They are investments we all enjoy seeing, I want to assure you of that, but I have not heard anyone talk about, for example, the issues we have out there in the districts which are represented by some of these government members, I would suggest. For example, the boil order issue that is so prevalent in our Province today. After eight years of government, after eight years of having budgets like this Province has never seen, that have gone from $3 billion to $8 billion, Mr. Speaker, we still have 200-plus communities that are on boil orders.

Mr. Speaker, imagine this morning I got up and I read an article in The Rural Lens from a couple of months ago. It talked about the 6 Year Thirst, I believe it was entitled. It talked about getting up in the morning, we get up, we brush our teeth, we have a shower, we make our breakfast, have our tea, drink that large glass of water, like we have been doing all day here and we probably have consumed eight or ten glasses of water each here today. Mr. Speaker, as we are driving to work with the radio on we hear the announcement that there is a boil order on. Automatically we think about that cup of tea we just consumed, that glass of water, that shower we just had, the water we used brushing our teeth and so on and we think about Walkerton. We think about the lack of chlorination in that water. We talk about the presence of E-coli in that water. We talk about the presence of coliform in that water, Mr. Speaker. That is a real issue.

I have communities in my district, Mr. Speaker, that have been on boil order all of the duration of these past eight years with this government. In 2008, I believe it was the government introduced a plan. They introduced an action plan. They were going to deal with the boil order issue in this Province once and for all. Mr. Speaker, what they were going to do was they were going to offer communities what is referred to as PWDU, potable water dispensing units. There were twenty-odd communities that signed on for these units in 2008. Three years later, in my understanding, we have six that are operational.

Mr. Speaker, if we want to look for an issue that is not addressed in this Budget in terms of supporting the Budget or not supporting the Budget, I would suggest that is a real dilemma, a challenge. That is something today that really threatens the existence and survival of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If we talk about trying to attract young people, we talk about trying to attract industry, we talk about trying to attract investment to our smaller communities, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest we are not going to attract much investment to a community where you are going to ask a family to bring their children in and they cannot even be certain they are going to have decent drinking water for them as they get up in the mornings to go to school. Mr. Speaker, it is a real issue.

There are other issues in our Province as well. When I think about the Department of Municipal Affairs and I look at the budgets they are spending. We know this year in the Budget there was some election bait. That was the fact that municipalities with less than 1,000 people got a 50 per cent increase in their MOG. For municipalities having over 1,000 and less than 2,000 they have 40 per cent and it is prorated up to the point where they get down as low as 10 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, it is great. There is no municipality out there that is not excited this year about having an increase in their operating grant, in their MOG, and I will tell you why. Mr. Speaker, if you go back into the 2004-2005 Estimates, as I did today, you will find the MOGs for the municipalities in this Province in 2003-2004 was $21 million. If you look at last year's Budget of 2010-2011, the one we are just finishing, you will find the MOGs for the same municipalities is $17.8 million. Mr. Speaker, that is not much advancement. That is going from $21 million in 2003-2004 and this past year having a total of $17.8 million. Mr. Speaker, in an election year we bump that to $22.2 million.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Department of Municipal Affairs as an example, and you look at any other departments –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DEAN: I have looked at the numbers, Mr. Speaker, and I do not need the member to tell me what the numbers are. I know what they are, I understand them.

Mr. Speaker, for example, if you look at the minister's office in Municipal Affairs, if you look at the regional support that is in that department, you will find each one of these particular pieces of the Budget have increased by about 30 per cent in that same time frame. I would suggest that if we need 30 per cent more to operate our office, if we need 30 per cent more to operate our support systems, I would suggest we need at least 30 per cent more to operate our municipalities in this Province. Yet, again, it is not there.

Mr. Speaker, again it is great to be able to spiel off, it is great to be able to talk about all the good things we are doing, but I want to tell you that when you go to Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and to a symposium as I did two weeks ago –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear myself think. That member is awful noisy over there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask for the co-operation of all members.

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that. It is my time and I want to get the points across that I am trying to make. The other members will have their opportunities as well.

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things at the symposium two weeks ago in Gander – it was a concern that was expressed to me as the Municipal Affairs critic. Yes, we are glad to see it come this year, it is long overdue, but a new framework of MOGs, Municipal Operating Grants, is long overdue in this Province. Municipalities do not know where their future is. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest it is time for this government to put it on the table so people understand where it is.

Mr. Speaker, another issue in terms of Municipal Affairs that is a large concern to this Province and to me as an MHA who represents one of the remotest parts of this Province, of the Island in particular, is the government's Provincial Waste Management Strategy plan; a plan that quite frankly today is still not finished after years of being developed and so on. Mr. Speaker, let me say first and foremost that definitely we need waste management. I visited Robin Hood Bay just a few months ago, as my daughter was moving into her house. I had visited in recent years, not that many years ago, five or six, when I lived there in Middle Cove. Mr. Speaker, to see the improvements that have been made at Robin Hood Bay today compared to what it was then, yes, someone is to be congratulated for the effort that has gone into there, quite frankly. It is not that you can take that model and roll it out across our Province. What we have to realize is that it is serving most of the population. Over half of the population is within a rocks throw of Robin Hood Bay, if you will.

Mr. Speaker, we have established a second waste management site in Central Newfoundland at Norris Arm. We are waiting to understand exactly what it means for those who live in Western Newfoundland and, for me as an MHA more importantly, for those of us who live on the Northern Peninsula within the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about, the proposals that are there now, they have become so frustrating that we have seen people, first of all, resign from the waste management board on the West Coast. They have just been throwing their arms into the air trying to deal with government on this issue and trying to make it move forward. Mr. Speaker, the concern I have is that this strategy is suggesting we are going to take all of our waste from the Northern Peninsula, from L'Anse aux Meadows right on down to Port aux Basques, Rose Blanche, Burgeo & La Poile and so on, we are going to take all of that waste and we are going to transport it into Norris Arm. Now, if that is where government feels it needs to go, then fine, not that I would agree. I do not believe we have that much waste that we cannot contain it in another site in a proper manner, in an efficient manner, and certainly in a much more cost-effective manner

Mr. Speaker, my concern and my question to the government is this, and the answer has not come forward yet: Is this going to be affordable? Can the individual in St. Anthony, or can the individual in St. Lunaire, or can the individual in Port aux Basques afford this Waste Management Strategy that is going to be put in front of them within the next months, year, years, or whatever the case might be?

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that when it comes to waste management I would compare it to the MMSB, to the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board. We pay eight cents per bottle I believe it is for recycling of a can, a pop can or a bottle, whatever the case is. Whether you live in St. John's, whether you live in St. Anthony, whether you live in Labrador City, whether you live in Corner Brook, there is eight cents charge to every consumer every time they purchase a product that is a recyclable container.

Mr. Speaker, that sounds to be fair. It has proven to be equitable because the MMSB is able to show large surpluses in that operation, but what it seems to be suggesting from the Provincial Solid Waste Management Strategy is that no, no, Eastern region may cost – and I am only using figures to make a point. I have no idea what the figures are, but, Mr. Speaker, in Eastern Newfoundland it may cost $20 per household per month for waste management, in Central Newfoundland it may cost $25 per month for waste management, but because the numbers are lower and the cost is higher, to give the same service on the Northern Peninsula it is potentially a possibility that it may be $40 per month in that particular case. Mr. Speaker, if that is the proposal that this government is going to put forward –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: - then, quite frankly, I as one cannot support that. I can tell you the people in my district, and I think the people of many other districts along the Northern Peninsula and the West Coast would not be supportive of that as well.

Mr. Speaker, so we wait to see what it is going to be, but while that proposal is being put forward I believe this government can make a commitment to the people of Newfoundland and also Labrador, of course, because their own waste management piece has to be done as well. I believe there can be a commitment made that there can be equality across the board in terms of cost to the residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, one of the government services of this committee is the Department of Transportation. I want to say we just came through another winter, a lot of snow on the Northern Peninsula, as many parts of the Province and so on, I would commend the staff who are out there who look after highways every day. Unfortunately, this government has seen to cut back on the availability of snow clearing and so on. I travel the Northern Peninsula a lot of times 11:00 or 12:00 o'clock at night coming back from different places, whether it is trying to get back from the House in the early spring or from meetings, wherever the case might be, and I have often been in a snowstorm when there has been no snow clearing services on the road. I came back about six or seven weeks ago from a family funeral service at about 9:00 or 10:00 o'clock at night from a small community just outside St. Anthony, and I was in a four-wheel drive. Mr. Speaker, I literally had to plow the road, so to speak, to get through it. There was no equipment on the road; that is just the policy of the government, it is the way it works, that after 8:00 or 9:00 o'clock, whatever the case is, that the equipment is off. There are areas in this Province where that works quite well, but I want to tell you there are areas in this Province where it does not work very well. The Northern Peninsula is obviously one of those areas.

I want to mention and bring it up again because it is important about one of the decisions that this government made in the Department of Transportation: the closing of thirteen highway depots across the Province a few years back. Mr. Speaker, the previous Member for The Straits & White Bay North, my predecessor, was the minister at the time that basically brought that change into place. The repercussions of that, again, the local highways depot in Roddickton closing down around the middle of March, it is still winter. It is still winter in that region for another six weeks or so, and it makes absolutely no sense at all that the highways depot would be closed, that people would be laid off, and that in the case of snow or in the case of emergency, or in the case of needed repairs, someone actually has to travel from the depot in Flower's Cove, or the depot in Plum Point, or the depot, possibly, in Port Saunders to come down and work out of the depot in Roddickton. Mr. Speaker, it is inefficient, it is costly, it is not in the best interests of the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is jeopardizing what is otherwise a very effective service to the Province. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make that point.

Also, I have some gravel roads, as all of us have gravel roads in different districts, but again, when you get into a different climate, gravel roads are much more severe. There is nothing worse than a gravel road after a winter freeze and the spring thaw comes on. Mr. Speaker, I saw them when I live in L'Anse au Clair thirty years ago, I see them today as I live on the Northern Peninsula. Two weekends ago, I travelled to Conche for a graduation. It was absolutely ridiculous, the roads were terrible. It is a new road; it is a road that is essentially 80 per cent complete, if you will. It is complete in terms of construction but it is not complete in terms of being finished, it does not have the asphalt top. There was some work done in the town with a product, and I just forget the name of it now – chip seal, is that what it is called? Mr. Speaker, it was an experiment, it did not work. Quite frankly, it is worse than the gravel road and it needs to be graded off, picked up, and taken away.

Mr. Speaker, it needs to be done, it is something that the people are looking for. They are expecting it, they were promised it, there is enough money in this Province to do it, and I see absolutely no reason why that has not taken place. I travelled to places like Croque and Boat Harbour, these are gravel roads but of a different structure, Mr. Speaker. They are older roads. They certainly are not of the quality of a road that you see in Conche, probably may never be but certainly at this point; yet they are not looking for asphalt, they are looking for a little bit of crushed stone in the spring of the year to make the roads just more accessible, more safe to travel on. That is not a whole lot to be asking for, Mr. Speaker, but it seems like every year it is the same issue, it is phone calls, it is petitions, it is people on the radio just advocating, not wanting to be complainers but just wanting to get the point out that these roads really need something to be done with them.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget is down, the allocation of money has been allocated to the department and I am eagerly waiting for the minister. I realize that he has a lot of work on his desk, and I appreciate that, and tenders are rolling out. Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to seeing what comes out for the District of The Straits & White Bay North in the next couple of weeks or so. There is a lot of roadwork there that is necessary. I realize it all will not get done, but I am certain this government will commit to the people of that district as taxpayers of the Province, that they can expect to see some work done on it for sure as well.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much time left. I want to make one last point. I want to talk a little bit about health care. In this year's Budget, the government decreased the travel allowance from 5,000 kilometres to 2,500 kilometres, I believe it was, for the deductible. I want to suggest again that people who have to travel from the rural parts of Newfoundland to the City of St. John's or to the City of Corner Brook for medical services, they endure great costs. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to road mileage, someone travelling from St. Anthony to Corner Brook, for example, is a 1,000 kilometre trip. Mr. Speaker, whether it is the first trip of the year or whether it is the third trip of the year, I would suggest that these residents deserve some rebate. So, I think the 2,500 kilometre minimum or deductible, if you want to call it that, is something that should go away. Mr. Speaker, I would advocate for that, I would encourage the government to certainly bring that forward in next year's Budget.

Again, I appreciate the time. I realize my time is gone, and I appreciate the time to speak again tonight on the Concurrence.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I am delighted to be on my feet here tonight, be it 11:06 p.m., but we are not concerned about the time because we are on, I guess, a mission of great importance tonight.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I will get to the Leader of the Opposition. Be patient there now. I know you are not patient when it comes to the Trans-Labrador Highway, you want everything now, but we will get to that, not to worry.

I say, Mr. Speaker, this is my thirteenth Budget, believe it or not. Unbelievable! I guess when I look around I am getting a little bit long in the tooth. I am looking at my colleague across, the Opposition House Leader and, of course, we came in at the same time. We have seen, I guess, five Premiers in thirteen years, thirteen Budgets, but I have to say that when it comes to this thirteenth Budget I am very, very proud to be part of a government that can bring forth a Budget that is for everybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are proud to have you.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, and proud to be here, I might say to the hon. member.

Again, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I was not thirteen years in government; five of those were spent in Opposition. I chuckle when I see the Opposition members get up, they get up like the champion: We are going to take on every issue, we are going to move mountains, we are going to stick up for the little man and the little woman, we are going to do all of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, I have been there I say to the member opposite here. I was there and I know your game, and it is a game. They have to get up and look so serious while they are doing it. Say anything, do anything, and promise anything, but knowing full well that they never will be required to deliver it - never. I realized that when I was in Opposition. I tell you -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HEDDERSON: I hear chattering again. Now, you had your time up. Be quiet; we will get to you. Maybe I will start with you. Here is the member who just got up and said: Poor me, no roadwork, nothing ever done, my God. He is an expert on water, I will give him that much. He is at that: Iceberg Water. It is too bad because he understands when it comes to boil orders that you cannot take any chances with water - you cannot take any chances. We have water that is out in the communities and municipalities are trying ever which way they can to make sure that it is fit to drink, but they are not going to take a risk and they are asking people to make sure that when there is a risk involved that they take all precautions and make sure they boil the water. Again, the expert on water says we are not doing enough.

I say to you, basically, Municipal Affairs over the last number of years - and it started with the hon. member down at the end there – we made sure there were ratios in place for funding that could allow municipalities to build up their infrastructure, to build up what they need in order to give adequate services. Many of them are still struggling, I will give that, but they have a chance that they never had before. We are moving forward and we will continue to move forward, and this Budget allows us to move forward.

Again, to get back the Member for The Straits: no money. I just did a little exercise and went back over seven years and I looked at the four districts over there and I say to myself: They are getting up all the time and complaining that we have done nothing - we have done nothing. Let's go down through them. We will take the Member for The Straits. The college: $500,000; of course that is just maintenance and that sort of thing. Existing schools: $4.9 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, $4.9 million. I understand, too, that there is construction going on up there and many millions in new schools are already put aside that he is going to see the effects of it in the years to come. Mr. Speaker, a brand, spanking new school complex; who delivered it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We did.

MR. HEDDERSON: We did, exactly.

Health care: $6.5 million; medical equipment was something like $10 million. Of course ports - that must be wharves and that sort of thing - $5 million. Here is the kicker: This is the man who just up complaining about not enough roads done up there. When I say the number, I am going to get in trouble because my member is going to say: How did that happen? It is $18.1 million in The Straits. I got trouble tomorrow, I can tell you that right now.

To get back to the member: You came into my office and you set out your priorities, absolutely. I asked three times: What about Conche? Three times I asked. He said: No, that is not a priority; I want Englee done.

MR. DEAN: A point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?

MR. DEAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I did not hear the commentary that was said, but if the hon. member is rising on a point of order, I ask him to make his point of order.

MR. DEAN: What the member said, Mr. Speaker, is totally untrue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay, let's move on. I am saying to the member: I can only report what I heard, what I asked, and what I am reporting. I am not getting into it, Mr. Speaker, because again if he is calling my integrity into question, let him take care of that. Anyway, let's move on a little bit further. Oh, we have other fellows shaking their heads over there. Again, you do not get up and talk about what things I am not doing and not own up to what you are doing. I say that to you right to your face.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Let's go to the Leader of the Opposition, again, trying to put off that we are doing nothing in Labrador. My hon. colleague was up a little bit earlier and went down through what is happening in the Leader of the Opposition's district. Let me go down through it again. Again, I am going to get myself in trouble because I have a lineup coming to me tomorrow saying: How come not me?

Schools - that is just taking care of schools - $2 million over seven years, just doing a little bit of maintenance. New schools: $24 million. Health buildings is something like $2.4 million; equipment: $500,000; social housing: about $500,000. Listen to this: provincial roads, $98 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HEDDERSON: I am gone tomorrow. That is only roads and there are lots more to come up that way. Just to go back and I would like to just address the Trans-Labrador Highway. Again, as she pointed out, the Trans-Labrador Highway Phase II was in 1997. She neglected to talk about the Trans-Labrador Highway really goes back to 1965 with a cow path out of Lab West coming down. Since 1965 on up, and I believe maybe it was in Peckford's time that they began Phase I in the 1980s, they had Phase I completed and then moved on down to Phase II in 1997, and from 1997 to 2003 Phase II was done really from Red Bay to Cartwright Junction and on up to Cartwright. We picked up in 2003 and we completed Phase III and opened up the Trans-Labrador Highway last year in December.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: When we started the Trans-Labrador Highway, the deal was that we would put a basic road and put it through as fast as we could - not we, because it started off in Peckford's time, went on to the Liberals Administration under Clyde Wells and company and on onto us - a narrow gravel road that we would push from Lab West right down to Red Bay. When we went back over it - because we wanted to do it quickly and get it open - we saved two years by keeping that in place, the narrow.

So we opened it up and now again go back in the order in which we started because Phase I, basically up in my colleague's district, they had to wait for twenty years to get theirs hardened, widened. Again, we have made the commitment that we are following through on the Trans-Labrador Highway and we have continued that commitment. This government in this Budget, $70 million was the last one that we put out, 160 kilometres to continue the widening and hardening of Phase I. We have one more tender to go out and that will be done and then we will set our sights elsewhere as we try to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway. It is a commitment of this government and a commitment that we are going to follow through on, yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: To our Leader of the NDP, again I say to the hon. member, always looking for more and always putting on a poor mouth as if nothing is happening in her district, nothing. Looking to the Minister of Health: Where is the long-term care facility? Where is the planning going on? Let's look at her district. Again, I am going to get in big trouble here again, but I will do it.

When we look at it, the Leader of the Opposition was $131 million over seven years; that is infrastructure now. The Member for The Straits, we are looking at $55 million. When we are looking at the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that is taking care of the existing schools basically, of about $5.5 million. New schools is a couple of hundred thousand in planning but we all know there is a new school going down that way, millions of dollars. It is going in her district. Health care, I think it is something like $6.8 million. Justice, because there must be correctional centres or courts down there or something like that, I think it is $21 million over seven years into the Justice system down in that particular area.

Now, what about social housing? Existing social housing is $3.8 million; however, new social housing, $2.2 million. In case anyone has missed it, the long-term care facility, patterned much like the one we have now opened up out in Corner Brook, two towers and an administrative centre in between, millions of dollars. It is right under her nose. Not only that, I say to the hon. members, but museums, I think it is something like $3.1 million. Even provincial roads, it must be the highway down there, $2.3 million. In that district alone, this government has invested $113 million in that district with regard to the Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HEDDERSON: I am running out of time. Burgeo & La Poile, sorry that I am getting down in numbers but I will say that you, as a district, have done pretty well, as well. We are talking about Burgeo & LaPoile over the last seven years, something like $31 million.

Mr. Speaker, my time is running out. I am just saying to the hon. members over there that you are, like every district here, given due consideration in this Budget as you have been in other budgets. I would ask you to make sure that when you are standing for or against it, and I am assuming one of you might be able to stand for it, but remember what we are doing as a government is making sure that we are providing a budget, not only for specific districts, we provide it for the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and looking forward to many, many more years of continuing our plan as we go forward.

In the last minute, Mr. Speaker, I have to speak on behalf of my district. There is one thing in the district that I have to talk about and that is the Muskrat Falls development and how it affects my particular district. I do know, and there is a lot of argument on the business case, but we do know it is $1 billion with regard to the investment and we are doing it with regard to transmission lines, with regard to generation and so on. We are getting great monetary benefits from it, but the benefits that the people of Harbour Main are getting goes beyond money. As a matter of fact, as the old advertisement says, it is absolutely priceless because we are getting clean air. That, to me, is absolutely priceless.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I would give kudos to the former premier, Premier Williams, who got a lot of this started, but also to our current premier, Premier Dunderdale, who has picked up, moved forward and is marching forward in a very positive way with a very strong Budget and I ask everyone, all members to support our particular Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion is that the Report of the Government Services Committee be concurred.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

On motion, Report of Government Services Estimates Committee, carried.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House do now adjourn.

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

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, tomorrow being Private Members' Day.

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