April 11, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 11

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the

hon. the Member for Bonavista South; the hon. the Member for Burgeo &

LaPoile; the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale; and the hon. the Member for

Port de Grave.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, recently the Bonavista Volunteer Fire Department held an

occasion to celebrate forty years of firefighting service, not only to the Town

of Bonavista but to the surrounding communities of Spillars Cove and Elliston.

Mr. Speaker, at that particular occasion, there were two members of the

volunteer fire department who were recognized for their long-term service: Mr.

Keith Shirran and their Fire Chief, Mr. Gerry Russell for twenty years of

service.

Mr. Speaker, what was particularly, I guess, noticeable or enlightening about

that anniversary was the guest speaker who was in the Town of Bonavista to

preach the word of fire prevention. The guest preacher was a young man by the

name of Michael Gaultois, a young man from Irishtown who was involved in a fire,

a tragic event back in 1991, where four young people went to a cabin and, during

that night, a candle that they had for light, had burned out and caught fire to

a chesterfield, resulting in one death and this young man with burns to over 80

per cent of his body.

I thought, Mr. Speaker, it was one of the most enlightening and one of the

most moving speeches that I have ever heard in my life, where this young man

talked about his challenges and talked about the hurt that he went through

because of the fire, talked about losing his friend and how he went on and got

on with his life and went to university and became a preacher, if you would, to

preach the words of fire prevention. Now he travels around the Province going to

activities like firemen's functions, going into schools to preach fire

prevention and the important message that comes from what fire departments are

putting forward on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, this young man, Michael Gaultois, opened his delivery with the

news item that was brought forward in 1991 by the CBC, Ms Debbie Cooper,

reporting on the fire. From that, he led up to his experience of dealing with

his burns, the trauma that he went through by going to Boston, coming back into

his community and being accepted again by other students. It was a very

inspiring speech.

It fell right in line with what the fire departments preach on a regular

basis, and I am sure everybody in this Legislature will join with me in saying

congratulations, not only to the Bonavista Fire Department, but to all other

fire departments right across Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Peter Skinner, an Isle aux Morts native and a

former Port aux Basques minor hockey association player, on becoming a member of

the Ontario Hockey League's Kingston Frontenacs.

Peter's grandparents, Jack and Melita Lawrence from Isle aux Morts are

extremely proud of their grandson's accomplishments. Peter joined the

Frontenacs, the third ranked hockey team in the Eastern district in Ontario, in

November of this season.

Mr. Speaker, support from family, particularly his father, Alfred Skinner,

over the years is also credited to where he is today. His dad put him into minor

hockey when he was a young child. There were many, many early morning wake ups

and drives to the rink in Port aux Basques. Growing up in Isle aux Morts, Peter

was always interested in physical activity. With continued support from his

family, he developed a passion for hockey, which helped set the stage.

Peter moved to Mississauga, Ontario, with his family when he was a teenager.

It was a very difficult transition for him, but he knew it was for the best.

During his initial years of high school, he played for the St. Michael's

Buzzers where he won South East Division Player of the Year, as well as the

South Division Gentleman Player of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, Peter still spends much of his time on the ice, up to fourteen

hours a week. On top of that busy schedule, he attends university and tries to

fit in time for family and friends. Despite the challenge, he is determined and

at the age of nineteen he strives to excel with the goal of making it to the

NHL.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in

congratulating one of Isle aux Morts' finest, Peter Skinner, a member of the

Ontario Hockey League's Kingston Frontenacs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to welcome Cherie Wheeler as the

new editor for the Nor'wester newspaper which services the Green Bay

area. Cherie was in Harbour Breton as editor-manager of the Coaster , a

sister paper to the Nor'wester . Ms Wheeler has her Bachelor of

Journalism from the University of Kings College in 2003. She has worked for CBC

Radio; east link news and several Nova Scotia publications.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome Ms Wheeler to the Green Bay area and

hope her influence is as profound and as far reaching as our past editor, Mr.

Randy Edison.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise to congratulate Jeremy Parsons, a Bay Robert's

native who is a fourth year pharmacy student at Memorial University, and this

year's winner of the National Drug Compounding Competition held in Montreal

earlier this year.

Jeremy Parsons and his group of fellow fourth year Memorial Pharmacy

students: Lorrie Duggan, Justin Peddle and Jody Pomeroy, won the regional

competition at MUN last fall and was awarded the trip to Montreal in the

national competition during Pharmacy Development Week earlier in January of this

year.

Mr. Speaker, the National Drug Compounding Competition is a one hour

competition consisting of three compound preparations. Nine teams competed, one

from each of the Canadian pharmacy schools.

Team members were awarded cash prizes of $100 each and an engraved plaque to

be displayed at Memorial. This is the first time Memorial has won since 1997.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in

congratulating Jeremy Parsons and his team who were this year's winners of the

National Drug Compounding Competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to provide detail to the House of Assembly on a recent visit to

Conne River by justice officials. The purpose of the trip was to sign an

extension to the Police Services Agreement that was entered into last year

between the provincial government and Saqamaw Mis'el Joe. This agreement

provides an RCMP Officer to Conne River, and this extension is a great step

forward and proof positive that the relationship which the Miawpukek First

Nation Band has been able to build with the RCMP is of continuing benefit to the

community. The Constable provided by this agreement, Fabian John, is a positive

influence in the daily life of all the residents of the community.

The interaction and mutual support between the Band and the RCMP generally,

and more specifically between Sgt. Jackman, the NCO in charge, and the Bay D'Espoir

Detachment, is exemplary. The leadership role which all parties have played in

ensuring that this relationship has been and continues to be positive, is very

crucial. All are to be congratulated.

During the visit, Justice officials received a very informative presentation

on the general governance structure of the Band, an historical background of

Conne River, and were treated to a traditional sweet grass ceremony and also

traditional song and dance. I was particularly impressed with the work they are

doing in the area of restorative justice. Many disputes are best resolved using

the non-adversarial techniques of the healing circle. The work which they have

been doing with the Provincial Court in sentencing circles is also very, very

progressive. Both projects are very worthy of note and I wish them continued

success as they develop both further.

If we work together in good faith, outstanding obstacles can be overcome.

Special thanks to Chief Mis'el Joe, General Manager Tammy Drew, Justice

Manager Irene Joe, and Mr. Rod Jeddore on their outstanding hospitality.

On numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker, I have heard that Conne River is a model

reserve and now I have witnessed that sentiment first-hand. I encourage every

Member of the House of Assembly who has not had the opportunity to visit that

community to do so.

Mr. Speaker, government will continue to take the necessary steps to assist

and enhance the delivery of justice services in Conne River and everywhere in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for a copy of the Ministerial Statement before

coming to the House.

It was great to see the minister in Conne River, to sign an extension of the

police services with the Band. It is also good to see Constable Fabian John,

formerly of the Lewisporte Detachment of the RCMP, transferred back into Bay D'Espoir,

and a satellite office from the Bay D'Espoir Detachment going into Conne

River.

The minister also talks about the support of Sgt. Don Jackman, whom I know

very well. His actions, no doubt, are exemplary, and they have done a tremendous

amount of work into Bay D'Espoir and in Conne River.

The minister also talks about the sort of justice. I would like to thank and

make mention of Chief Justice Robert Fowler, now of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. When

he was Provincial Court Judge in Gander some time ago, his work with Chief Joe

and the Band established appropriate sentencing techniques, and it is nice to

see these types of initiatives still continuing.

There is no doubt about it, as the minister said, the community is a great

community under Chief Mis'el Joe. They have made great strides and are a model

community. As he said, if anybody has not gone to the community, it is worth the

visit just to see what these people have been able to accomplish.

It is also nice to see that dialogue is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is nice to see that dialogue is continuing between our justice system and

our citizens. It is only with constant communication that we are able to

appreciate justice issues and devise initiatives to address them.

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

It is good news, Mr. Speaker, and it is important that Aboriginal communities

in our Province be involved with their own policing and their own justice

systems, because many times they understand more about their own people than we

would, as outsiders, so it is important that they play an active role in that.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that the argument could be put forward,

I guess, now that we have our own training facilities, training programs, at MUN,

for the RNC, there is probably room for the Province to look at expanding the

role of the RNC in this Province as well, seeing that they are part of our own

and we train them ourselves. It is good to see that people are involved in

policing and providing justice to their own people.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Yesterday, outside this House, the Premier mentioned some new stumbling

blocks in the failed negotiations with the Hebron-Ben Nevis partners. During the

media scrum, the Premier stated that the Province and the company were 30 per

cent apart on the number of engineering hours that would occur in the Province

during the project development phase.

I ask the Premier: Could you please elaborate on this newly-stated stumbling

block? What was the Province looking for, and what was offered by the oil

companies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for the record, it is not in the sense that it is a new stumbling block.

When I indicated in response to the questions of the hon. gentleman opposite

when this first broke, I indicated that on the Thursday evening - I cannot

remember the date right now - when this fell apart, the companies came back and

reverted to the January 26 letter, which was a letter two months previous which

had been negotiated to our benefit over that period of time.

In that letter there were several terms. One of them, of course, was the

investment tax credit, another one was the fuel tax credit, and another part of

it and another component of it was the total engineering hours. We had been at a

position of total hours which I am not prepared to disclose now, because again

if these negotiations go back to the table we don't want to have everything

laid out here at this particular point in time, if the other side has not

disclosed what their position was. I don't think that is a fair method of

negotiation. We would be truly negotiating in the public with them. Having said

that, I did give you an indication of what the measure of difference was and

there was a 30 per cent different in the number of hours. So, that was an issue.

Another issue that came up in the January 26 th letter was the

wording that they were using, and government had a genuine concern that they

could probably move in, in the middle of the construction of a module, and pluck

the module out of the Province and move it off somewhere else, which is a

situation that happened before. We weren't agreeable to that and we weren't

prepared to condone that. As a result, negotiations broke down for several

reasons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

That was indeed my second question. The Premier referenced yesterday that

another issue was the construction of the accommodations module in this

Province.

I wonder if the Premier could elaborate as to what exactly the Province was

looking for, what was offered by the oil companies, and where this work was

intended to be done in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The big issue for the Province and the companies here

is: What can the Province accommodate? What the Province was truly trying to

accommodate was 100 per cent usage of our facilities and our workforce. That was

our goal. If, in fact, the companies had a concern, that once we got over 100

per cent we wouldn't be able to complete certain components of the module or

certain parts of the project, that they would have the ability to move

elsewhere, from our perspective, if we are at 100 per cent then we can't do

anymore than that work anyway.

Having said that, one of those components was the accommodations module. As

the Minister of Natural Resources knows, on the Terra Nova project with regard

to Petro Canada's construction and revamp of their own facilities, the

accommodation module, a significant part of that is going to be done in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If we can do it for them, who are a

partner in this new project, then we can certainly do it under the new

circumstances.

The accommodation module was a component that we had asked to have

constructed in Newfoundland and Labrador, as opposed to the GBS and/or the super

module, one of which will be construction in the Province and one of which will

be constructed outside the Province.

When you in that stage of negotiations, it is a matter of trying to find an

accommodation, a balance, that works for both sides, given the fact that we can

do what we can and perform to 100 per cent of our ability, and that the

companies have the ability to get the project done on time with whatever

facilities they have to use.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Eighty-four per cent of the White Rose work was done in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I ask the Premier: Was there an agreement on the percentage of overall

project work that would be completed in Newfoundland and Labrador vis- B -vis

the Ben Nevis deal and, if so, what was this percentage?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: A final percentage was never finalized because

agreement was never reached, but, suffice it to say, there would have been a

significant amount more work done in our Province on the basis of the government's

position in this particular negotiation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: It take it that was more than 84 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated yesterday that he spoke to the Prime Minister

regarding legislative changes that would have to be approved by the federal

government before the Province could expropriate ExxonMobil's share of the

Hebron-Ben Nevis project. He also stated that a meeting will be taking place

tomorrow.

I ask the Premier: In your initial meeting and discussions with the Prime

Minister, did the Prime Minister actually express his support for these

legislative changes, and can you provide us with the details of same, or if it

is a matter to be discussed tomorrow instead?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The purpose of my discussion, my conversation, with the

Prime Minister was to basically inform him of what the status quo was of the

negotiations, where negotiations had broken down, the same information that this

hon. House has, and also to indicate to him that the fallow field issue was an

issue. At that particular point in time, he was not asked for a position.

In all fairness to him, it is something that, obviously, he would have to

have researched, just as we are doing with our own Justice Department and

others. So, that is something that will be discussed tomorrow but I do not even

expect a final position from the federal government tomorrow. This is on a

go-forward basis and it assumes, first of all, that the project does not go

ahead. Second of all, that the Exxon Mobile does not sell to their partners.

Third of all, that ExxonMobil does not sell to us. Then, a fourth position would

be: we will work through the existing legislation to enforce the fallow field

component of that; and if, in fact, that is going to take too long or that does

not work, then we will have to look at new legislation in conjunction with the

federal government to shorten the time frame and force them to use it or lose

it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While in Opposition, the Premier promised that he would release information

related to project negotiations in an open and transparent manner. Last week, he

stated that he would check to see if he could release details such as the

Province's so-called super royalty regime. Yesterday, the Premier seemed to

backtrack a bit on that and not be prepared to release those details.

I ask the Premier: In view of your earlier stated desire to have this

information released to the public so there could be a complete and full and

open discussion, as per your comments even of November 18, 2002, in this House,

why are we not getting the information and why are you refusing to table it here

in the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There is some inconsistency that I am having some

difficulty with. The hon. gentleman opposite is basically looking for

information.

In a news release by the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Bennett, he has

indicated that he is concerned with the nature of the secret negotiations. Then

he gets on Open Line and he basically says you do not have public volatile

negotiations.

I do not know what they want, Mr. Speaker. On one hand, the House Leader

opposite is basically saying that he wants all of the information. The leader of

the party, who sits in the gallery when he is in town, who decides to drop in

from Windsor, Ontario, and pay us a visit once in awhile, he goes on Open Line

and he indicates that he does not want public negotiations, he does not want

public information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It is very difficult, from my perspective, as Leader of

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to know exactly what they want.

If they do not know what they want, how am I supposed to figure out what they

want, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have asked questions of the Premier on this issue now for the past number

of days, at least for the last two weeks, and there has not been any political

rhetoric from myself on this issue. My questions were simple. I say again: Why

the change of heart?

We had a Premier, a person who was Leader of the Opposition, who is now the

Premier, who, on page 1755 of Hansard, on November 18, 2002, said, and I quote,

"Voisey's Bay all over again. Everything is done in secret. No

information provided. I call on the Premier to make all the information

available, to have a full debate, but let's do it before that agreement is

signed and let's have a real shot at it this time around."

Those are the Premier's own words. I am just simply asking the Premier:

Given that was your stated position regarding negotiations in this Province, and

the level of information that the public had to have, why are we seeing a turn

of faith here from you?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If we are going to go that route, let's compare

apples and apples.

When the Voisey's Bay negotiations were on the go, we were on that side of

the House and we knew absolutely nothing. We were given absolutely no

information. The deal was concluded. Deal or no deal. It was deal, and you

already had one done.

Come down to the second one; let's go to the Lower Churchill. That was all

being done behind closed doors. We just managed, as an Opposition, to stop you

from giving away the Lower Churchill, big time!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That was very secret, no disclosure, no information

whatsoever. The former Premier - most of you were in the Cabinet at the time -

the big celebration, the big announcement was all done. All the media was all

done. All the public relations were all done. We were going to get it rammed

down our throats. We stopped that, and fortunately we saved the Lower Churchill

from being given away after the Upper Churchill had been given away by a Liberal

government.

In this particular situation you know what the equity stake was, you know

what the super royalty issue was, you know that engineering is an issue, you

know all the issues in this deal. The only thing you are missing are some of the

numbers on that deal. This negotiation had not concluded, and I am not going to

jeopardize this on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to satisfy the

political needs of that crowd on the other side of the House!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is funny how things change when you go from one side of the Legislature to

the other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community

Services, Mr. Speaker.

Paramedics with the Eastern Health Authority demonstrated yesterday and again

today in the gallery to highlight their concerns respecting understaffing issues

which are well below the Canadian standard and which they, as professionals,

feel are seriously compromising public safety.

Minister, you indicated yesterday that $250,000 would be made available for

dispatch services. I understand that is divided between four boards in the

Province, which leaves a very small portion of this fund for the Eastern Health

Authority - the same authority that today is overstressed, has too much

workload, and the same authority that your department is now about to transfer

all the air ambulance dispatch services to as well.

I have to ask you, Minister: Do you feel that the funding you have allocated

to them is adequate to meet the demands they now have, and the future demands

they will have with the air ambulance dispatch service as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I also indicated in yesterday's questions that this government, in this

year's Budget, had allocated an additional $60 million to the four regional

health authorities to deal with issues such as this.

This Budget, Mr. Speaker, has increased the amount of health care money by 10

per cent. Last year, the amount of health care money was increased by 7 per

cent. I would indicate to the member across that these two years, last year and

this year, have seen the greatest increase in health care spending in this

Province's history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, no answer on the dispatch services, so let's

talk about the $60 million the minister claims he is putting into the Budget for

other utilization in the health care sector, again divided between four boards.

As of yesterday, the Eastern Health Care Board is not aware of how much of

the $60 million they will get. They are not aware of how much of that $60

million will be for discretionary use, or if any of it can be put into ambulance

services.

I ask the minister today: In light of the situation, are you prepared to

commit a portion of that money to address the ambulance service needs in the

city right now?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: What I am prepared to commit is what I committed to the

ambulance operators, who I met with at 8:30 this morning, which is the first

time - I contacted them, in fact. I was not even contacted for a meeting with

them. It is the first time we have talked about this.

Officials in my department and officials with Eastern Health are in the

process of discussing this very issue. Eastern Health have been carrying out a

review of the ambulance services that are provided in the Eastern region to

determine whether or not they are adequate to supply the needs of ambulance

services in the region. I committed that within two weeks we would have answers

to the ambulance operators on what type of funding or what types of issues can

be addressed that they have raised with me today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the facts are these, and that is that in other

places, like Halifax, like Sudbury, like Saint John, New Brunswick, there is one

unit per 22,000 people in those cities. In our city, there is one unit per

53,000 people. The paramedics are stressed. They are concerned about patients'

safety, as they have indicated. They feel that this is not adequate, Minister,

and I am asking you to move immediately to address the problem.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: What I can say to the member is, in the meeting that I

had with them this morning they did indicate that in the previous two years they

did not approach government because they knew that fiscally the Province was

strapped, but in the previous Administration, for fourteen years they have been

going and asking for these services and their requests have gone unheard.

I did commit to them this morning that I did hear their requests. I thought

that they put forward a reasonable argument and that I would address their

issues with Eastern Health, which I am going to do. In conversations with

Eastern Health today, I can commit to the ambulance operators that they will get

the additional attendant for night services. What I cannot commit yet, because

we are still discussing it, is whether or not ambulance services will increase.

But I will commit to the ambulance operators that it is an issue that I intend

to follow through with Eastern Health, something that your Administration did

not do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that this

issue is being raised on his time as a minister in the government and it is his

responsibility to deal with it and not talk about what happened in the last

fourteen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, the St. John's ambulance

services is on a cost recovery basis, as the minister knows. Last year, what did

you take in? Forty-five or 55 per cent recovery on that particular service.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue, very serious for the residents of

this city. If there is money in the Budget, if there is money being allocated to

the Eastern Health Care Corporation, Minister, why don't you just say: a

portion of that money will definitely be allocated to deal with the ambulance

services? I would like to hear you say it today.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Again, Mr. Speaker, we have one of the issues addressed,

which is the nighttime attendant. What we do not have addressed yet is the

additional ambulance services. I am not going to make a decision by the seat of

my pants. That is not the way I operate. I am going to follow through with

Eastern Health. We are going to review the issue. We are going to look at all of

the options that are there and we will have a decision for the ambulance

operators within two weeks. I think that is reasonable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education.

As you are aware, the Eastern School Board announced some of its decisions

last night with respect to school closures. Despite parents' protests, the

June.

I ask the minister, if this school board has requested any money for a new

school for the Terrenceville school system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that there

was a motion put forward by the board last night that they voted on, and they

will be requesting funding to build a new school in Terrenceville. The official

request has not yet come to government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Minister, these two schools will be closed down against the

wishes of parents and students in the area. A new facility was promised to them

to help ease the transition. You are the Minister of Education, when can they

expect a new school to be approved by this government? They are putting their

request in, so how long is it going to take before the new school is approved by

this government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, once the official request is made to the

Department of Education we will look at that matter and we will act on it. I

cannot give an official date right now of when we will give a response, but I

can indicate that we will consider the matter very important when it comes

before the department and we will make a decision and notify the public at that

time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given that this government has set a precedent on rescinding a school board

decision by this government, particularly in the Bishop's Falls area, will the

minister now take the same step and rescind the decision of the school board for

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I will, as I had indicated to the hon. member,

review the request for a new school when it comes in. That will be looked at

when it comes in and taken very seriously.

The school board has just gone through a process where they have met with the

stakeholders. The information was reviewed by the trustees, the motions were put

forward last night, and they voted on it. It is my understanding that the school

closures will be effective as of this September, and in all fairness, there will

not be a new school in Terrenceville this September coming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the Minister of Education

again.

The people of this area are going to a very old school, with lack of

and Grand Le Pierre, small kids, are going to have to get on a bus and travel

for a great deal of time over not very good road conditions. What the government

should do is, before you make the decision at least construct a new school in

the Terrenceville system.

I ask the minister: Will you rescind the decision of the board and be fair to

of Bishop's Falls?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, the board made their

decision last night. The information was vetted through the trustees and they

had their vote. Another motion was put forward last night as well for money from

the Department of Education to build a new school in Terrenceville. We will look

at that request when it comes in.

Mr. Speaker, as I had already indicated, that request will come in, it will

be looked at, but even if it is approved time will not permit to have a new

school there for September.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

A recent report on wind generation activity in the Province of Quebec

indicates that Hydro Quebec expects to provide 10 per cent of its power by wind

in 2013, which is only seven years away.

Mr. Speaker, where is this Province in terms of wind generation proposal? I

know the minister had a call for proposals report about a year ago. Where are we

on our wind strategy and when can we expect to see some action from Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro in terms of wind development?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question the same way I

answered in our public consultation in Grand Falls-Windsor at which he made a

presentation.

The fact of the matter is this, that with respect to wind power in

Newfoundland and Labrador there is no question that our Province is going to

move in that direction. When the public consultation is completed and the energy

plan is put on the table, we will know exactly how much wind we want to put into

the system and over what period of time. The reason we are taking that strategic

approach is because not only do we want to construct windmills for the reasons

that are evident in terms of being environmentally friendly and sound, but we

also may have an opportunity to build a secondary industry in terms of

fabrication and supply.

With respect to what we are doing right now, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

put out a Request for Proposals some time ago for a small megawatt farm of wind

to do one thing, and one thing only, to understand the technical and engineering

challenges associated with putting wind power into our grid system. The member

knows this. The member was at the public consultations. It is a long-term

strategic approach that we are interested in, and we will not dismayed or put

off course from achieving that objective.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, in the development of its wind strategy in

Quebec, they have stipulated in their contracts that 30 per cent of the

equipment investment must be done in a particular region of Quebec, where they

are building blades in Gaspe, towers, and housing is also in that area. Is his

proposal going to be robust enough to ensure that we will have development here,

or will we be buying parts and specifications built in Quebec, Mr. Speaker,

instead of here in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we have taken considerable time to look at, first of all, what

is the body of our resource? It is significant. We have amongst the best sites

in North America and some of the best sites on the planet. Because of that, we

have an obligation to ensure that our approach to the development of wind is

both consistent and long-term. Long-term for this reason: because, not only

would we like to see wind as part of the benefit mix with our energy system as

we supply rate payers and industrial customers, but we truly believe that if a

long-term approach is adopted we have fabrication facilities in Marystown, at

Bull Arm, in Placentia, and potentially in Labrador.

From our perspective, a long-term approach would not only put good energy

into the grid system but it could develop into a very strategic plan that will

provide thousands of jobs for fabrication and assembly in Newfoundland and

Labrador. That is the objective of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,

Mr. Speaker, nothing more, nothing less.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago, while ranting and raving from the pan of a

truck, the Minister of Fisheries stated that he did not know, or he had just

learned, that FPI was shipping unprocessed fish to China for further processing

without the permission of government.

Last Thursday, the minister told a group of people from New Harbour that he

did not know there was a market for filleted redfish.

Yesterday, the minister stated that he did not know if any negotiations had

taken place with FPI on the future of the Burin Peninsula operations over the

past three weeks.

I ask the minister: Now that it certainly appears that you are not doing

ministerial due diligence when dealing with fisheries issues, can you please

explain why you are not on top of these very serious issues in the fishery?

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to disappoint the hon. gentleman. I

cannot rant and rave today, because I have a very severe sore throat, but that

does not stop me from meeting with people.

One of the things you can do in public life is tell the truth and it comes

back to bite you. I told somebody I was off to pick up some laundry the other

day and the Opposition have not stopped talking about it since, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of being on top of major issues in the Department of

Fisheries and Aquaculture, I can assure the hon. member that he can sleep tight

at night. He need not stay awake wondering what is going on. The minister is on

top of every issue in the department, every single issue, Mr. Speaker, every

single day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can understand what is wrong with the minister's throat, but he says I

can rest assured that he is on top of every issue, every day. Well, I think the

public will judge if that is the case, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the minister said that he was too busy picking up

his laundry to speak to a group of fish plant workers who were looking to go

back to work. On Saturday, FPI took out a full-page, or pretty close to a

full-page, ad in the local newspaper asking government and the union to go back

to the table in good faith to find a solution to their problems on the Burin

Peninsula. Yesterday, outside this very House, the minister told the media he

was too busy to do a follow-up with FPI about their ad, and their request for

them to come back to the table.

Could the minister tell us what he was doing yesterday that was more

important than talking to FPI about putting 1,000 people back on the Burin

Peninsula?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to sit here and allow the

hon. gentleman opposite to attack this minister who has been working around the

clock on this particular job and this particular issue.

I want to assure the people of the Burin Peninsula as well that we also have

a minister in Cabinet and a member of Cabinet concerned about their interests on

a daily basis. I happen to know that this gentleman, yesterday, was involved in

meetings all day yesterday, with the exception, maybe, of lunch, and maybe he

went right through lunch, with regard to trying to find solutions for the Burin

Peninsula and for FPI generally.

I happen to know that today, when he was in my office for meetings this

morning on the fishery, because we have spent the last two days, basically,

working on the fishery, that he was in contact with the union, and spoke to the

union, that he was in contact with the company.

This minister and this government is doing everything it can to make sure

that the interests of the people on the Burin Peninsula are taken care of, and

any of the people who are affected by FPI's operations in the Province.

Just so you do not have to just take his word for it, you now have my word

for it, that I have seen this man in action and he is doing a great job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, we are really delighted to hear that the Minister of

Fisheries, by your admission at least, is earning his income like he should.

Mr. Speaker, by the minister's own admission yesterday, he has not spoken

to FPI in over three weeks. You can talk all you want about what he is doing

about FPI. He admitted outside the House of Assembly yesterday that he has not

spoken to anyone over there in three weeks.

I ask the minister: With the future of the Burin Peninsula in the balance,

why have you not spoken to FPI in over three weeks? Is it because you are going

through a cooling-off period as a result of the rant and the rave you have in

this House and in the back of pickup trucks around the Province?

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, that hon. gentleman has the gall to get up and

talk about a rant and a rave, and he goes into a tizzy every other day on his

feet over there. I will put my credibility in any forum in this Province up

against the hon. gentleman's any day of the week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I will also put my credibility as Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture up against his performance when he was in that department, too.

In terms of FPI, the Premier is correct. We spent all day yesterday - except

for an hour in the House for Question Period - the Premier, other ministers,

MHAs, and myself, working on issues related to FPI and the Burin Peninsula in

particular.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the acting CEO of FPI today. I had a great cordial

chat with him. I understand they are working on perhaps presenting some new

things to us fairly soon. I spoke to the president of the union. I don't need

any suggestions from the hon. member when it comes to performance and doing my

job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Government Services Committee have considered the matters to

them referred and have approved, without amendment, the following Heads of

Expenditure: the Department of Finance; the Public Service Commission, the

Department of Government Services; the Department of Transportation and Works;

and, the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports by standing and select committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Assembly the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans

presented a petition on behalf of the road going to Buchans, and it is my

understanding that any petition presented in the House has to be signed by the

member presenting the petition. I have gone through all the signatures here and

there is nothing here that can be recognized, certainly, as the member's

signature. It is probably just an oversight on her behalf, and I thought I would

bring it to your attention.

MR. SPEAKER: Responding to the point of order?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am surprised that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would recognize my

signature because whenever there is a request for funding from my district, I

think he throws it in the garbage.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair rules that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to take his seat for a second.

On the point of order raised, I remind members that the guidelines for

presenting petitions are contained in the Standing Orders 90 to 97. I refer

members to these Standing Orders but remind them that, yes, it is required that

a petition presented to the House shall be signed by the member presenting.

Also, when giving commentary on petitions, members should be guided by Standing

Order 92.

The Chair rules that we will look at the petition and come back with a

commentary on that particular petition at a future time.

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

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the best of my knowledge, that petition was cleared by the Clerk and I

would suspect that it was in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to this point of order?

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, clearly, the petition has not been signed by

the member opposite. Further to the comments that she made earlier with respect

to correspondence from my department, just an e-mail from the hon. member

opposite in dealing with issues in my department; this is a refreshing change,

Mr. Speaker, thank you, when she is referring to the actions that I have taken

on her behalf.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Speaking to that point of order?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the only e-mail I sent was to Veronica Hayden,

an official in his office. He wanted to know what capital works were going to go

on in my district. I outlined the fact that there is no capital works in my

district, only for the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, because he would not

accommodate anything more. I usually have 100 per cent financing for small

communities and he would not (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

While there is a disagreement between hon. members as to the pertinent facts,

there cannot be a point of order.

The Chair recognizes and calls again for petitions.

Petitions

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today again with a petition asking this government to provide funding

to upgrade the highway in Buchans, on the Buchans highway. I should not have to

do this today. I should not have to get up on my feet and present this petition

today.

I had a letter from the Minister of Transportation and Works two days before

this government brought down a Budget with a surplus of $76 million on it. Here

I am today, asking for upgrades to the Buchans highway when a couple of nights

ago the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, who is trying to

grow the economy with millions and millions of dollars and all kinds of funding

initiatives she is offering, but when asked a question: How many jobs, minister,

have you created in this Province? She said: Oh, just a minute now. I will have

to check on that.

Here is a Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development who could not

tell this House that she had created one job out of all the millions of dollars

that was put into that department. Here I am up in my district with 200

permanent jobs with oil resources, forty-five jobs with the barite plant, more

jobs with Messina mining and here we do not have a road to go over because that

crowd over there, who say they are committed to rural Newfoundland and Labrador,

did the same thing as the Minister for the Status of Women did the other day in

this House. They are not committed. They are only paying lip service only

because there is no sense to this decision. If they were thinking it through,

they would say: Here is an opportunity. We have 250 permanent jobs that are

paying money into the public Treasury of this Province. We had a surplus this

year. Just imagine what we are going to have next year. From those permanent

jobs they are trying to grow the economy, but still, for all that, they do not

want a good road so workers and equipment can drive to their work site. They do

not want to do this. Now, that is stupid. It is ridiculous and it is

incompetent. I think the Premier should take those ministers aside and tell

them: Look, if you are going to say that you are committed to rural Newfoundland

and Labrador, do something. Do what you should be doing and upgrade that highway

to Buchans.

Mr. Speaker, this is penney-wise and pound foolish. It is ridiculous for me

to be getting up here day after day asking for upgrades to the Buchans highway

when it should be so apparent in the front of their eyes, if they are committed

to this Province. Don't be like what we heard this morning. There are people

in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who cannot get financing from banks, cannot

get insurance from banks, because they are driving people out of rural

Newfoundland and Labrador and shutting the doors. Do what you were elected to

do, support rural Newfoundland and Labrador. You have $76 million in surplus.

Spend a million or two and do what you should be doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Motion 1: Move that this House Approves in General the Budgetary Policy of

the Government, commonly known as the Budget Speech. I believe it is one of the

member's opposite turn in the sequence that we have been going.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in the Budget Debate for this

year's Budget, which is an astounding document because this year, for perhaps

the first time in our history, we have produced a Budget which shows a surplus

under the accrual accounting method. Now, I have called it in the past the cruel

accounting method, because it does and has been used in a cruel way, I would

suggest, in the last couple of years, as an excuse, in some ways, used by

government to fail to take measures that were needed by the people of this

Province. Mr. Speaker, it wasn't invented recently but it was only adopted by

governments as a result of pressure from the accountants' institute of Canada

and Institute of Chartered Accountants, a public finance group. Across the

country, governments have been adopting the accrual accounting method as a way

of doing business for government.

Just to give you an example of what difference that is. If you or I operated

our household budget on the accrual accounting method, you wouldn't be buying

car, Mr. Speaker, and you wouldn't be buying a house unless you could save up

enough money to do it in one year, and still have a balanced budget. The accrual

accounting method says that you have got to account for your commitments in the

year in which you make them. If you bought a house for $100,000 -

MR. WISEMAN: It is amortization.

MR. HARRIS: It is amortization, says the Member for Trinity North. It is

amortization, but not in government. There is no such thing as amortization in

government. If you built a school today that is going to last you thirty years,

and it is going to cost you $5 million, that is a $5 million expenditure for

this year, and if you amortize it over thirty years or the life of the school

well then you still have a deficit for this year. That is the difference between

the accrual accounting method and the cash method, Mr. Speaker. If you bought a

house of $100,000 and borrowed $80,000 from the bank by way of mortgage and paid

it off over twenty-five years, that is a sensible way of doing things in your

household budget, but governments are no longer allowed to do that.

When this Minister of Finance and the government talk generally about

bringing in balanced budget legislation, what they are saying is, for all time

they are not going to be able to make expenditures of a capital nature that

might last you fifty years or twenty years or thirty year. You have to have the

money in your coffers raised through revenue in that particular year. When I say

that, Mr. Speaker, I am just saying that is the affect of it. When people start

talking about how you operate your own budget versus government, the comparisons

really don't mean anything.

The reality is that governments in this Province - this government has done,

revenue wise, so remarkably well over the last two years that we have seen the

planning for a deficit be exhilarated by about six years, at least, because

initially when this government came in, this government as well as the two

Opposition parties in the election, said we should have the cash deficit under

control in four years. The cash deficit under control in four years. That is

what this Minister of Finance said in the fall of 2003. In fact, where we are

now, Mr. Speaker, the cash deficit has disappeared and now, with the increase in

oil revenues, the accrual deficit has disappeared to the point that we are now

having a budget surplus projected for 2006-2007 of some several million dollars.

That is the first time in our history we have ever had that happen. That is

to be credited to the rebounding in oil prices, world oil prices, perhaps the

historic highs, and to the fact that we, under the new Atlantic Accord

arrangements, can keep that money. That is a very positive thing, Mr. Speaker.

It is a little bit of luck in that the oil prices kind of came our way, but

it is also, Mr. Speaker, very positive in that this government has been able to,

was able to, take advantage of the minority government situation and the

co-operation of parties like the New Democratic Party in getting and securing a

promise from the then government of Paul Martin, and then following through on

it in terms of changing the Accord, but we are still behind the eight ball on a

number of matters.

Why I say it is lucky, Mr. Speaker, we are still behind the eight ball when

it comes to issues like royalties because, even though the royalty revenue is

very high, our generic oil revenue, oil regime for the offshore, is based on the

wrong concept. Our oil revenue royalty regime is based on the oil sands, and

there is a very substantial difference between the oil sands and our offshore in

terms of royalty regimes, or there should be, and it is this, Mr. Speaker: In

Alberta the tar sands development, the heavy oil development, requires a very

considerable capital cost. The capital cost may be comparable to our capital

cost offshore, but when it comes to actual operating costs, the amount of money

that it costs to get the oil out of the ground once you have spent the capital

expenditure, the per barrel cost of extraction, not counting capital

expenditure, is very, very low offshore when compared to the heavy oil sands in

Alberta.

The difference, Mr. Speaker, is astounding. In the Newfoundland offshore, oil

is being lifted from the seabed at an operating cost of between seventy-five

cents and $2 a barrel, depending on who you talk to, and depending on which

platform we are talking about, and depending on which period of time. In

Alberta, the per barrel cost of extracting oil from the tar sands runs about $10

plus per barrel. So, it is five, six, seven, perhaps eight, times per barrel

cost of taking that oil out and, hence, the profit on a per barrel of oil,

because there might be some difference between what you achieve in the market,

but the per barrel cost of producing that is quite significantly different and

therefore the profit is higher. So, our oil regime ought not to be based on

that. The fact of the matter is, that ought to change. That ought to change.

Despite that oil regime, despite that royalty regime, we are making a

considerable amount of money in our offshore and we will continue to do so for

the foreseeable future, at least over the next seven or eight years while oil is

in production at its peak. We do hope that we are able to proceed with the

Hebron-Ben Nevis, provided agreeable terms can be brought forward.

It is that regime, Mr. Speaker, and it is that oil money that has allowed us

to get into a position where, this year, the government was able to budget for

expenditures of $450 million this year more than last.

Yesterday, my colleague, the Member for Labrador West, expressed his approval

of government's expenditures, particularly in Labrador and in particular in

Labrador West. He outlined them: the hospital being one; change and money to be

invested in the College of the North Atlantic; money in the Labrador Highway.

These are things that my colleague from Labrador West has fought for, has

brought to the attention of government. As he said yesterday, not a minister got

through Labrador West without being shown the state of the hospital and the

condition of the roads, et cetera, as well as to outline the problems that are

there, and I want to congratulate the Member for Labrador West on his very

effective representation of the people of Labrador West. I am glad he was able

to stand here in this House yesterday and acknowledge and thank the government

for their response to the problems that he has raised, and to the fact that his

constituents are being listened to, and they have a very effective

representative who has been able to do that. That is a very positive thing, Mr.

Speaker.

There are a lot of positive things in the Budget. I do not want to be

considered to be a naysayer. When it comes to spending $450 million more this

year than last, it is pretty hard not to make a lot of people happy, and there

are a lot of people looking at that Budget, Mr. Speaker, who are seeing money

for roads, for schools, for infrastructure, and things like that for their

district, that have been long overdue, and they deserve to have them. It is very

easy to be positive when you have lots of money to spend.

Let me outline some of the positive things, even on the social side, before I

get to my criticisms. I was very pleased to see the changes being made in the

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, the fact that the Housing

Corporation has changed its policy on rent by basing their rent for working

people on their net income as opposed to their gross income. Everybody knows

there is a big difference in people's take-home pay and the gross pay and the

nominal pay that they are receiving in a particular job. It is a very positive

incentive for those who are tenants of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and who

are working, who are now able to have a break on their rent by changing the

method of calculation. That has to be a very, very important move for tenants of

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

Equally significant, and an innovate program, I must say, is the one which

gives a rental rebate based on people pursuing full-time education, whether it

be a young person in post-secondary education or even in high school, or an

adult seeking greater training through a program at a college or university.

Receiving a rental rebate per adult engaged in this kind of training, that is

again very significant. It is very positive to see incentives being given to

people to increase their education and have some incentive, immediate, on a

monthly basis, and allowing that to happen. It is an incentive, it is positive,

but it also can provide a little bit of motivation, I should think, to

individuals who might be inclined not to continue their education, and that

motivation may make a significant difference in a young person's life. I think

that is very positive. I have to say, it is innovative. In fact, I took the time

to call the Chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation to

compliment him and the Corporation on that program. I understand that it was

recommended by the tenants' associations and the process has been ongoing for

a couple of years. It is very, very positive to see that happen.

It is also positive to see that government has eliminated school fees. It has

been a real, significant difficulty, hardship, for so many parents throughout

this Province in the fall of the year, come September, when they have had to buy

new sneakers, when they have had to buy clothes, when they have had to buy

school supplies, even the pens and papers and pencils. Any parent who knows -

and they have seen the list, they come out in June. It is probably a good thing

they do for many parents, because sometimes it takes families, who do not have a

lot of money, time to get together and fill out that list, so that by September

they can send their child to school with the right things.

Mr. Speaker, that then was compounded by a request by the school for a cheque

or money for materials that would be used during the year, sometimes $50,

sometimes $60, sometimes $70 or $80. A considerable expense, particularly if a

parent had more than one child in school. So, it is a positive thing that that

has been eliminated. I am very happy to see that happen. It should have happened

a long time ago. In fact, I think the Liberals, just prior to the last election,

made that announcement - after September, mind you - for the following year and

this government initially reversed that decision for fiscal reasons, fiscal

reasons were stated, and have now, in the face of the kind of a flush with cash

- I think is the expression that the Official Opposition critic uses - but in

the face of the kind of revenues that are forthcoming, it would be very

difficult for them not to have done what they did in this Budget with respect to

the school fees. So, these are positive.

Other positive things are the - obviously, the new Prescription Drug Program

is positive. I have some problems with it, which I will get to shortly, but

obviously it is a step in the right direction, recognizing that many people have

no access to a drug program and have unfair access to health care as a result,

Mr. Speaker. It has been identified as a barrier to employment. It is more than

that, it is a barrier to good health. It is a barrier to good health not having

access to a drug program. Yes, obviously, it is a disincentive to someone

seeking a job if they are going to lose their drug card, but that ought not to

be the primary reason for having a drug program. The primary reason for having

an extended drug program should be to level the playing field for access to

health care because, as we know, many diseases and conditions and health

problems are now treated by drug therapy as opposed to hospitalization or

operations as much more of a prevalent method of treating illnesses. Also, of

course, the drug costs have spiraled over the last number of years, now

representing some 16 per cent of overall health care costs

whereas physicians

costs, the doctors who are providing the service, their cost is hovering around

12 per cent drug costs. Drug therapies are now 16 per cent of health care costs.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, these are positive things. Whether or not we

support the overall budgetary strategy, I guess that is the budget question. I

have to say that I do not, because what we have seen happen here is an extra

$450 million, but when you look at that amount of money and compare it to the

amount of money that has been directed at alleviating poverty, dealing with

social unfairness, I find the numbers do not add up very well.

The minister, in the Budget Speech, talked about $62 million on an annualized

basis committed to a Poverty Reduction Strategy. Well, Mr. Speaker, when you

break that down it turns out that $32 million of that $62 million is the

Prescription Drug Program, of which only $8 million is being spent this year. We

can subtract $18 million from the $62 million and get us down to - what is that,

$44? - $44 million out of $450 million being devoted to eradicating poverty, or

attempting to deal with some of the problems of poverty. That seems to me, Mr.

Speaker, not to be placing a significant priority on the problems of poverty in

our Province. This government, itself, recognized in the Budget Speech that over

66,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador live in poverty; 33,000 families

identified. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the stats are based on there. That

sounds a bit low to me but even if that were the only number, it seems to me to

be a very modest attempt to deal with that problem.

Let me tell you some of the things that I did not hear in the Budget that

should have been. First and foremost in the Budget, a Budget that is supposed to

recognize the needs of men and women, and families and people who need to get a

job, I did not hear any mention of child care in the Budget. I do not think

there was a word. I do not believe there is a word about child care in the

government a couple of years ago, in September 2004, which was to guarantee this

government an additional $55 million in child care expenditures, and the new

government and Mr. Harper is saying he is not going to recognize these deals. We

did not have - not a word about child care. When we have 47,000 women in this

Province, with children under six, in the workforce and about 4,600 or 4,700

registered child care places, it is obvious that there is a problem. Yet, not a

word in this Budget about child care. Astounding, Mr. Speaker!

Anyway, while we are dealing with some of the issues of education in the K to

12 system, I would have expected that this government could deal with the

textbook issue. In Ontario, every child who goes to school gets free textbooks

all the way through. Not in Newfoundland and Labrador. In high school, students

have to pay for their own books. That is probably one of the reasons, one of the

additional pressures on families trying to keep kids in school, that the

textbooks costs are a deterrent. I would like to see this Province take that on

as an issue. Why isn't textbooks available to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

on the same basis that they are in Ontario?

What about the school meal program, Mr. Speaker? Less than a quarter of the

students who go to school in this Province have access to a school meal program.

The Province is talking about a healthy eating strategy in schools, supporting a

physical education strategy, supporting a good nutrition strategy. Well, the

best place to start that is to have a good, decent school meal program

throughout the Province so that everybody has at least one good, nutritious meal

a day. In fact, it can be a way to teach nutrition in the most direct way

possible by putting forth good, positive examples to children as to what can be

done by way of providing a nutritious meal.

We have all heard the arguments, Mr. Speaker, hungry children cannot learn.

There is not a single person in this House who would disagree with that

statement. It has been proven time and time again, yet we have statistics

available that a quarter of the children in the Province go to school hungry.

The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that around 16,000 to 18,000 students have access

to a school meal program and it is not always the place that need it most. It is

not always the places that need it most. It is the places that are able to

respond the best and easiest to the available programs. We should have a

universal program, and the cost would not be significant in a Budget such as the

one that was just produced. In fact, to make sure every child in this Province

has access to a school meal program, we are talking about an expenditure in the

neighbourhood of $10 million.

Another thing that should be considered for the K to 12 system is the

introduction of a full day Kindergarten. A full day Kindergarten is a way of

ensuring that children have a better chance in school. It is a way of making the

school experience more positive, and more likely, Mr. Speaker, to eliminate some

of the disadvantages that families may have in the preschool learning

environment. One of the arguments made in favour of the full-day kindergarten is

just that, that we are able, with a full-day kindergarten, to give students who

haven't, perhaps, had the same experience in reading and exposure to learning

in the previous years, an opportunity to catch up so that by Grade 1 or Grade 2

or Grade 3 they are on a level playing field with other students and some of the

negative effects that they may bring to school are eliminated.

That is something that could be done. It had been recommended a number of

years ago. That is something that, again - everything has a cost. Everything has

a cost. The cost that I have been told of that program several years ago was in

the range of $6 million. That would be very positive. It would also, by the way,

alleviate some of the child care costs for working mothers who are trying to

earn a living as part of a two-income family and yet have to juggle that work

life with a half-day kindergarten in many cases, switching one month to the

next, morning and afternoon. These are some elements in education and in child

care that were missing from this Budget, missing because this government did not

go farther than it did in terms of addressing some of the problems. They

recognized the problems but did not find the solutions.

In post-secondary education, again, Mr. Speaker, lots of good news. Lots of

good news when it comes to bricks and mortar. Lots of good news when it comes to

new money for the institutions and for the College of the North Atlantic, for

Memorial University campuses both here and in Corner Brook, and I think it was

very positive. I am supportive -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member, indeed, has exceeded his time.

I draw his attention to the fact that the time allocated has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can see that the members opposite are enjoying my speech so much, they were

not complaining. I wonder if I could have few minutes to (inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, post-secondary education was obviously addressed

in terms of certain programs, but what is the missing piece is the people, the

students, the young people who go to university or college and who need to have

better support in terms - or better support, a different kind of program. The

same amount of money may be spent a different way, a different type of program

that would recognize that there is a big, significant difference from somebody

living in St. John's, living at home, as I did when I went to university,

walking to the university, attending classes, and someone who lives in Gambo or

in Bonavista or on the Burin Peninsula, who has to travel to St. John's or

Corner Brook and pay for accommodation and transportation as well as the

university fees or the college fees if it happens to be a college. That is big

difference, Mr. Speaker. I asked the minister about that the other day and she

said: Well, there are a lot of rural members here; we understand the problem.

Yes, there are a lot of rural members here, and I am surprised that we have not

found a better solution because of that. I think the solution is in the

direction of a needs-based grants program that would level the playing field for

students who are attending post-secondary institutions in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, yes, there are a lot of good things in this Budget. It is hard

not be, when you are spending an extra $450 million over what you did last year.

In terms of the strategy, I think that there were many areas that were left

undealt with, that would provide for a fairer society in this Province. I think

there may be other opportunities during this Budget debate to talk at greater

length about the need for a more comprehensive prescription drug program and to

talk about some other ideas in terms of the generation of revenue and

conservation programs and other aspects of our energy policy which is in the

process of development.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and listen with interest

to other speakers in this Budget debate.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Having just listened to the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I think

our Minister of Finance had it dead-on the mark the other day when he said: If

you gave him the moon, he would be looking for the sun and stars.

I suppose there is nothing wrong with that because we always have to be

ambitious, but I am very surprised to hear that the hon. Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi will be not supporting the Budget when there was so much in

there, as I will attempt to outline, for issues that he has championed over the

years.

A lot of these things in terms of poverty reduction and so on, which I will

get into now in a minute, are there in this Budget, and an ideal time

especially, I will say, in the winter of his political career, perhaps, that he

would take the time to endorse and to vote for a Budget that he has longed for,

for so long.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi called it an astounding

Budget. I guess you could take that in two ways. Things could be astounding in a

negative sense or astounding in a positive sense. I would call it an historic

Budget because, as was remarked, we are spending $450 million more than we did

in the previous year. We are telling the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

that we are giving them money for education, for health, for roads, for culture,

for violence prevention, for so many things. We are doing all of this and, what

makes it historic, this is the first time ever that on a consolidated basis we

are presenting a balanced Budget. Not only balanced, Mr. Speaker, but we are

predicting a surplus somewhere in the vicinity of $6 million.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that Budget day in this Province this year could

certainly be called a red-letter day in our history. Perhaps better a

blue-letter day, but certainly an historic day. I ask, Mr. Speaker: Who could

not support a Budget of this magnitude, a Budget that makes history?

On Budget day I found it interesting to note, as we looked across the House

of Assembly, that there were a lot of glum faces. I don't know, maybe they

were hearing a different Budget Speech, but when I was hearing all of the

positive things being announced by the Minister of Finance, I was delighted for

the people of the Province. Perhaps we have to go back to the editorial in The

Telegram of March 22 - and it has been referred to by a number of members -

there is absolutely nothing wrong with a little good news, but the members

opposite seem to find nothing at all to cheer about. There was a scattered

smattering of applause from a member here and there, but nothing to the degree

that we would have expected.

Now, we do not expect them all to come running across the House to embrace

the Minister of Finance, but certainly when things that have been advocated for

years are put in the Budget we would expect, Mr. Speaker, that there would be

support for that.

I do not know why there were saddened. I do not know why it was. Perhaps, Mr.

Speaker, they had visions of the future in their heads, visions maybe of some of

their own careers, I am not sure, but there was something making them very, very

sad on a day that should have been joyous for anybody here working on behalf of

their constituents, working to improve the lot of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, the classic example of negativity had to be in the reply by the

Leader of the Opposition in the Speech from the Throne. It was filled with words

like devastation, with black clouds, and words like bleak. He even admitted,

towards the end of his speech: I may be being a little negative. A slight

understatement, Mr. Speaker, I may be being a little negative.

He had in mind the areas such as Harbour Breton, Stephenville, and certainly

the Burin Peninsula, where there are challenges throughout the Province.

Everything is not fixed by one Budget, and there are definitely challenges,

particularly in rural Newfoundland, for any government to have to meet, but one

has to ask, Mr. Speaker, a very key question: If things are this bad in rural

Newfoundland now, under this government, how bad would they have been had we

gone down the same path with those people over there in government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: How bad indeed, Mr. Speaker, would it have been?

There were two attempts by two different premiers to give away the Lower

Churchill. How bad would it have been had that fiasco in Labrador, under former

Premier Tobin, gone ahead? How bad would it have been? We thank God that the

native people up there had the sense to put a stop to that. How bad would it

have been when a video was already done not to sign a Lower Churchill deal but

to give away the Lower Churchill? How bad would we be today, Mr. Speaker? How

bad would it have been, indeed, if another premier, Premier Wells, had his way

and we sold Newfoundland Hydro to achieve some one-term funding? We have to ask,

Mr. Speaker, how bad indeed things would have been if we had gone down that

path. It is an awful picture, Mr. Speaker, if we cannot find something positive

today. If you want to depress yourself, imagine, indeed, what could have and

what would have been.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, we had a reply to the Budget - and the words rant and

roar, or rant and rave, were used here again today. I would have to say to the

Leader of the Opposition, let me christen him the king of rant. His speech, his

reply to the Budget, Mr. Speaker, had to be given in two parts. Perhaps he was

out of breath, I am not sure, but he did one half last week and he did another

half this week. He went on and on. He went back to the spring of 2003, when the

Liberals were still in power, Mr. Speaker, and he would have the people of

Newfoundland believe that they actually put money in the Budget for this, that

and the other thing.

I refer to Hansard, when the hon. Leader of the Opposition says: In that

Budget of 2003, I might add, there was also an item listed there for

construction of a cancer clinic for Grand Falls-Windsor. We put that in the

Budget of 2003. We put a Grand Bank health care facility in the Budget of 2003.

We put an extension to Leary's Brook Academy in the Budget of 2003, something

which is very dear to my heart, Mr. Speaker, and which I have advocated for and

I am delighted to say it is going ahead. He went on to say: We put the money in

the Budget of 2003 to attach an auditorium to the school in Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are not being fooled by such

rhetoric any more. What they put in the Budget of 2003 was the credit card of

this Province. They put the credit card on the table and they said: Let's keep

on spending.

I believe, not to be flippant or light about it, Mr. Speaker, we could

perhaps say that their theme song at that time was: We will keep spending on

credit. We will spend what we can, spend what we can, and leave the mess to a

group led by Dan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: I am not quite sure if it is unparliamentary to use that,

but poetic licence might allow it at this point in time.

The second part of the rant by the hon. Leader of the Opposition came

yesterday, in yesterday's session, I believe, and at that time he referred to

a shell game. He said that this government is using a shell government. He said,

when we came to power, we employed an external auditor - and so we did - and he

said: Why didn't we know? How come these people would not have known? They had

the hon. Minister of Finance as a critic, who was a watchdog on their

government, and we also had with us the hon. Member for Topsail, who had served

as Auditor General for a period of some ten years. Why didn't they know?

Well, the fact of the matter is that the Member for Topsail left her position

as Auditor General in 2002. Those external auditors were hired close to the

spring of 2004. There was almost a two-year period, and God knows how much

damage those people could have done in a two-year period. So, to say that we

should have known or could have known, we wanted an exact picture of the

financial state of this Province, Mr. Speaker, and that is exactly what we

found.

We heard some references today, again, from the hon. Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi, to the new system of accounting - they called it new - the

accrual system of accounting. I would like to read for you, Mr. Speaker, just

one line from the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. She stated, in her speech

on April 3, and this is recorded in Hansard: What accrual accounting does, it

lays everything on the books for everyone to see.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, what exacting is wrong with that? To say it again: It

lays everything on the books for everyone to see. Well, of course, it does; this

is exactly what we did. When we came into office, we turned the shells over. We

turned over the shells that the hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to. We

turned them over. We instituted transparency, and what we found was that there

was no ball under any of the shells. That government was constantly shifting

around one-time monies to make the people of this Province believe that, in

fact, they were managing effectively the affairs of this Province. There was

absolutely nothing there. It was, in fact, as the hon. Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi referred to: not accrual accounting but a cruel way of

accounting, because it was very cruel to the people of this Province who were

led to believe that this Province was in reasonable financial shape when

actually, Mr. Speaker, we were going down the black hole. The difference in this

Budget and any Budget previous is that we are not only spending more money than

we have ever spent in our history but, in fact, the credit card is off the

table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: We are now spending money, Mr. Speaker, that we actually

have coming into the Province. We are spending revenue, monies that are coming

in, and we are not borrowing any more to sustain ourselves.

MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDGLEY: Our children and grandchildren, as the hon. Member for St.

John's Centre says to me, won't have to pay for that.

Mr. Speaker, there is so much in this Budget in a positive sense that I have

difficulty in terms of where I would like to focus. There seems to be a common

theme among some of the members of the Opposition. There seemed to be a common

response right from Budget Day on. The charge was led by their newly elected

Leader of the Liberal Party, not the Leader of the Opposition but the new Leader

of the Liberal Party. He said: What is in this for ordinary people? I have to

ask, Mr. Speaker, what exactly they were looking for. How would you describe an

ordinary Newfoundlander?

To my mind, Mr. Speaker, it must be a person who either walks or flies,

because in this Budget there was $60 million for road construction. It can't

be a person who drives, because any person who drives would understand that $60

million going into road construction, when the most that had been spent in any

previous year was perhaps somewhere in the vicinity of $20 million, and that on

rare occasions - so, this ordinary Newfoundlander, Mr. Speaker, must be a very

rare bird.

I was interested to note, the Member for Exploits, when he spoke yesterday,

referred to his own district, and he said over a ten-year period a total on road

repair and construction had been spent of $2.5 million, and simple division

gives us about a quarter of a million dollars a year, Mr. Speaker, over ten

years. The hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans refers to the Buchans highway. No

wonder it is in disrepair, if that type of spending, so little spending, was

done over a period of fourteen or fifteen years when this government, Mr.

Speaker, was in power.

Mr. Speaker, where do we find this ordinary Newfoundlander for whom there was

nothing in the Budget? It must be a person who never gets sick, because there

was an additional $180 million spent in the health care system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: That, Mr. Speaker, is for ordinary people.

This ordinary Newfoundlander, this evasive creature that we cannot seem to

find anywhere, for whom there is nothing in the Budget, it must be a person who

is very well off because in this Budget there was a raise for the first time in

fifteen years, a substantial raise of 5 per cent for those who are living on

income support. This elusive ordinary Newfoundlander, for whom there is nothing

in the Budget, must have no children going to school, Mr. Speaker, because the

school fees were eliminated in this Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: So, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, the new Leader of this Liberal

Party could only find that this was a pre-small game licence in here. He was

going off rabbit hunting while we were introducing an historic budget; he could

only find in this Budget a free rabbit licence for himself. So, he called it the

brace of rabbits Budget or something like that.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this Budget is not all things to all people.

It is what we can afford right now. It is a responsible Budget. It is a Budget

that, as I say, is historic in terms of its proportions and in the fact that it

is actually a balanced Budget presented on a consolidated basis. It will be

curious to see, Mr. Speaker, when this comes to a vote in a day or so, how many

people on the other side of the House will actually support this Budget. I

wonder, will the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans support her cancer clinic? Will

she stand and say: Yes, I agree with this Budget? Will the Member for Port de

Grave support what he has advocated for, for so long, which is more support for

those who live on income support and the elimination of school fees? Will they

stand and support these things that they have advocated for, for so long? Will

the Member for Grand Bank stand and say: Yes, indeed, the health care clinic, I

support it. I stand not only with those on income support but for those who

suffer cancer down in my district. Will she stand?

I think we had some indication yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Member

for Labrador West gave us I think an endorsement, and the Member for Torngat

Mountains could not do anything else but endorse this Budget. I fully expect

those two people to stand when this vote is called because there is so much in

it for their districts.

In terms of my focus, Mr. Speaker, what I am delighted to see in this Budget

is what the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi just referred to, were the

initiatives to reduce poverty. We have made a commitment, as a government, to

make definite strides in reducing poverty, not tomorrow, not next year, but over

a ten year period we will, in fact, change this Province from being the poorest

Province or having the highest rate of poverty. When you look at 66,000 people

in this Province living in poverty, Mr. Speaker, there is a challenge on our

plate and I am sure that this government will, indeed, be up to that challenge.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that poverty is not simply a matter of dipping into

your pocket and saying, here is more money for you. Now you are not poor anymore

because you have more money. It is not quite as simple as that. There has to be

an integrated, well-thought out plan to reduce poverty, and I think that is what

has been presented in this Budget. The number one component would have to be the

increase that has actually been made for those who live on income support. There

was a 5 per cent raise in how much that those who live on income support will

do. Now, if we look back over the past fifteen years in terms of what the raises

were, in the past fifteen years - and I need not ask again who was in government

in those years because that is well known to all the people in the Province.

During the past fifteen years there were nine of those years when there was

absolutely no increase for those living on income support. The people across the

House would have us believe that they are now the champions of the poor, and

nine years, Mr. Speaker, when there was absolutely nothing for those who are

living on income support. We not only raised it by 5 per cent, but we went

farther in that and we indexed it, so that the year after, and the year after

that, when the cost of living rises, those people who are living marginally,

living on income support, will experience an automatic raise geared to the cost

of living.

There were initiatives, Mr. Speaker, in the Budget from a health care

perspective. We introduced a wellness - this is all on a long-term basis. As I

say, there is nothing going to be fixed tomorrow, nothing going to be fixed the

next day, but in the long-term, we would encourage the people of the Province,

through our wellness strategy, to become healthier. That applies not just to

those on low income, but across the board, Mr. Speaker.

We introduced, as was mentioned earlier today, an additional $8.3 million to

expand drug coverage. Perhaps most importantly, in my mind, something that I

have advocated for, Mr. Speaker, is that we not just give out money, not just

put more money in the pockets of those who are poor, those who are living on

income support, but that we, in fact, make strides so that those people can

bring themselves up.

It was a couple of months ago, Mr. Speaker, I attended the two-hundredth

anniversary of the Benevolent Irish Society. One of their mandates years ago was

to reduce poverty within the city. They undertook to engage the Irish Christian

Brothers to come over from Ireland and establish a school, because the BIS at

that time, in their vision, saw that educating those who are living marginally

and who cannot earn a good living for themselves, was the way to reduce poverty.

As an ex-pupil of the Brothers and those around St. John's, and indeed, around

the Province, will know the great effect that bringing the Brothers here to

Ireland had in a positive sense.

I say to those across the House, and indeed, to all, I fully endorse the

policy of allowing those people who live marginally to provide for themselves.

So, what we have done in that vein is to try to empower those people, because

for those who have lived in poverty it is very, very difficult - and if you have

spoken to or dealt with families who live in poverty, it is difficult to bring

yourself up from it.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi spoke earlier today about some of the

initiatives that we have done to try to help those people to help themselves. We

have more than doubled the per student grant to schools so that the school fees

can be eliminated. What that does, in effect, is leave more money in the pockets

of everybody who has youngsters going to school. No one needs to tell any parent

about the stress that comes in late August, as the school year approaches, about

having to dip in and come up with the school fees. If you have two or three

youngsters attending school and living on a low income, that is quite a

challenge when the fall of the year rolls around and you have to come up with

those school fees.

Looking upon learning as a lifelong pursuit, education is not just something

that you do and then it is over with. We have recognized lifelong learning by

increasing, by $1.2 million, the amount for the adult basic education so that

this course offering could be expanded.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for St. John's North that his speaking time has

expired.

MR. RIDGLEY: I think I have a unanimous endorsement, Mr. Speaker, to keep

going.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MR. RIDGLEY: To clue up, just another minute or so, Mr. Speaker.

Most importantly, I think - and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi called

it innovative and a real motivating force is to allow a rent reduction for those

who are living in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to attend post-secondary

school. Additionally, rent reduction for those tenants in Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing who have students in Levels II to IIII in high school. This is

a motivating force for them. What we are telling those people is that you can,

in fact, change and we are going to help you change. We are not going to just

dish out money because the changes that come from that are not long lasting.

I would speak a little bit more in terms of the rent calculation based on net

income versus gross income and the effect that will have additionally, Mr.

Speaker, for those people on income support, to get through that first month

when they want to go out for a job. That first month, before their first pay

cheque comes in, is a very critical time. We have allowed $250 per family, or

$125 for a single person, to take them through that first month. I say this

Budget is not all things to all people, but it is, indeed, a very positive step

forward in the history of this Province.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is, indeed, a pleasure for me to rise today to speak on the Budget and, I

guess, outline some of the concerns that affect the people of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of the District of Bellevue.

I have to make some comment in terms of the Member for St. John's North in

terms of poverty, and what it is like to be living in poverty. I guess a lot of

us who sit in this House of Assembly had experience in terms of growing up in

terms of living in poverty. I guess one of the things that we should always look

at is, look at the people in our society who are in the greatest need, there is

no doubt about it. The people who are sick right now, there are benefits that

are accrued to people in terms of Canada Pension, disability payments, these

sorts of payments, I guess, that did not exist some years ago, but even with

that, I have people living in my district right now who are probably getting

about $500 or $600 a month in terms of Canada Pension disability funds and they

do not qualify for HRE funding.

Let's face it, somebody who is very, very sick, the money that is available

in terms of social services is just not adequate right now. A 5 per cent

increase for people who are sick and unable to work, I think it is a very

difficult life that these people lead. I congratulate the government in

increasing it by 5 per cent, but I think that you should also, in terms of your

poverty strategy, look at the people who are unable to work in terms of what

kind of benefits, how much money is available to these particular people,

because I think it is very, very, very important. I know, personally, that it is

very, very difficult trying to live on social services, the amount of money, and

it hasn't been any different since Confederation, really. I know that back in

the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, there is no difference.

I would also like to say, in terms of the Budget, one thing I liked about the

Budget was the announcement of the chronic care facility for Clarenville. I have

to compliment the government on that, in terms of finally they have made the

announcement that they are going to construct the facility in Clarenville. As

you are well aware, the senior citizens from that area, including my district,

have to uproot when they need that type of facility. They have to come to St.

John's, or Placentia, or some other place away from their family and friends,

and it is very difficult to see people.

I guess the problem that I have with it is that the engineering work has

already been done on this facility. The engineering work has already been done.

The site preparation is being done. The problem I have with it is, why are they

waiting until the year 2008 to open this particular facility, or to have it

constructed? There is no reason why the tenders cannot be called immediately for

the chronic care facility in Clarenville and people probably could occupy it

before the end of 2006; the latest would be 2007. I guess there is not enough

money allocated in the Budget this year to complete the facility and that is why

we will see another figure in the Budget next year for the chronic care facility

in Clarenville.

You will also notice that the hon. Members in this House of Assembly, when

the Budget was being read - I guess it was unanimous on this side - when the

government announced the money for weigh scales in the Province. As you are well

aware, continuously on this side of the House of Assembly we brought up the

issue about the need for weigh scales. We saw the weigh scales in Port aux

Basques and Foxtrap being closed down. We saw the overloaded trucks on the road,

and you all know that most of the heavy traffic that occurs on our highway is

between St. John's and Come by Chance, there is no doubt about it, the

industrial place in terms of the traffic. The trans-shipment terminal was built.

The Come by Chance refinery, and Bull Arm - there is a lot of heavy traffic on

the highways, and we saw a lot of rutting on the Trans-Canada Highway. I would

say that 100 kilometres of road deteriorated over the last two or three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: If the hon. Member for Mount Pearl would be quiet, I know

what I am talking about. If you would check with the engineers in Transportation

and Works, it was a full recommendation from them that the weigh scales not be

closed, because it does cause deterioration in our highway system in terms of

rutting on our highways.

Right now, the Province is faced with a tremendous expense because they

became penny-wise and pound foolish in terms of eliminating the weigh scales

and, as a result, caused a lot of damage to our road system in the Province.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Government House Leader will have an opportunity to

participate in the debate. He can refute anything I say.

MR. E. BYRNE: It won't be a problem doing so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: You go right ahead. Don't get all bothered. The hon.

member, you check with the engineers in the Department of Transportation and

Works and they will indicate to you that there have been great incidents of

tractor trailers on our highways overweight. For somebody who spends a lot of

time on the highway, we notice even now that there are more people who - when

you are coming up over the hills, and trying to get up the inclines, the traffic

is slowed down because a lot of the trucks on our highways are overweight. I

compliment the government on that, in that they reversed their decision and

realized that it was a mistake and now they are reinstating the weigh scales. I

compliment the government on that.

Last night, Mr. Speaker, in Marystown, the school board that was created for

this Province, the Eastern School District, made some decisions regarding

schools in the whole area. I guess I was pleased that, with the representations

that were made, they did listen and look at the fact that Swift Current Academy

should be kept open, and the treacherous conditions.

Over the last week or so, I have been attending the meetings of the board,

along with my constituents, and doing presentations and making representations

not close. I am glad that they listened in terms of Swift Current but,

decided, and a decision was made last night, to close these two schools.

They are located in an area of the Province where the weather conditions and

road conditions leave a lot to be desired, and the parents have great concerns

about their young children going on a bus. Right now, the high schools students

do go into Terrenceville and that school does need a lot of work. There is no

cafeteria in the school, and the food that is being served in the cafeteria may

be okay in terms of the high school students, but there is no cafeteria, there

is nobody to serve, and you are going to be talking about Kindergarten, Grade 1,

Grade 2, Grade 3 and Grade 4 students. Being a former principal of a school, we

all know what it is in terms of having Kindergarten students, the great need

that the Kindergarten students have in terms of assistance within our school

system. I speak from experience, in that I spent three weeks, when I was

principal of the school, teaching Kindergarten. It was a hard job trying to make

sure that all of them had the right boots on, and all of them had the right

money for their canteen and all the other things that were necessary in terms of

small youngsters, and putting them on a bus for extended periods of time, which

school that is a very, very old school.

I guess the school board is saying that eventually there will be a new school

in the Terrenceville system, a new school to service the communities of

there is a great need for a new school. In terms of the conditions of the

present school, it leaves a lot to be desired. It is a old building, so I look

forward to that announcement.

If you look at the figures in the Budget for school construction, capital

construction, and renovations and repairs to schools, I think it is roughly

around $36 million. My check with the Department of Education indicates that $30

million of that is already committed. Thirty million dollars is already

committed. We have Herdman Collegiate. We have all the other schools that money

has to come out of this Budget for, repairs and renovations to the schools, so

the possibility of a new school this year being announced, or the money being

allocated for Terrenceville, does not look very good. I guess the ultimate

responsibility of the education of our children rests with the Department of

Education, rests with the Minister of Education, and I guess she should reverse

that particular decision.

I have a problem also, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the school board itself, in

the way it is constituted. I mean, there is nobody from my district, whatsoever,

on that school board, nobody in the district at all. Some of the school board

Pierre. I do not think they were ever in the community. They are making

decisions based on schools and based on communities that they have never been

in.

I guess the one advantage that the school boards have, or the people of Swift

Current had, was, for them to get to Marystown last night, they had to drive.

Thank goodness yesterday was one of the worst days we have had in terms of fog,

rain and drizzle. When they were passing through Goobies on the way to Swift

Current and up the Burin Peninsula, I guess they saw the conditions of the road

and the way things are, and it was probably a factor in their decision last

night in terms of Swift Current.

located in St. John's. I refer to them lots of times as the St. John's

school board. When the reorganization took place, there was a building in

Clarenville, there was one out in Spaniard's Bay that the board could have

easily been in. We could have had the centre for this school board in

Clarenville or in Spaniard's Bay, but, no, Mr. Speaker, they are down in

Atlantic Place paying huge rents which could go for other programs for our kids

in our schools. The decision of the school board was to put it in St. John's

and put it in Atlantic Place. Let's face it, St. John's is at the end of the

school district, it is not even in the centre of the school district. It would

be a lot better use of our money if that school board were located in Spaniard's

Bay or in Clarenville, one or the other of the communities that the board

serves.

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot today in terms of - I guess, one of the biggest

disappointments for us over here was that there was no reduction in the gasoline

tax. We hear this week that gasoline went up another 1.5 cents a litre, and I

think in the next three or four days there is going to be another increase in

gasoline taxes. We are paying $1.14, I think, in Goobies right now for regular

gasoline, $1.14 a litre. I guess, after the weekend or in the next few days, it

will be up to $1.20.

I want to say that there are a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador

being affected by the increase in the gasoline prices. I know in my district,

people who work in the fish plant in Arnold's Cove, people who work at the

refinery and work at Bull Arm and other locations, and who work at the Home

Hardware and other businesses in my district, just about everybody who works in

my district either commutes to Clarenville or commutes from areas in my district

to Arnold's Cove and other communities to go to work. I can tell you, if you

are out there and you are making ten or twelve dollars an hour, with the price

of gasoline today it is very, very hard on those families. To me, I would like

to have seen the government wipe out completely the 16.5 cents provincial tax on

gasoline. Now, the Minister of Finance says, if he reduces the tax on the

gasoline then the sales go down. Well, in his Budget, I do not know why he is

indicating he is going to take in a $1.2 million increase in the gasoline tax

this year. To me, if you want the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to benefit

from our offshore, and the revenues - we see the Budget here in terms of the

tremendous money that is coming in through the offshore. The offshore oil and

gasoline in Newfoundland and Labrador belong to everybody in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

We saw Ralph Klein give $400 per person in Alberta as part of the share of

the wealth in Alberta. Well, this government takes in $140 million in the

gasoline tax. Just imagine, if you were to eliminate the 16.5 cents a litre on

our gasoline in our Province, still continued to put the HST on it, we would

have probably the lowest price of gasoline in the country. If you want to talk

about building the economy and increasing the tourism, you could be advertising.

The Minister of Tourism could be saying: Come to Newfoundland because we have

the cheapest gasoline prices in the country. You want to be innovative and look

at things, and try to attract people.

Let's face it, as you look around at the geography of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and the way things happen, people travel into Grand Falls, they travel

into Corner Brook, they travel into Gander and into Marystown and the larger

centres, and into Clarenville to go to work. There are a lot of people who

commute daily, and right now they are suffering. If somebody is working and

getting the minimum wage - for example, working at one of the stores, earing the

minimum wage - today, going and filling up their car with gasoline puts a

tremendous burden on these people.

I guess, if you were going to assist everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador -

because, let's face it, the 6.5 per cent and the HST, the businesses don't

pay it anyway. The business community doesn't pay it anyway. Those taxes on

gasoline, the business community does not pay them because they write them off.

They are written off in terms of their income tax and all of the other benefits

that are accrued to the business community. If you eliminate it for the ordinary

person in Newfoundland and Labrador, then you will benefit everybody in

Newfoundland and Labrador because there will be increased activity.

With the price of gasoline today and, coming up, they say it is going to be

the highest ever for the summer months, rural Newfoundland and Labrador is going

to suffer in terms of the tourism industry. You will probably see people flying

into St. John's and into Deer Lake, and into larger centres within this

Province, but there will not be any people who will leave and come across the

Marine Atlantic and drive through Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of

fact, I was on the highway last summer when the gasoline prices jumped right up.

I was stopped to gas up in Goobies at one time and there were about ten

motorhomes that had dropped in to fill up their tanks, and they were heading

back out of the Province. They had planned to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador

much longer, but they could not see staying here with the increased cost in the

gasoline prices, even though they were going across the country, but in

Newfoundland and Labrador they were much higher than they were everywhere else.

Mr. Speaker, we see, with this government, in terms of skills development and

skills training, I compliment the government on putting more focus on skills

training and skills development, but I think that one of the problems is: I don't

think skills training and skills development should be completely a provincial

responsibility. Skilled trades people is a resource of this country, and there

should be national programs that provide skills training. We did have them, and

in 1963, in the House of Commons, there was

an act which was called the

occupational training act. What that did provide was, that was when most of the

trades schools were built in this Province. The great focus on training took

place in this 1960s in this Province, and it happened under the occupational

training act. It was a cost-shared program with the federal and provincial

governments on a 90-10 basis, 90 federal, 10 provincial, and most of the trades

schools and the training institutions in this Province were constructed at that

particular time under this particular program. In addition to that, one of the

key things about that particular program, it also provided funding. I went to

trade school in 1963-1964, Mr. Speaker, and I received free tuition. I also

received a monthly allowance to go to trade school. I am not criticizing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: I just want to make some concluding comments.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MR. BARRETT: In concluding, Mr. Speaker, fortunately there will be

another opportunity to address the other eight or nine issues that I have

written on a piece of paper here, but I want to conclude that it is a provincial

government responsibility, but a trained workforce is a resource for the whole

country. I will tell you one thing right now, with what is happening in this

Province, we should send the bill to the Province of Alberta for about $1.5

billion because we have provided the training for the majority of the workforce

in Alberta and we are not getting one cent back from it. Therefore, my

suggestions to the Minister of Finance is that next year when he does up his

Budget, or projecting the Budget, that he is going to ask Ralph Klein, the

Premier of Alberta, for $1.5 billion to compensate the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador for all the trained workforce that we have sent to Alberta. Alberta

has not contributed one cent towards the generation of their wealth, except for

their oil reserves.

So, without Newfoundlanders and Labradorians up there with their skills - and

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have more skills and they are better skilled

tradespeople than anybody else in the world. We send them up, we create wealth

for Alberta and we do not even get a cent back from it. So, I say send a bill

for $1.5 billion, $2.5 billion or $3.5 billion to Alberta. When the Minister of

Finance is in Montreal today, I think somebody from your caucus should call him

up and say: When you are up there meeting with the Premiers on the fiscal

imbalance in this country, the fiscal imbalance is that this Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador has built this Country of Canada and we have not been

paid for it because the other provinces have benefitted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of all the things the Member for Bellevue said, I can agree with one piece,

that is that the tradespeople from Newfoundland and Labrador who have gone to

Alberta have made a major contribution in stimulating the economy and that they,

in fact, bring to that particular province and other provinces in Canada, one of

the most qualified and most competent skill sets of any other labour force or

workforce in this entire country. So, I do agree with that.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct one other thing, too, for those people

who might have been listening to the Member for Bellevue talk about - and I

acknowledge he complimented government on moving forward with the construction

of the new long-term care facility in Clarenville, but I do want to correct him

on one thing. He gave the impression that the building was not going to be

started until some time in 2008, when he talked about the site being ready. What

I want to assure the Member for Bellevue, and other members of this House, and

the people from the general Clarenville area who will benefit from this new

long-term care facility that, yes, the site work is done. That was done last

year, and yes, this year's Budget allocates another $8 million to start

construction. I am happy to report that the tenders will be called for that new

facility some time the end of May or the first part of June, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Construction will start this year and it will continue through next year until

it is completed.

The 2008 time line, as the member opposite would know in his former role as

Minister of Transportation and Works, that it does take a period of a year or

two to construct any building. The normal construction period would see the

construction of this building going from 2006 into 2007, concluding in that next

budget year and opening into a full operation in 2008. Those are the time lines,

I say, Mr. Speaker. So, any misunderstanding the member had, he can be assured

that this is following normal construction time lines and construction will be

starting in the very near future.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened over the last week as people in this House have

stood and talked about the Budget as being a significant event, and I believe it

is. People last week, or two or three weeks ago, listened to the Minister of

Finance stand in this House and deliver what most people in this Province would

agree is the best Budget we have had in the Province for many, many years. There

are a couple of significant milestones I would like to refer to. Obviously, one

is that we just finished a year with a surplus of $76.5 million. A vast

comparison to a forecast of a $492 million deficit. We are forecasting a $6.2

million surplus in next year. We are talking about significant economic progress

in the Province, and I say that is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. We have made

some significant progress.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: But, as each member of the opposite side of the House have

stood here and spoken, I reflect particularly on the comments made by the Member

for Carbonear-Harbour Grace and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair,

when they both stood in this House and said: There's absolutely nothing in

this Budget for me or the people who live in my district. I say, Mr. Speaker,

that reflects one of two things. It is