May

5, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 21

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, the House would like to welcome a former Member of the House of

Assembly who is with us in the gallery today, Mr. Sam Winsor.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon.

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

District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley;

the hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride; the hon. the Member for the

District of The Isles of Notre Dame; and, the hon. the Member for the District

of Mount Pearl North.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 2, I had the pleasure of

attending a prom night for the class of 2008 at Ascension Collegiate in Bay

Roberts.

The celebration began with a church service at the Pentecostal Tabernacle in

Port de Grave, followed by a dinner which was held at the Bay Arena with 900

people in attendance.

The theme for the event was: Tonight's Dream Tomorrow's Memory. It

was an evening to remember, celebrating with 240 graduates that made up the

forty-third graduating class at Ascension Collegiate.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Philip Wood, the principal, encouraged the students to

continue with the same commitment and hard work as they had experienced at

Ascension Collegiate and they would certainly achieve their dreams.

The valedictorian speech was presented by Kayla Bishop. Travis Simms and

Samantha March were crowned Prom King and Queen.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in saying thank you to the

staff of Ascension Collegiate for a job well done, and extending sincere

congratulations to the graduating class of 2008.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recently, I took

part in the Annual Sea Cadet Inspection for RCSCC 237

Truxton in Lawn. This annual inspection, Mr. Speaker, is an opportunity for the

cadets to demonstrate what they have been learning for the past year, to invited

guests and to members of the general public.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I was provided the opportunity to serve as the

Reviewing Office for this inspection, and I have to congratulate the cadets, and

their leaders, for the wonderful display of skill and ability.

Things went extremely well through the annual inspection, and this was

followed by the awards banquet.

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of awards presented at the banquet, and I

want to congratulate all of those who were selected as recipients; however,

there were eleven cadets who were highlighted for having maintained perfect

attendance at all cadet functions and gatherings, and I would like to

congratulate them for this, Mr. Speaker.

This recognizes the tremendous commitment these cadets have given to their

organization, and demonstrates their maturity and dedication. As I said at the

banquet, this is a trait that is admirable and sought after, and I encourage

them to build upon this dedication in all they may become involved in, or in

whatever direction their life takes them.

The cadets worked hard, Mr. Speaker, to prepare for this event, and I ask all

members of the House to join me in congratulating the cadets of RCSCC 237

Truxton in Lawn.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in this hon. House today to acknowledge the work of the Deer Lake

Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber held its fourth Annual Business Showcase at the

Hodder Memorial Recreation Centre in Deer Lake on May 2-3, 2008. This two-day

event was packed with exhibits, demonstrations and information sessions. The

event is growing, and this was the first year that the showcase used the entire

stadium. In fact, nearly fifty booths were booked, which was pretty much the

capacity of the event.

Mr. Speaker, compliments should definitely go to the local business

community. It was clear they bought into the concept and made a real effort to

put together interesting and exceptional displays, but the lion's share of the

credit has to go to the Deer Lake Chamber of Commerce. In just four years they

have gone from sparse participation to filling the floor of the stadium. They

have also found ways to attract more people to the event.

This year, the Chamber put together a huge array of door prizes and

demonstrations from all sorts of groups and businesses, to keep the event

entertaining. It is a real feather in the cap of the Deer Lake Chamber and,

judging by the buy-in from the local business community, it is a boost to the

economy as well.

This event was open and free of charge, but the public were encouraged to

make a donation of a non-perishable food item or monetary donation to the Deer

Lake food bank.

I would like to congratulate Susan Goulding, Chamber Executive Director, and

the Chamber for hosting this very successful event.

I respectfully ask all members of this hon. House to join me in

congratulating the organizers and supporters of this event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a young man from my

district who has faced significant challenges but has nevertheless encountered

great success. Stephen Wilkins is a Grade 12 student at St. Kevin's High

School in the Goulds who was diagnosed with a mild form of cerebral palsy at the

age of one and had corrective surgeries on both legs at the ages of two and

eight to enable him to walk.

Stephen has always strived to be independent and does not allow small

obstacles to interfere with him achieving his goals. He maintains an 85 per cent

average in school and has recently applied to MUN for the fall semester with the

hope of being accepted into the Faculty of Engineering.

Stephen is an avid chess player and began playing chess in Grade 2 when a

school chess club was started at Goulds Elementary. He has played competitive

chess at numerous school tournaments since then, advancing to the provincial and

national level. He has won the Provincial Chess Championship each year since

Grade 4, which qualified him to represent his grade level at the annual National

Chess Championships.

He recently played his final school level provincial tournament at Hatcher

House, MUN, and won, qualifying him to travel to Edmonton, Alberta in May of

this year to represent Newfoundland and Labrador at the national tournament.

Stephen and his family are extremely proud that they will be carrying the

Newfoundland and Labrador flag while introducing the team to the rest of the

country.

The Newfoundland and Labrador School Chess Association has played a major

role in Stephen's success with chess.

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

congratulating Stephen on his many successes with chess and wish him all the

best at the national championship in May.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Isles of Notre

Dame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the

success of the Fogo Island 50+ Club. The Club was formed in 2005 with forty-two

members and it has since grown to over 100 members, ranging from fifty to over

ninety years of age. The group gathers once a month to share in a social evening

of conversing with friends, enjoying a meal and engaging in fun activities.

Mr. Speaker, the Fogo Island 50+ Club has become a very active group on the

Island. Catering to special events, supporting fund raisers, and supporting

youth groups are a few of the contributions this wonderful group is making to

the Island. Most recently, the Club has been engaged in a very commendable

effort to visit all seniors on the Island and videotape their visit to help

preserve the history of these valued citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the spirit and enthusiasm of this group is lead by Mr. Edward

Combden. Mr. Combden is passionate about the 50+ Club and, along with many

others, he is to complimented for his leadership and commitment to providing

such a great opportunity for the people of Fogo Island.

The Fogo Island 50+ Club has helped to connect communities and they are

indeed a respected voice for the past, the present and the future of Fogo

Island.

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

congratulating the Fogo Island 50+ Club and wishing them all the best in the

future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the work of Literacy

Newfoundland and Labrador; more specifically, the launch of the new Learners'

Network Initiative held in St. John's about a month ago.

Literacy Newfoundland and Labrador is helping our people by ensuring that

every person has access to the services they provide. This organization believes

that every person has the right to the literacy and learning programs they

require to succeed.

Awareness is key in terms of literacy and lifelong learning. The statistics

are staggering with respect to literacy in our Province. It is vital that our

government continue to support literacy initiatives such as those undertaken by

Literacy Newfoundland and Labrador.

The new Learners' Network Initiative that was recently announced provides

those who work directly in the adult learning field, the instructors,

practitioners and learners, as consultants to Literacy Newfoundland and

Labrador. These learners have much to offer in developing this network. They

will enhance the efforts of Literacy Newfoundland and Labrador so that they can

continue to provide the best services to the people of the Province.

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

Literacy Newfoundland and Labrador for the positive work they do on a daily

basis by offering support to those in need.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to acknowledge May 4 to May 10 as Compost

Awareness Week. Composting is an efficient and effective way to reduce the

amount of organic waste we send to our landfills.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, 300 tons of organic waste goes

into our landfills on a daily basis. It accounts for approximately 30 per cent

of all waste generated in the Province. When buried in our landfills, this

organic waste produces harmful greenhouse gases as well as a toxic liquid,

commonly known as leachate, which can pollute our soil and water.

Composting is a quick, simple way, Mr. Speaker, for us to take ownership of

this waste stream and manage it in a more environmentally responsible manner.

With little effort, we can help reduce the amount of organic waste going to

waste disposal sites, help reduce pollution, lower waste collection and disposal

costs at the local level, and create healthy and beautiful lawns and gardens

just by composting in our own backyards.

In the fall of 2005, Mr. Speaker, the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board

launched a two-year backyard composting program with a substantial investment

from its Waste Management Trust Fund. Through the sale of subsidized compost

bins and a major public education and awareness initiative, MMSB set out to

increase participation in backyard composting by 50 per cent. I am pleased to

report, Mr. Speaker, that the program received an overwhelming response

throughout the Province and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the MMSB sold out of its

10,000 inventory of compost bins in the first six months of the program. They

acquired an additional 10,000 bins which were also quickly taken up by residents

throughout the Province.

Together, through actions such as backyard composting, Mr. Speaker, we can

all make valuable contributions towards protecting our environment. We need to

take action by composting at home, at work and at school.

The environment belongs to all of us, Mr. Speaker, and it is therefore up to

all of us as individuals, groups and businesses to lead by example and do our

utmost to protect and enhance it.

I was pleased as part of Budget 2008 to announce $620,000 for year one of a

three-year, $2 million Newfoundland and Labrador Green Fund, which will help

support projects and feasibility studies that contribute to energy efficiency

and greenhouse gas reductions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: We invite environmental groups, businesses and the public,

Mr. Speaker, to submit innovative proposals that have broad applications for

achieving these reductions.

I encourage everyone to focus on sustaining our environment and participate

in activities that promote composting this week. The national launch of Compost

Awareness Week took place at MUN Botanical Gardens on Sunday, and they will host

a variety of lectures and demonstrations throughout the week. For additional

information on composting, please visit the MMSB's Web site or call their

office.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement, and to say I

have to agree that this being Compost Week, I know full well how well those bins

work and so many people have them. I did not realize there were 20,000 of them

out there but in the meantime, they do work. I have one of my own.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I want to say to the minister, is that when we talk

about the environment - and I know there is money for it, the minister mentions

that there is $620,000 this year and $2 million over the next three years. I

hope that we are soon going to hear something on the recycling of tires. There

are major problems in the New Harbour landfill. I have to be careful how I say

that - the landfill - but if you saw the pictures you would have to call it a

dump.

The other one: hopefully, some funding will go into the cardboard recycling

here in the city, when Ever Green had to close down.

Overall, Mr. Speaker, we agree with the statement, but hopefully the funding

that is mentioned at the end of her statement, we will see what is going to

happen with those three issues that I brought forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I thank the minister for her advance copy.

I, too, am quite pleased with the strides that have been made by the

Multi-Materials Stewardship Board, but I would like to remind the minister that

other jurisdictions have shown that backyard composting in and of itself is not

sufficient with regard to diverting organic waste, especially in high-density

areas.

I would really encourage the government to look at investment into

municipalities, especially where there is high density, to work with them with

regard to having door pickups with regard to organic waste, not just depending

on backyards, because in high-density areas they do not have the space to have

organic waste being composted.

I am delighted to see that in the municipality of St. John's it looks like

they are going to have the sidewalk pickup by the year 2010, which is only

nineteen months away, with regard to compost. I would like to see that happen

elsewhere. Not all municipalities have the capability that St. John's has, so

I would encourage the government to look at its role in investing for sidewalk

pickup as well with regard to compost.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, today I participated in an important event

which raises awareness on the need to make our workplaces injury and illness

free. This afternoon, I was proud to raise the flag declaring this week as North

American Occupational Safety and Health Week or NAOSH Week. I was joined by my

hon. colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and the

local

chapter of the Canadian Society of Safety Engineers, along with a number

of companies who are leaders in occupational health and safety.

NAOSH Week occurs every year during the first week of May. Employees and

employers across Canada, the United States and Mexico participate in events to

promote a greater awareness of the importance of having safe workplaces. The

Occupational Health and Safety Branch of the Department of Government Services

is a proud participant of this week. We are here to work with employers and

employees, and are committed to doing our part to ensure safe workplaces.

This year's theme is Safety and Health, A Commitment for Life. Start

Today Live it Every Day! This excellent theme reminds all of us that good

health and safety practices need to become a way of life. We all need to make a

commitment today to do our

part in making our workplaces injury and illness free

and incorporate safety at home or at play. Safety, Mr. Speaker, is not just for

workplaces.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the local

chapter of the Canadian Society

of Safety Engineers who put a tremendous amount of work every year into

promoting NAOSH Week. I am proud that this group was the pioneer of NAOSH Week.

Their recognition of the benefits of improving attitudes towards safety quickly

turned into a need to recognize this important issue across the rest of North

America. Our safety professionals have shown that they are leaders in spreading

the message about injury and illness prevention in our workplaces.

Mr. Speaker, workplaces all over the Province are celebrating and recognizing

NAOSH Week through many activities which promote safe work practices. I

encourage everyone to do something in their workplaces this week which

recognizes the importance of this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the minister providing me with an advance copy of his statement.

It is indeed not only a celebration and recognition of it, by doing that.

That, in and of itself, of course, becomes an education because we cannot do

enough to make health and safety issues in the forefront in our Province.

Unfortunately, health and safety often only become an issue when there is an

accident and when there is an injury, and then it is too late. So, the more we

can celebrate it and recognize it the better.

In the past, even the recent past, we have had some terrible incidents in

this Province with explosions on tankers. We have had refinery explosions. We

have had work site issues where safety just was not abided by.

I don't know if it is built into Newfoundlanders and Labradorians over the

years, but we just did not always take the necessary precautions that we ought

to. Now, of course, the more something happens, unfortunately, we are at least

becoming cognizant of it and getting into health and safety.

I notice, too, the concentration on the health piece - not only safety in the

occupation but also health. It is nice to see that a lot of companies in the

Province now are actually providing healthy activities and time outs for their

employees, which, of course, is part of being healthy and being safe as well.

I would say hats off to I believe it is the Workplace Safety Commission who

have the ads on TV, because a picture is worth a thousand words. Some of those

ads that I have seen are very, very telling, and they just strike you,

particularly the one about a gentleman talking about going to his daughter's

wedding. As the camera retracts you see that he is actually a victim of a

workplace hazard, an occupational hazard and safety issue.

That educates people, and it is good to see, and congratulations to anyone

who promotes health and safety in our workplace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

I thank the minister for his advance copy of the statement.

It is so important that we do take time to recognize what is going on in our

workplaces and the need for occupational safety and health awareness, and

everything that we can do to make people become alerted to the dangers in the

workplace and their role and what they need to do themselves, is absolutely

essential; even things like the raising of a flag becomes important. People look

at the flag, they ask questions. I would like to point out that we do have a

serious situation in the Province. Here in this Province, we had almost 8,000

occupational injuries in 2007, and we do need to have a prevention focus.

When the Statutory Review Committee released its report - and we waited two

years for the government to respond to it - one of the things they recommended

was the Department of Education needed to have health and safety programs in

every high school and post-secondary institution. Having read the government's

response, I actually found it running short of what was recommended. I really

would ask government to review the recommendation, review its response to it and

to work with the Minister of Education, because we have too high a rate of

accidents among our young people. Young people are starting to work as

teenagers, while they are still in school, and we need a much more aggressive

program of education in our schools.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform the members of the House

about a new social marketing campaign that the Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Commission is implementing to raise awareness about the importance

of workplace safety. The need is clear when each year thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians suffer job-related injuries and illnesses at

work. It is also fitting, given that this is North American Occupational Safety

and Health Week.

For the past four years, the Commission has increased public awareness about

workplace health and safety, and the prevention of injuries. Building upon this

work, the new SAFE Work campaign strengthens the focus on injury prevention

through a series of new television commercials that began last week.

SAFE, Mr. Speaker, is an acronym for Spot the hazard, Assess the risk, Find a

safer way, Everyday.

SAFE Work will enable the Commission to better engage the public and move

from raising awareness, to putting forth a call for action. The fundamental

message being conveyed is that simple everyday actions undertaken in the

workplace can prevent an injury.

The campaign will complement existing Commission prevention initiatives

including, the employer incentive PRIME program, the CEO Leadership Charter and

the injury prevention workshop series. The new social marketing campaign was

developed in partnership with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward

Island workers' compensation boards.

Mr. Speaker, the Commission has found that the previous awareness campaign

had a positive and successful impact in getting injury prevention messages into

the workplace, as was referenced a bit earlier. The research shows that over 70

per cent of people in our Province recall seeing the campaign and agreed it made

them think about workplace safety. We are also seeing positive improvements in

the lost-time incidence rate, which between the years 2000 and 2007 has fallen

by 38 per cent. The new SAFE Work campaign goes a step further. It demonstrates

how to eliminate injuries at work and at home by placing an active focus on

spotting the hazard and then removing it.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the Commission is providing the necessary

leadership to promote workplace health and safety and prevent and reduce

workplace injuries. The goal is to create safe environments and greater

awareness resulting in zero injuries and zero fatalities on the job.

Mr. Speaker, when we focus on creating a safety culture in Newfoundland and

Labrador, we help reduce the human and financial toll of workplace injuries.

After all, workplace injuries impact our families, our colleagues and the

community at large. Workplace safety must be a top priority for all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy, and to say that the

Opposition agrees with this new initiative that is being put in place so that

safety issues can be first and foremost with all workers in this Province.

Only recently, Mr. Speaker, we had a ceremony here in this very building

where we remembered those who lost their lives while on the jobs. Anything that

can be done should be done to make our workplaces all that much safer. It is

good to see the figures that the minister had mentioned, that 70 per cent of the

people in this Province are paying attention to the literature and the

advertisements that are out there and to know that the lost time rates have been

reduced by a whopping 38 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I guess no odds how safety minded we are accidents will take place

from time to time. Hopefully, the Commission will continue, not only to go with

the programs for safety but to work along with the injured workers the best way

possible because, as the minister stated, no doubt it affects them financially

and their families in the long term.

Once again, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I thank the minister for his advanced copy.

I thank both this minister and the previous minister who spoke for giving us

two opportunities to speak to this important issue today. I mean that seriously.

It is good that you both focused on it, because it gives me a chance to point

out that in 2007 we had 4,353 reported lost-time accidents here in this

Province, and then there were also 3,601 claims that had to do with health care,

resulting in a total of 7,954 workplace injuries. That is a high number, and

anything that we can do to bring down those numbers is going to be essential.

The reality is, injuries do happen, and I want to point out to government as

well that we have to make sure that, when they do happen, the injured worker is

taken care of very quickly. One of the keys to reducing claim duration times, is

early and appropriate treatment of injuries. We want people to get healed

quickly so that they can go back to work quickly, but we are going to need more

occupational health clinics - we need them around the Province - to deal with

injured workers, so that we can reduce claim duration times and we can get

people back to work quickly.

We understand today that claim duration is approximately 40 per cent higher

than the national average here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I encourage the

minister to look at the reasons for the claim duration time being so high in our

Province and to start finding ways in which to bring that percentage down.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Before the Chair calls Oral Questions, the Chair would like to rule on

comments made earlier, on April 24, by the hon. the Minister of Justice.

On April 24, the hon. the Minister of Justice raised a point of order with

respect to some comments made by the hon. the Opposition House Leader. In making

his point of order, the Minister used language which the Opposition House Leader

described as improper.

The Chair had not heard the comments, and undertook to review Hansard. The

transcript showed that the hon. the minister said, and I quote, "What

happens, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you, is whether intentionally or

inadvertently, it was an attempt to mislead this hon. House by putting this kind

of documents - by referring to them and then not having them to back it

up."

All members are aware, I am sure, that it has been held consistently in this

House that it is not acceptable to say that a member has deliberately misled the

House. In a ruling made on May 16, 2002, on a similar expression, in that case

it was said: Why did he try to mislead the people into thinking. - the

Speaker ruled the expression "try to mislead" is unparliamentary, as

there is a suggestion of deliberation or intent.

In the opinion of the Chair, the same principle applies in this case and I

ask the hon. the Minister of Justice to withdraw the comment "it was an

attempt to mislead."

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw the comment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of weeks the Minister of Education

continuously stated that there were no fire and safety hazards in schools.

In last week's The Compass newspaper, the fire chief of Bay Roberts

noted his frustration in conducting fire inspections. He noted problems such as

overcrowding at concerts, improper storage of flammable materials, storage in

improper spaces, and even a lawn mower and gas being stored in a closet.

As these problems still exist at schools and are being raised by the fire

chiefs at a local level, I ask the minister: Is she still certain today that all

fire regulations are being followed in every school across the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, certainly fire safety is very

important in our schools. If a fire chief from any particular area has been

dealing with a school which has not been co-operative with following orders, I

would certainly like to see those reports forwarded; and, in discussing with the

school board, it would absolutely be a priority that if any fire department or

any fire chief has any outstanding orders against the school that I will make

sure they are followed.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding, from talking to these fire chiefs and the fire

inspector's office, that these people do the inspections on the schools but

there is no process or protocols in place in which they must follow up on those

inspections or ensure that there is compliance, so I ask the minister: How are

they supposed to know if the changes are actually made and corrections are made?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, if a fire department or a fire chief out there has

a report on a school and has orders that they want followed, I will ensure that

the school board follows those orders and I will also follow up and make sure

the school board confirms back with that fire department or with that fire chief

to let them know that work has been completed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr Speaker, I understand now that in the event, and because

there is a gap in the process that is followed for these inspections, that on a

go-forward basis the minister, herself, is now going to take it upon herself to

ensure that work is done and compliances met?

I am asking that a process be put in place. Do you think that is an

acceptable process?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if the Leader of the Opposition

does not want me to follow up or to take action when she is asking me a question

in this House, she need not bother ask.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about serious life safety issues in

our schools, and I don't appreciate the minister's attitude here.

What I am asking the minister, Mr. Speaker, is what the process is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Once the fire chief in a community goes into a school and

conducts an inspection and writes up an inspection report, Minister, that says

this, this, this and this has to be done, there is no process in this Province

whereby that inspector can follow up or ensure there is compliancy.

Am I hearing right, that on a go-forward basis, that will now be your job?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I expect that the school boards in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador do take fire safety very seriously. We have our daily

reports done, monthly they go into the boards, annually we have companies go in

and inspect the schools as well.

Mr. Speaker, in the case where we have a fire chief or a fire department that

puts a request into the school board to ensure that work is done, I will ensure

and make sure that the school boards do take those orders seriously and follow

up.

If we do have a situation that needs follow-up, and the Leader of the

Opposition is asking me here in the House if that work will be done and the

department will be notified that the work is done, yes, they will be notified.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the only process that we are aware of that is in

place is a checklist that is conducted in schools either by a janitorial staff

or signed off by the principal at the end of the day, whatever the case.

I ask the minister: Does she feel that this current checklist process is

detailed enough to, first, not only identify the problems that exist but to also

ensure that the corrections are made and that the compliancy is met?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there is a process in place to bring issues to the

school board so that they can address the issues as they are made aware of the

issues.

Mr. Speaker, we have invested significantly in the infrastructure of our

schools. We have the biggest budget. We have $88.8 million. We take the

conditions of our school very seriously. We want to make sure that we have safe,

healthy environments for our students. We certainly make sure that life safety

issues, including fire safety, are part of that process.

Mr. Speaker, we have taken other initiatives, as well, to make sure that our

schools are safe places for our students, and we will continue to do so.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, fire departments across the Province are currently

responsible for conducting fire inspections at schools, and, as we know, many of

these departments are volunteer.

I ask the minister: With the current process that is in place, who does the

liability rest with should an inspection report be completed and then a fire

happens in that school?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, if there is an inspection done on any particular

school by the fire department or by a fire chief and it is submitted to the

school board for them to act upon, it would be incumbent upon them, as they are

responsible for the operations of that school and for the maintenance, that they

would follow up on such activity.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is about liability issues. This is a case when a local fire chief

goes into a school, does an inspection, and presents it to the school board and

the fire commissioner's office. In the event there is a fire or some other

unsafe practice that happens in that school, I ask the minister again, who is

liable in that particular situation, knowing there is no follow-up process?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it would be incumbent upon the school board, as I

said, who is responsible for the operations of the school, whether they receive

a report from the fire commissioner's office or a fire department or an

individual in the community who outlines a life and safety issue, whether it is

a fire safety issue or a hazardous situation in a school, that any time

information comes forward that could jeopardize the safety of the students it

would incumbent upon the school board to act on that information.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, fire alarm companies say that they often go to schools to

inspect alarms and they are equipped to fix most malfunctions on the spot.

However, in schools they usually have to wait between five to six months in some

cases for the schools to receive financial authorization from their boards

before they can actually go back and do those repairs.

I ask the minister, to ensure the safety of teachers and students, will you

allow schools to immediately authorize these expenses and have these alarm

systems fixed at the same time that inspections are being done?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated certainly, this government

takes the maintenance and the operations of our schools quite seriously - we

have probably had the largest allocation for school construction and maintenance

at $88.8 million.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, last year we increased the allocation to

school boards for maintenance of their schools so that it went from fifty-five

cents a square foot up to ninety-two cents. So, Mr. Speaker, we are very serious

about that. We certainly increased the budgets for our school boards to do that.

I would also expect that the school boards, when they are dealing with life

safety issues, that they make that a priority and ensure that that work is done

on a priority basis.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Will she give authorization or certainly give guidance to

the school boards at this stage to ensure, in the future, when fire alarm

companies are going in to inspect alarms in schools, if they find malfunctions,

that they will have the authority to correct it right there, right on the spot?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I will make sure that the chairs of the school

boards and the Directors of Education understand that life safety issues that

need to be rectified and fixed in an immediate or short-term basis should

receive that attention.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of schools out there in the

Province, it is our understanding now, that are not being inspected by fire

chiefs or fire departments simply because the volunteer fire departments in

those areas are not active for some reason or another. In cases like this, we

are coming to understand that the only kind of inspection at all being done is a

checklist being performed at the school by individuals that have not been

properly trained in what the fire and safety codes are.

I ask the minister, is she concerned about this and what she will do to

change it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have said a number of times during this

particular Question Period, is that the school boards are tasked with the

responsibility for the operations of the school. I would think that the people

who do the daily inspections are people who understand what they are looking

for, who know how to complete the checklist. It is co-signed by the principal

who would be available to answer questions if the particular person who is

responsible for that did not understand what they were asked to do. In addition

to that, those reports are submitted to the school board, to an operations

manager as well.

Other than the reports that go to the school board, the operations manager

would have the ability to act on any issues that need to be corrected. There is

also an annual inspection done by independent companies in our schools. So, Mr.

Speaker, there is a process in place. In addition to that, a fire department or

a fire chief as well has the ability to do an inspection of the school. That is

another safeguard that we have in our schools. So, Mr. Speaker, the process that

is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS BURKE: The process that is set up by the school board does encompass

more than a daily checklist. There is also checks and balances in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the minister has said repeatedly in this House that they would not

send the fire commissioner in to do the inspection on the schools or his office,

but, Mr. Speaker, we heard the same response when we talked about hospitals in

this Province. After the hospitals were inspected, we found a very different

situation; actually, a whole list of facilities that need work.

Mr. Speaker, we have been contacted by a number of people. We do not know if

the information we have been given is factual or if it is not but we will be

passing on a list of schools to the fire commissioner's office to have checked

in the Province.

I ask the minister: Is she prepared to grant the fire commissioner the

permission to be able to go out and do the checks on those schools at least?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the fire commissioner's office has the right to

inspect any public building in Newfoundland and Labrador, including schools.

Mr. Speaker, if the fire commissioner's office decides they are going to

inspect any school, I would think that as the Minister of Education I do not

have the right to stop the fire commissioner from doing any type of inspection.

Mr. Speaker, nor have I ever said, as the Minister of Education, that we would

be in any way blocking the fire commissioner's office from inspecting any

school.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week the government unveiled more details related to the $1,000 baby

bonus plan. The cut-off date for qualifying is one issue that has been a major

concern to women and families that have contacted us.

I ask the minister: Why was the baby bonus not retroactive to October, to the

date the Premier announced the program, which was at the height of an election

campaign?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting to note that the member opposite, the Leader of the

Opposition, would have thought that an election platform was a government

announcement. That is how confident they were that we were going to actually

form government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind members of the House and

the members of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, that during election time it is common practice for political parties

to lay out a platform: here are the kinds of things that we plan to do over the

next four years or eight years, depending on the mandate that the people would

give us.

Last year, in 2007, our party laid out a very extensive platform of things

that we would do as a government if we were to be re-elected and what we planned

to do over the course of four years and lay out a blueprint for Newfoundland and

Labrador for many years into the future. One of those items, I say, Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of those items we announced last week.

I remind the member opposite not to confuse a political party's election

platform with a (inaudible) announcement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister needs to realize that when

the announcement was made, at the end of September, it was taken as a commitment

by a lot of people in this Province. I think he is getting the e-mails, just as

I am getting the e-mails, that this was going to be a program retroactive to the

date in which government was actually out talking about it.

Mr. Speaker, last week, when questioned in the House of Assembly, the

Minister of Health and Community Services stated that women who had their babies

before January 1, but were still on maternity leave, would receive the $100

monthly supplement. He later corrected the information and said that women or

families would not receive any funding.

I ask the minister: Why would a woman currently on maternity not be eligible

for this $100 a month supplement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, every program that has ever been announced in this House by this

government, or any government prior to us, always had an effective date. One of

the issues with effective dates is there is obviously a date before the

effective date that many people might say: Had I been there or had it been

effective much earlier, I would have benefited.

This program is no different, Mr. Speaker. We introduced this program

effective January 1, so on a go-forward basis here are the benefits that you are

entitled to. If something happened prior to that date, if you had a child maybe

in 2007, 2006 or 2005, this program will not apply to you because it comes into

effect January 1, 2008.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to light as a result of a court case currently being

covered in the media that some historical documents in the Province are being

sent to a private company for shredding. I want to make it clear, I am not

concerned about the court case; I am concerned about the issue of the shredding.

I ask the minister: Why are documents which potentially have historic

significance being sent to be shredded, and who makes the decisions as to what

documents will, in fact, be destroyed?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, in the Province, and certainly as a government, value the historical

records here. There is a three step process that takes place. The archivists

make the first decision. Then it goes to the director. Then it goes to a

specialized committee that is set up, made up of various departments and

expertise in that particular area. So it goes through a very rigorous process

and that is where it is, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious, I guess, from the details that are coming

out, that the process failed somewhere. As I understand, the documents were

originally in The Rooms, or part of The Rooms storage facilities, and yet they

are being valued by experts at Memorial University to the tune of possibly a

quarter of a million dollars.

What happened here so that the process did not work? These documents, boxes

of them, were sitting in this private company to be shredded. Can you tell us

what went wrong so that this happened?

If this case had not happened, and the box had not been stolen or whatever,

they would have been destroyed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I met with the staff last week and again this

morning on this exact issue.

Mr. Speaker, this goes through a process, as I have said. It is unfortunate

that in this case these records have shown up. I guess it is fortunate that we

have arrived at - and these records will be protected; but, as I have said,

articles are routinely dispersed of. In this particular case, they arrived at

The Rooms collection and there were issues around mould, fungus, and so on and

so forth. It went through a process and it was decided upon that these records

would be indeed disposed of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, that is not sufficient.

We know there is a process, as you say. We know the process failed. Somebody was

going to destroy documents that we know the people at Memorial University were

prepared to pay $122,000 for, possibly up to a quarter of a million.

What is the minister going to do to make sure that the process does not fail

us again?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, that situation has been rectified.

As of 2005, there is a new system that has been put in place under The Rooms

Act. Prior to that, these records were stored in numerous places, many of them

where damp and mould could collect.

First off, those records in question have been put on microfilm. I can assure

you, Mr. Speaker, that, as of now, records are much more efficiently taken care

of. They are kept in a good state of repair. There are people now within the

system, because of the increased capacity and financial support for that,

conservatists who get out, take a look at these particular records, and keep

them in mint condition, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Have you made any overtures, since this case became

public knowledge, to have the twenty or so boxes that are the subject matter of

that particular trial actually returned to The Rooms, now that they realize

there is a mistake been made? Will they, in fact, be returned? Have you done

anything to see that these documents - which are significant, according to many

experts now, apparently - will they be returned?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will not speak on particulars about it

because it is before the courts, but we did have a discussion about that

particular issue this morning and we will continue that discussion.

It is important to recognize that, as a government and as a department, we do

not look at the monetary value of these. We look at the historical importance of

those, and in light of that comment, Mr. Speaker, we will continue that

discussion. Pending the court case, we will decide where we go from there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final question to the minister in that regard is: Given the process that

you have outlined - and that is the first time I was aware that there actually

is a process to decide if there shall be destruction of documents - is it part

of the process, or would you be prepared to have it be part of the process, that

even if the so-called experts at The Rooms or wherever decide that it is not to

be retained within the Province's mandates, these documents, is there anything

in the process to see that some other body might have access to them rather than

destruction - for example, public libraries around the Province? Because there

are other agencies who may have an interest if government does not have the

storage room. Is that part of the current process, or would you be prepared to

have that included as part of the process?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is. Indeed, part of the conversation

that we had last week and again this morning was in respect to the exact point

that has been made. It is certainly something that we will be taking a look at.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the government recently announced long overdue changes to the

teacher allocation, and the minister stated that the allocation would be on a

needs basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, she stated that the focus would be on a needs

basis, and that the teacher ratio would remain as is or possibly some schools

would get additional units; however, we are receiving many phone calls from

schools throughout the Province saying that their numbers will be reduced this

year.

I just ask the minister: Can she make a commitment that there will be no drop

in teaching staff in any of the schools this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we announced a new method, a new means of

allocating teachers in Newfoundland and Labrador because the other method that

was in place was based on numbers only, but that did not work. I have some

really interesting statistics as to indicate why that did not work.

What we have decided, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a cap size on our classes.

Kindergartens at twenty; from Grades 1-3, it has now been twenty-five. It is

being rolled out into the elementary grades at twenty-five, and twenty-seven

starting in Grades 7-9 in this September coming. We also brought in an

allocation for specialist teachers in the K-6, which has never been in place

before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to conclude her answer.

MS BURKE: So, Mr. Speaker, based on the new method of allocating we have

right now, we have put more money in the Budget this year for teachers'

salaries, but the allocation this year will be based on need.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

In February, the minister stated that the current home care financial

assessment tool was not working and needed to be changed. If this government can

afford to put over $1 billion towards the debt, it can afford the extra cost of

using a fair assessment tool for home care.

I ask the minister: Will this government completely replace the home care

financial assessment tool to allow seniors to qualify without restrictions for

the home care support they need?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not like repeating myself, but let me

repeat something I said last week in the House.

Last week in the House, in response to a very similar question from the

Leader of the Official Opposition, I had indicated that our government is doing

a complete evaluation of our long-term care and community support system. There

are many aspects to that, Mr. Speaker, home support services, long-term care

homes, personal care homes, alternate family living arrangements and an array of

issues we are looking at. One of the things that is a piece of that is the whole

financial assessment process. That mechanism determines how much a client

contribution should be for an array of services, including the home support

piece.

As I said last week, it is very difficult for us, as a government, or anybody

who is being responsible, to cherry-pick one particular aspect of a major

strategy and decide that you are going to respond to an issue today and try to

plug a hole.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We would rather do it in a much, more comprehensive fashion. As I said last

week, we are in the middle of that. It is an extensive piece of work. Some time

during 2008, I suspect that we will have something to roll forward with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious this government is refusing to address a current crisis in home

care until the long-term and continuing care strategy is completed.

Today the media reported that the change in the assessment tool, as the

minister is indicating, will not happen before September, if then. Meanwhile,

seniors like Patrick Connors must endanger his health because of providing

full-time home care to his wife because the co-pay is too high. Government

cannot force seniors to wait for a strategy.

What practical plans is this minister willing to put in place right now to

deal with the short-term emergency that is happening right now for seniors

needing home care? Don't we deal with the emergencies, Mr. Minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I was not sure what the question was. Great

speech!

I just want to say to the members of this House, our government has only been

in power for a little over four years, I say, Mr. Speaker, and we have taken our

home support budget to just a little over $80 million a year, now close to $115

million a year we will pay in home support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, that is a reflection of this government's

commitment to home support services. We have had five increases in the wages

paid to home support workers since we have been in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, you plot that rate of increase in a dollar

investment and rate of increase for the salaries being paid and compare that to

any jurisdiction in this country and I say, Mr. Speaker, that will compare very

favourably. Add that to the commitment we have made -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Add that to the commitment we have made to the redevelopment of our long-term

care and community support services. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that reflects

that government is truly committed to seniors in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask the question again, as clearly as I can make it: Does this

government care about emergencies? We have situations which are emergencies that

actually deal with people's health worsening because of the government not

listening. Will you please consider putting something in place to deal with

emergencies, Mr. Minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Every single day in Newfoundland and Labrador one of our

four health authorities, or all four of them at any given day, and I suspect

every single hour of every single day, our health authorities are responding to

emergencies in this Province. It is the very nature of what we do in Health and

Community Services, Mr. Speaker. We deal with people sometimes who are at the

most vulnerable times in their lives. That is why we as a government, in the

last four-and-a-half years, have increased our investment in health and

community services by over one-half billion dollars, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The Minister of Finance stood in this House earlier this

week and delivered another Budget this year with, again, record increases in

health and community services and we, as a government, will continue to make

that kind of investment on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers have expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: As Chair of the Management Commission, I hereby table the

documents and the minutes of the Management Commission meetings for April 11 and

April 18.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to the Standing Orders, this Wednesday being Private Members' Day

for the Opposition, I give notice that a Private Member's Motion to be heard

this Wednesday, moved by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, seconded

by the Member for Port de Grave.

WHEREAS home care is a special care that allows people facing health

challenges to stay in their home and receive care; and

WHEREAS there is an immediate need for improved, affordable access to home

care in the Province; and

WHEREAS government has acknowledged that the current system is flawed.

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urges government to immediately implement

emergency measures to lessen the financial burden facing those requiring home

care services in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call Motion 1, which will be resuming the Budget Debate. Motion one. I

believe the debate was adjourned by our friend, the Opposition House Leader.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to the clock, I have forty-six minutes and fifty seconds to finish

my response to the Speech from the Throne, or excuse me the Budget Speech.

I do not think I will require the full forty-six, forty-seven minutes. I said

most things on Thursday and I doubt if I am going to need the full time, but

there were a few things that I did not finish saying on Thursday. I think it is

necessary, of course, to revisit some of those things. I will just get my notes

in order here.

Of course, we had the Budget last Tuesday. I guess the overview approach is

what I took, because the government said: Here is the money we have going in;

here is what we have going out. We have $1.4 billion left over from last year,

as a surplus, and we are going to do certain things with it.

I put to the Minister of Finance at the time, and I am looking forward - he

will get an opportunity to speak, and we will certainly get an opportunity to

question him in the Estimates for Finance as well. I think the question put

forward was a very reasonable one, and it requires an explanation, and that was:

Exactly how was the $1.4 billion used?

Now, some people may be accountants and have a good idea, when you talk about

budgets and financial statements and so one, but the average person, including

myself I don't understand, totally, the details, from looking at these

budget documents, where the $1.4 billion went.

Now, I am sure it is probably in there somewhere, and I am sure if the deputy

minister or the ADMs in Finance were to be here on the floor of the House they

might be able to tell us, but we did not get it clearly explained by the

minister, because he gave a Budget Speech. He did not get into the nitty-gritty

details. He touched upon the policies we will call it a treetop explanation,

shall we say as opposed to drilling down into the details. So there were

some things that still, I would think, need to be answered so people have an

understanding of what happened.

We know, of course, very well, from looking at the budget documents, where

the money came from. We are currently very dependent upon our income from our

mining and our oil resources; there is no question about it. A barrel of oil has

gone from $35 a barrel four years ago, in 2004, to, I think it was trading

yesterday at $116. It has been up even higher than that, but certainly for the

past couple of months we have been above $100 a barrel. That, of course, puts a

substantial amount of money, and far more money, into the economy than anybody

expected when they did the Budget last year.

So, that surplus, that extra money that came in, the government had to make a

decision what to do with it. That is the nature of my question, and I do not see

it in here, exactly where the money went. The reason I say that is, we have

and the term used was, we had to pay down the debt.

If anyone remembers, when the Minister of Finance did his pre-Budget

consultations, he had this fancy debt clock, he called it, saying that we have a

certain amount of debt in the Province, and every second, virtually, every

minute, every hour, there is a certain amount of interest that we have to pay on

our debt. Then he went on to say that when we get a surplus and we know that

we are going to get one we are going to take a certain portion of those

monies and pay on that debt; because, the more debt we pay, the less interest we

are going to have to pay. So, my question, looking at the Budget, was: Where did

the $1.4 billion go?

I started to scour through the documents, and I read a few things, and what I

have come up with so far is that we are going to take about $200 million of it

and put into public sector wage increases. We know that the Premier and the

government has offered to CUPE which is one of the public sector unions, an

8 per cent raise in this year, 2008-2009, with further raises in three years of

4 per cent, 4 per cent, and 4 per cent.

The Minister of Finance is on record as saying that each percentage point

that you increase the public sector, it adds about $25 million to the wage bill

for the Province. So, I simply multiplied the 8 per cent increase in next year,

this year, times that $25 million, and I come up with $200 million. So that

gives me $200 million of the $1.4 billion; that is where it went.

So, I said, what did they do with the remaining one point two? I kept

looking, and it looks like, from the documents, they are spending about $480

million on capital infrastructure. Now, that is not debt payment. Capital

infrastructure, from what I understand, what that means is the government said:

We need to build certain schools. We need to build certain hospitals. We need to

invest money in water-sewer systems in municipalities. We have a certain amount

of road work that we have to do. So, they put about $480 million into the

infrastructure piece. If you take that off the one point two that is remaining,

$480 million, I think we are down somewhere around $720 million left, roughly.

I said: Where did the rest of it go? - Because so far these two items are not

payment on the debt. That is $200 million for the wage increase, and $480

million for capital infrastructure.

Then I looked at it, and it says there was $450 million paid to debt payoff.

Now, that is not reducing your debt. For example, the Province, as I understand,

and the minister has confirmed in his document, we owe over $11 billion

$11.8 billion and that has been borrowed over the years. You go into a bank,

or some lending agency somewhere. I believe all of our loans now are in Canadian

or U.S. loans. I don't believe any more on the books there is any foreign debt

owed. What that is, they have a number of loans they might have taken them

out over thirty years - and we are still paying a loan that we might have taken

out in 1978, for example, from some bank in New York, and there is an interest

rate.

As I understand how it works is we do not pay off like you do on a mortgage.

We do not pay off so much for your principal and so much for your interest. My

understanding of the way that it works is you just pay the interest. So, if you

borrowed $100 million and you are going to pay it off over thirty years, you

just pay the percentage interest every year; but, when you come to the final

year, that is when you pay the $100 million back, the principal that you

borrowed. That is my understanding of how it works in finance. I put the

question to the minister earlier, and I would like to get an answer.

What we have here is this $450 million that I am talking about, that was on

our standard; that was on our required debt payments. That is nothing new. The

minister didn't go out to these companies and say: Oh, by the way, we have

some extra cash kicking around so we are going to pay down $450 million on our

debt.

That was money that was due anyway in that year, so there is no debt

reduction there. That was a standard, principal payment that was expected and

had to be paid. That is $450 million that comes off of your, I believe, $780

million, I said, so we are down around $300-and-some-odd million left out of

that surplus of $1.4 billion.

I kept looking and, sure enough, there is an expenditure in here of $329

million that is going to go towards - it is broken out in two groups. I believe

$100 million of it is going to go into Hydro, to fix their equity-debt ratio.

That is not debt reduction, again. Also, $229 million is going to go into the

energy corp. In fact, my figures of all of those, the $200 million for public

sector increases, the $480 million for capital infrastructure, the $450 million

for the normal debt payoffs, and the $329 million for energy corp., gives us

over $1.4 billion. That left me with the question of, where in this Budget is

the Province paying down its debt? I cannot see the answer here, and I am

looking forward to the minister showing us the answer.

We kept talking about this famous clock, and all the interest being paid on

it, and I was under the impression - I guess mistakenly - that we were going to

take some of this $1.4 billion and we were going to say: Look, instead of eleven

point eight, we are going to chunk it over there and pay off these debts now.

The faster we get the credit card paid off, the better.

When I looked, and went through it like this, I cannot see where we paid

anything extra on debt, other than what we already were expected and supposed to

pay for that year. So, I am looking forward to the minister giving an

explanation of what happened there.

There are also a number of things - I misplaced one piece of paper here I was

looking for. I had done a little

summary up from last week. Yes, I gave the

overview of the Budget and my big question was on where the debt money went. I

touched upon economic development because, obviously, we have all of our eggs in

one basket right now based upon the current situation in terms of where our

revenue is coming from, pretty well. We are bringing in money from oil. It looks

like we are going to bring in money from oil in the foreseeable future. We are

bringing in quite a bit of money from mining; I think $330 million last year.

The bulk of which would have come from Voisey's, and other mining interests

around. We have up in Wabush, of course, the Iron Ore Company of Canada. So we

have some other mines on the go.

Basically, our revenue source - and taxation, of course, is another big one.

In terms of resources, it is non-renewable resources that are putting the money

in the pot right now. When you go forward you think about, where are we going to

be two years out, or five years out? Of course, you have to get in some

long-term planning. Where are we going to be twenty years out? Because a lot of

times you hear politicians going around, when they are going for elections they

will say, it is not us we are concerned about. It is your children we are

concerned about and your grandchildren. That implies, of course, that you have

to have some long-term plan. You have to look after things today but you also

have to plan for the future.

There are two things, as I understand it - there are two ways to look at a

plan. You either have to know where your revenue sources are now and you have to

come up with some alternative revenue sources in the future or some diverse

revenue streams that you do not currently have in order to keep the money in the

pot, because eventually the oil is gone out of the ground, eventually the

minerals are gone out of the ground, so you have to come up with some

alternative or diverse revenue streams in order to keep the money going into the

pot on a long-term basis.

The other thing is you have to very cautious and careful that you do not

build into your budget permanent spending and make permanent spending

commitments that are based upon temporary revenues. For example, we know in this

Province, since 2004 going out to 2010, we will have increased the programming

cost in this Province by 45 per cent. Now, that is a big chunk. You talk about

where the money goes - anybody can check the records, it is right in the Finance

Minister's own documents. We will, by 2010, have added to the cost of this

Province, on every year fixed programming cost, 45 per cent increase since 2004.

That is a pretty substantial increase. If you go back and compare it to your own

household and size it up and say, I have increased the spending in my household

in six years by 45 per cent. Now something must have happened. You have revenues

coming in, that is fine but then you have to size it up: Well, I have that 45

per cent increase built in, am I going to be able to handle this in 2011, 2012

or 2020? You have to be careful when you build these things in.

We know right now, for example, based on public sector spending and based on

what has been offered to CUPE, that it is eight, four and four. That is in the

next three years. That is 16 per cent going to be added to the wage bill.

Sixteen times $25 million a pop works out to be a substantial sum as well. So

you are looking at about $500 million just in the wage package in the next three

years, at a minimum. That is forgetting about the fact that some union bodies

might be successful to negotiate something other than the pattern, or they might

be able to negotiate some perks for themselves because they are special

circumstances. I do not mean perks in the sense that it is unnecessary. I mean

they might be able to negotiate some special deals for themselves or

arrangements for themselves because they are special circumstances.

I will give you an example, the pathologists. We have had the Minister of

Health met, as recently as Friday past, with the pathologists in the Province.

They had to give them a package last year to supplement them, and that is a big

issue. Dr. Danek has said again - and I believe Mr. Ritter, who is the executive

director for the medical association, said this is not something you can deal

with next year. This is not something you can even deal with six months out.

This is something you have to deal with now because, quite frankly, whether

people want to believe it or this government wants to believe it or not, the

pathologists in this Province and who we have and who we retain and the

technologists are reaching a crisis situation.

We do not know what yet the Minister of Health has to put into the package to

put into the pot to make sure that we retain the pathologists. That is just one

group. Add to that, of course, the nurses. I believe what Ms Forward said,

according to what she saw in the Budget at least, she is the head of the nurses'

union, there was not much in there to ensure that we recruit and retain nurses.

I get the impression from that bold statement, and I think she used the words:

Absolutely nothing in it for us. Now, if that is the case you have a pretty

substantial group and a pretty important group in this Province who are out

there saying, their head is saying, their representative is saying, that is not

good enough for us. So, how much more are we going to have to put into the

nurses pot, other than the 8 per cent, 4 per cent and 4 per cent in terms of

benefits? We do not know. So that is going to be a substantial issue as well.

That is what I mean, you have to do one of two things if you have a long-term

plan. You have to find some alternate revenues and you have to be careful and

cautious about building up your long-term debt. Quite frankly, you can call this

criticism, you can call it being critical but when a province increases its

program spending by 45 per cent in six years that is a pretty huge increase. I

think extreme caution needs to be used there, not to say that you cannot justify

it or these wage increases are not justified, not to say that we should not put

more money into health care, but I point them out just to show that it is ever

more important that you must look for the alternate revenue sources because

these things are indeed needs that we have and needs that you have to deal with.

So you better have your homework done on the resource side and the revenue side

if you are going to keep making the commitment, else wise we will find some

government five or ten years out, the same as this government said in 2003: Oh,

that crowd spent themselves into oblivion. They were spending like drunken

sailors.

God forbid, if the price of a barrel of oil goes down to $35 a barrel again

and we do not have any more resources found and we do not have the Lower

Churchill on stream and we have cranked up our public service sector debt by 45

per cent. It is not going to be so fine and dandy then when somebody has to say:

Oh, well, we are sorry. We did not know the barrel of oil was going to drop down

to $35 a barrel. Then we find ourselves in it again where the next government

says: Whoa, we have to scrap all of that because that bunch was like drunken

sailors. So that is where the planning comes in.

Now there are lots of things on the horizon and I hope, for one, that they

all come to fruition. We have the Hebron-Ben Nevis thing being talked about.

Another non-renewable resource but it is an identification of we know the

resources are there. We have known the Ben Nevis resources have been there for

twenty-odd years. That is not a new discovery. That has been out there

identified under the ground. We know where it is, we just never, ever got around

to making a deal. In fact, the deal is still not made. There is a Memorandum of

Understanding but the deal is not actually made. So, we have Hebron-Ben Nevis.

There is going to be an expansion to Hibernia South, which will no doubt provide

some extra funding. We have the White Rose expansion which is going to provide

some.

I noticed a comment that the Premier was making, I think I read today in The

Globe and Mail , that the Premier was going to be encouraging the

exploration. There is no doubt about it, anybody who understands the offshore

business knows that we have Hibernia, we have White Rose, we have Terra Nova, on

the go right now, but if we do not do Hebron and, more importantly probably,

if we do not do the expansion, but more importantly if we do not do exploration,

we are doomed to have a very limited and short-term oil industry in this

Province, and that would be absolutely catastrophic, I would suggest, for many,

many reasons. Not only does it impact your revenue flow and your revenue

streams, but all of the other expertise and technology that you built up is out

the window as well; because those people, of course, who have become trained to

work in your industry, right from the exploration to the development, to the

production phases, they are going to go somewhere else; they have no choice.

That would be the downside: a very highly skilled workforce that you would have

built up, you will lose. So, we definitely need the offshore.

The Lower Churchill: now, no doubt, that would be a very positive one if that

could be brought to fruition. I don't think anybody looks at that situation

and thinks it is an easy task. There are all kinds of issues. Besides the

funding of it, you have certain Aboriginal groups that you have to deal with.

Everybody has to be part of the solution, whether the Lower Churchill is going

to happen or not. What route you are going to take it out, is it going to be

overland? Are there transmission issues? Are there going to be underwater

routes, marine cables? Is it going to come down to the Island? What is the cost

of doing it? What is the cost of electricity going to be when we do it?

There is a whole complex piece there, and hopefully it will work, because if

the Lower Churchill does get done I mean, it is something. It is not a

non-renewable resource. It is a renewable resource and, besides being clean, and

greenhouse gases and all those things, we are producing a clean source of

energy, the thing about it is that it is renewable. As long as the water flows,

we will have a revenue source stream coming from the Lower Churchill.

Some of those big things seem to be in the works, and seem to be working, and

may hopefully come to fruition, if certainly we have a successful exploration.

It is my understanding that, out of all the potential sites for offshore oil and

gas in our Province and gas is only in its infancy at this time but all

of the territory, shall we say, or land, or offshore underwater seabeds that can

be searched, we have only so far drilled and explored about 3 per cent. That is

my understanding.

If that figure is accurate, that is a pretty good chance that out of the

other remaining 97 per cent we might be lucky enough to strike something,

because we certainly struck with Hibernia and White Rose, Terra Nova and Hebron,

and there are others out there that we are aware of. Hopefully, if we have as

much luck with the 97 per cent as we had with the 3 per cent, we should find

ourselves in a good position on a go-forward basis, but it has to be done.

Finally, we are seeing now - there was a falling out there between the

Premier and the oil companies for awhile. I think everything froze up for about

a year, but they seem to be getting back on track, and hopefully that will come

to be, because you have to remember the time lag between when you go to explore,

the time when you get your exploration permit, to the time when you actually

pump oil, can be a long time.

You take Hebron, for example, were, I think, twenty-five-plus years from the

time they discovered it until now. No doubt, there has to be exploration and it

has to be done in a timely basis so the exploration leads to the development of

the fields, which leads to the production that comes out of the fields. With

that, hopefully, we should be in pretty stead on a go-forward basis.

Then, of course, in addition to those things, we need economic development. I

see in the Budget there are all kinds of little pots. The Minister of Business,

I think, has $28 million over in his pot called a Business Attraction Fund. The

purpose of all of this economic development, of course, is not only for the

Northeast Avalon; it is not only for the oil and gas industry. I think the dream

of everybody in this Province, not only today but anybody who ever lived here,

is that we would have all kinds of other supportive industries out around the

Province so that if a person did not want to fish you might be able to do

something else.

God knows, we have had attempts at economic development going back to Joey

Smallwood's day and before. Even back in the old Commission of Government days

we had attempts at economic development. It came right through the 1950s, 1960s,

1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and we are here now. This government is trying to try a few

other little things, but they did not invent the wheel. They might be trying to

put new spokes in the wheel, but the economic development wheel was created a

long time ago.

We all remember, I think, the rubber boots factory that Mr. Smallwood was

going to start. We all hoped we would manufacture enough rubber boots in various

outports in the Province and sell them all around the world, and that everybody

would be wearing rubber boots instead of sneakers, and everybody in rural

Newfoundland would be rich because you would have a job.

That didn't work; not everybody wanted to wear rubber boots. Nike's came

on, and everything else, so we never ended up with the rubber boots being as

successful as we thought.

We do have one very successful footwear company, Terra, that operates in this

Province, and produces the Kodiak brand and so on, as well, very successful, but

that is the kind of stuff that we need if we can hook those. Governments are not

always successful but they have to show that they try.

I notice the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development has a number

of little pots over in his department for different incentives to groups that

want to come in. We might give you a tax break. We might give you some incentive

for the marketing of your product and so on. We might give you some money to

help with your wages in the initial stages and your inventory, your development

costs and so on, but it is a tough sell. It is a tough job, because you can have

all the money you want, if you do not have the ideas to put the money into, you

are bankrupt. You could be bankrupt financially or you could bankrupt in terms

of your creativity and your ideas. That seems to be, notwithstanding some of the

successes we have had, particularly with some technology companies here in this

Province and an engineering technology and so on, and marine technologies and

cold ocean research and so on. We have been pretty on the ball with some things

but we are still lagging. Not saying it is anybody's fault, but we are still

lagging when it comes to having industries that can run and operate successfully

in a lot of our rural communities where we would like to have them. So if you

have people who were displaced in the fisheries, for example, there might be a

niche for them where they could be trained, be employed and make a living for

themselves and not have to go to Fort McMurray, or not have to go to Alberta

working as a seismic worker, or picking berries and picking apples over in PEI

and Nova Scotia, as a lot of my constituents do. That was the hope.

I ask myself the question, what is the expectation of where the ideas are

supposed to come from? Because the government has all of these pots - I have

described the Minister of Business; I have described the Minister of Innovation.

Finance will give you some tax breaks and so on. The Minister of Tourism even

gets involved. He has a number of little things he tries to encourage you to do.

He does advertising. We pumped money into the provincial advertising in the last

four or five years, I think double the budget, to $12 million I think in the

last three or four years; the advertising budget for tourism to try to bring

people in and drop their dollars here. Plus little things to encourage and help

out people who want to get involved in the tourism industry to make it easier

for them to market their products and so on, but it is not easy.

I think the problem is the public expectation is that the government of the

day has the ideas. That is why they vote for governments, because governments

tell them - and I am not signalling out any particular government, but

governments tell people: You elect me and I will do this for you. You elect me

and I am there for you. So the expectation in the public mind is that we put

this crowd in power because they have all the ideas. Now, I do think that is the

expectation of the governments. The government is saying: No, no, just a minute.

We are not necessarily the creators. We are not expected to be the creative

people. We are the administrators, we are the managers. We got money to pass out

to certain ventures, through the Department of Business, ITRD, and Tourism but

the ideas have to come from the grassroots. That is where we have been for the

last, it seems, twenty years at least, that we are waiting for those ideas to

come forward from the grassroots. Rather than having creativity coming from the

top down, from the government down, the government is putting the mechanisms in

place to help out if you bring forward an idea and it passes the smell test or

due diligence test, but there is not a lot of creativity coming down.

I think that is one of the weaknesses we have here with this particular

government. Not that you have not managed what you have, not that you are not

looking forward to the future. Maybe there is no answer to it, I do not know,

but I certainly do not see any emphasis from a rural development point of view.

God knows, every Administration has made mistakes. You talked about one

Administration - I believe the Liberal Administration went off and bought a boat

and then the Opposition of the day called her: the old rust bucket. I think they

are still pumping money into the rust bucket. Not every government makes the

right choices and decisions.

Sprung Greenhouse, how could we ever forget? I believe that was a

Conservative Administration back when. We were going to have more cucumbers here

in Newfoundland, we would all have to be vegetarians and eat them three times a

day if we were ever going to devour and consume the Sprungs that we had. I

believe even the former Minister of Fisheries in this government, the Member for

Port de Grave, I believe he even had a recipe book he used to flash around the

Chamber all the time. The pickle book he used to call it, with all the recipes

you could possibly make from cucumbers. He used to have the pickle book.

All administrations have tried and to this day neither has fully succeeded; a

lot of tries. There have been some successes but we still got a long ways to go.

I alluded the last time to the cell phone industry - or excuse me, the call

centre industry that we thought we would be well off if we could establish these

call centres around the Province. Although that was a bright spot a few years

ago, it is not so bright now. We have had the incident, I believe, where

Carbonear said they are going to close. I hope there is no downside at that

particular point.

There are a lot of other issues, too, of course, besides the money that has

been given out. Just on that economic front, I mean, we talk about putting money

out. We had a case where I talked last week about the $1 million-plus that is

gone out the door and we cannot even find out from the government who it was

that got it. Anyway, I am sure the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development, before the day is over or before the term is over, I hope he is

going to come forward and fess up and tell us who it was that took the money;

who got the money. I think the people of the Province deserve to know when $1

million of theirs goes walking where it walked to.

There are some other issues, I guess the heart of a government - because a

lot of people talk about, you may be a good banker, but do you have a heart in

your body? That is the nature and the tenure of the questions that I have seen

in this House in the last couple of weeks, for example.

The questions of, I believe it is, the gentleman who was the subject of a CBC

story. I forget his last name right now, but the Leader of the NDP raised a

question about him today. Patrick is his first name - Connors I do believe, and

the Connors family. That is the kind of thing where people would judge your

moral fibres, not your bankbook, but your moral fibres. Now if that was ever

true what I heard on CBC Radio this morning - I believe it was Mr. Cochrane

reporting about this gentleman. He is in, not only dire financial circumstances,

but dire physical circumstances as a result of numerous, significant, health

challenges.

The response of the Minister of Health when they asked was: We are not going

to do anything until later. We cannot touch that until the fall. Now I do not

care how much money you have as a government, and you can have your $1.4 billion

surpluses. The minister was asked here again today by the Leader of the NDP:

what, if anything, he was going to do about it. The same answer came back. He

got up in bravado, rather arrogant I thought he was, talking about what he has

put into the home care system and how we have caught up with the rest of Canada.

I am sorry, Mr. Health Minister, comparing us to the rest of Canada does not cut

it for Mr. Connors. Mr. Connors still needs care. Mr. Connors still needs care

today. Mr. Connors said himself on the CBC Radio this morning he might not be

here in the fall of 2008. He might not be here. That is the kind of stuff that

despite all the money you have or how people might think you are spending your

money, if they perceive you to be heartless and cold, that gives them a shiver,

because there is something wrong with that. People like to see that.

It is fine to say all the nice things you are doing, but when you don't do

something that cries out for relief and cries out for help, and you refuse to do

it, that says something. That is what I understand is happening to Mr. Connors.

In fact, I understand this is not a dead issue yet. I don't know why

government would make such a big fuss about saying no to someone who has proven

that he is in dire need, because it only impacts the government when they

shouldn't be impacted. They should deal with it.

If the man is on the up and up and the man has serious health challenges and

he can't pay - he is facing death, folks. This man is not facing a case of he

can't get a hair cut, this gentleman is facing death. The Minister of Health

will look up and say, we will talk about it in the fall! That is not acceptable.

I had two good friends of mine, of course I always talk about the people

who listen at home who said they heard me last Thursday, Mr. Horace Meade in

Port aux Basques and Mr. Nelson Ingram. They are two elderly gentlemen. They

have the same kinds of concerns. One is eighty-five and I believe the other is

eighty-seven. They have the same kinds of concerns that they tell you about.

When they heard about the Connors type circumstance they said: What is going on?

How can we have all those millions of dollars - we can put $3 million into a fur

industry that is suffering problems but we can't put x dollars into a

gentleman who has health challenges and his life is threatened. They don't

understand that. People can't understand that.

The oxygen situation: We had the minister get up, and the government, and

say, we did great, we put oxygen in to make people more mobile. A great story! A

fantastic story! But the problem is it only serves a certain sector. There are

4,400 people in this Province who need oxygen and not a tenth of them got it.

You can't smack yourself on the back too much and too hard if you have left

the vast majority of them out. That is not to say you are not trying, but it is

the balance that people look for.

It is like the Fire Commissioner's Office. I don't understand why this

government is causing such la-di-da about not wanting the Fire Commissioner to

go in and inspect the schools. There can only be one reason. They must fear that

if he goes in he is going to find something wrong with the schools and they are

going to have a bunch of requests to get stuff repaired. Now, we had it here and

it was a very legitimate question. The Leader of the Official Opposition asked a

question here a couple of weeks ago, because the Minister of Municipal Affairs

had said a while ago, last May I think: No, problem in our hospitals. We are all

right. Everything is okay. Sure enough, the Fire Commissioner goes in and he

comes back with a report and says: Yeah, it is all okay, except for this, this,

this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and something else. Now that was in

the hospitals, and that is where we keep people who are sick, who are getting

treatments, whose health and safety we are concerned about. The Fire

Commissioner, the most experienced professional individual in this Province,

found those faults in our health care system. Well I tell you, he had the muzzle

put on him pretty fast: Whoa, Mr. Hollett, whoa, just a minute. You might have

gotten into the health care system and found some mistakes and cost us millions

of dollars, but I tell you what, in future you will not be the out front voice

and the head of government, the talking head, because we are not going to put

you in there.

Ever since that the question was asked: Well, don't you think now we should

send him to other public buildings? We have thousands of children in this

Province who go to school. As a safety precaution, just because it is probably

the safe and wise and prudent thing to do, shouldn't we have that professional

person, the Fire Commissioner, go to all the schools? Never mind what your

protocols are that you have in your schools and that you get a janitor to go

around and check off a list and he gives it to the teacher and the teacher

reports it to someone in the school board office. Common sense question: Why, if

we found it in the hospitals which had a bunch of protocols and systems, wouldn't

we just for safety's sake and caution's sake do the same in our schools? No,

sir. Instead of having the Fire Commissioner go in, they put the muzzle on him.

The Minister of Education stands up three and four days in a row saying, no,

no, it is all okay we have our own system. Now, she did say today, I noticed she

said today, that we cannot legally keep the Fire Commissioner out of the

schools. So, that begs the question: If you cannot keep him out, how does he get

to go in? We are not allowed to talk to him. Nobody is allowed to talk to him, I

take it. We have already been told. The minister said today that we cannot keep

the Fire Commissioner out of the schools and yet what about the parent, for

example, in wherever, Tickle Bight, who has a school and wants to find out? Mr.

Fire Commissioner, would you go in and check out that school? What kind of

answer I wonder is he going to get? We will know, because there is a list. I saw

a list floating around here today, I think, of ten or twelve schools that have

already requested or are on the verge of requesting that. We will see what

happens then, if there are any roadblocks put in front of the Fire Commissioner

when he is asked to go into these schools.

Of course, once that ball starts to roll and he goes into ten or twelve

schools and does an inspection, I would think every school in the Province, just

as a safety precaution then, is going to say, that is the prudent thing to do,

send him in. If we are up to scratch, we are up to scratch and if we are not fix

it. That is the right thing to do. Yet, instead of facing it on the up and up

the government: Nope, not going to be done, cut him off. Put the muzzle on him

and do not let him do it.

That gives people the perception that you are in the midst of a Budget that

admittedly has a lot of good things in it, but at the same time you detract from

the goodness of it by letting these issues create a bad feeling and a bad taste

in people's mouths when they look at the government. Some of these things need

to be dealt with.

It is like the question the Leader of the Opposition asked again today about

the program. You are going to award $1,000 to anybody who has a baby and $100 a

month during the first twelve months. The question was asked: What about the

people who had a baby from the day you announced you were going to do that in

October up to January 1? We know what is happening January 1. After that you are

okay, you are on the program, you are eligible, no problem. I would like to

know, I do not know the facts, but I wonder can Vital Statistics tell us how

many babies were born in this Province from September 30 when the announcement

was made to December 31? I am sure somebody in government has calculated that.

Now, surely that cannot be such a significant number that is going to have such

a significant dollar value attached to it that government could not keep its

commitment. By the way, whether you believe it was a commitment or not,

everybody who heard that announcement back on September 30 of $1,000 for a baby,

they think that applied the day they heard it. I heard it today on a go-forward

basis, do not tell it is only going to apply January 1.

I wonder, why would a government that has a $1.4 billion surplus cause itself

such aggravation and headaches about probably what? - fifty babies maybe,

tops? In that two, three-month period, October, November, December of 2007, how

many kids were born in this Province? I would not think you would need to cause

yourself a big headache over that, but yet the perception is out here that:

Nope. Cold! Callous! Starts January 1 and that is the end of it.

They will not go retroactive on that for a couple of months for the sake of

the moms and the babies, but we just passed a bill in this House two weeks ago

that made it retroactive. They went back and collected $13 million on a

retroactive piece of legislation that went through this House under the liquor

corp three weeks ago. People see those things and the inconsistencies. How can

you pass a bill that is retroactive to get back $13 million that you had no

right to have, but yet you cannot let this retroactive piece go back to the

mothers so that they can get $1,000 for having a baby? Not because they came up

with the scheme, it is because you told them on September 30 that you were going

to do this.

I notice I am getting down to the end of my timelines there. There were a few

other things I just needed to comment on. I guess, in conclusion it is nice to

have a Budget where a government had money to play with. It is very nice to

have, but, as I say, it is grounded on very volatile dollars because it is

grounded on something that this government has no control over. They have no

more control over this than they have over the weather, and God knows you can

have four seasons in a day in this Province in some places, but they have no

control over the value of a barrel of oil. That right now is where we are.

The diversity that we are going to need - we need to diversify, yes, to get

away. How long it takes - for example, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

saw a couple of positive things here in terms of aquaculture developments

particularly down in the Grand Bank area, down in that South Coast by Cooke

Aquaculture, but the timelines on how long it is going to take to establish a

bona fide aquaculture industry in this Province, where are we with that?

I guess the other

part is - and this was put to me - not only do we have to

put money into ventures that might help us out from an economic development

point of view in rural Newfoundland, but it is the cautionary piece about where

we do not put money. For example, there are some people who have told me in

conversations I have had with them - being a bit nosey, I was saying, what do

you think of this or what do you think of that - several people have told me

that there are certain places you should not put your money. One they identified

was the forest industry. They said, no, as far as they are concerned it is a

lost leader. They are of the view that it does not bode well for the next twenty

or thirty years in the forest industry and that it is not wise for governments

to be propping up the forest industry. I am sure anybody who represents a

district where the forest industry is pretty big would not agree with that. I am

sure the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans would not be too pleased to hear that,

or go along with that suggestion. I am sure for the Member for Stephenville East

it is not an issue, because theirs is gone. I am sure the Members for Corner

Brook would be concerned if the government took that approach and said, no, we

are not going to put any money into the forest industry. It is a lost leader, it

is on the downslide, it is not going to rebound, so why should we be pumping

good money after bad? Some people have said that. Well, I disagree with that. I

agree, you have got to be cautious in how you put it in, but you cannot turn

your back on any industry.

In conclusion, with the minute I have left, my comment would be: I like some

of things that are in the Budget, but I don't think it addresses enough the

economic development needs of the Province. I don't think there is enough

creativity in the government's Budget. It is fine to say all the things we are

going to throw money at, but I think there is a lot of thought and ideas that

need to be generated, that have not been generated by this government. I do not

even see them being solicited from the grass roots in the Province.

This thing called a Rural Secretariat, I believe, which was supposed to be

the bulwark for that, I do not even know if that is functioning these days. I

certainly have not heard much about it in the last three or four years, other

than it was created, so the creativity piece is missing.

God hope that we get some movement on renewable resource industries, such as

the Lower Churchill. God hope that we can make it out to 2042, and that we get

that we indeed do have a future.

Right now, I see some indications of planning but I do not think the planning

is - it is a treetop planning. I see the big picture stuff, and I think the

government is probably seeing the big picture stuff, but there is a lot of drill

down details and certain trees in that forest that I do not see a lot of details

on.

As the debate goes on, of course, in the next two or three weeks, we would

like to propose some very specific questions to specific ministers, and in the

Estimates, so that we can get some details as to: You have told us this is a

program, you have told us that is the money, but hopefully you will tell us how

it works.

Mr. Speaker, I see that I am out of time. I thank you for the three hours and

eight minutes that I was allowed to discuss this issue.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: (T. Osborne) The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly an honour to get up and speak on behalf of the Budget, and

follow the Minister of Finance and, of course, my colleague, the Opposition

House Leader, who just finished up his three hours and eight minutes.

Mr. Speaker, for those out there watching, I would just like to give a little

explanation as to how that all happens.

The speech from the Finance Minister was an hour-and-a-half, or an hour and

thirty-two minutes, so the critic for the Opposition, the Finance critic, gets

to speak twice that. The rest of us in the House get to speak for twenty

minutes, with the exception of the Premier of the Province as well as the

Opposition House Leader. So, although the hon. member spoke for three hours and

four minutes, or three hours and eight minutes, I am certainly only going to use

up twenty minutes of air time. Certainly, that is enough for anyone's mug to

be on TV, I am sure, Mr. Speaker. Like myself, he is no model, so I am sure the

general public had a job to put up with him for three hours and eight minutes,

but he did a pretty good job, Mr. Speaker.

I was listening to him intently. I listened to him on Thursday, and again

today, and I like to say to people that I am what I would consider a red Tory.

Mr. Speaker, what I believe to be a red Tory is someone who is fiscally

responsible but yet has a very big social conscience.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member, like I said, very intently, and

there were a number of initiatives that he talked about that he praised us on.

He talked about our investment in aquaculture. His only problem was that it

could not happen quickly enough, and his only problem was that we do not have

enough planning in place.

I say, Mr. Speaker, the investments that we are making today are all about

planning in aquaculture - the investment that the Minister of Fisheries

announced, as a matter of fact, a $10 million investment just a couple of weeks

ago, here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, an aquaculture industry does not happen overnight. So, it is the

investments we are making today that are going to sustain that industry in the

coming years, Mr. Speaker, and that is what it is all about.

Mr. Speaker, there is a humongous amount of information within the Budget,

and I am certainly going to speak to some of it, and my colleagues, I am sure,

will speak to other items as well. Mr. Speaker, I could stand here for the full

twenty minutes and just talk about what the hon. member said, but I am going to

try not to do that. I am going to try to talk about a number of different

issues, including health care, of course, which we have spent a considerable

amount of money in.

Mr. Speaker, like I said, I believe the Opposition House Leader is a red

Tory. I believe he has much the same political philosophy as I do. As a matter

of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP, our social voice here, I believe

she is a Liberal. I believe she should be sitting in the Liberal caucus;

because, unlike the NDP Party, when they were in this House before, the NDP

Party in this House marched to their own drum, if you will. Sometimes they voted

with the government; sometimes they voted with the Opposition. They made up

their own minds; they made up their own decisions.

Mr. Speaker, since I have been in this House, and since in this House, in

2003 actually, before 2003 - I have not seen the NDP Party vote anything

else than with the Liberal Party. I believe, Mr. Speaker, they all go to the

same caucus meetings. I am not sure of that, and I cannot swear to it, but

because their political philosophy is so constant, I believe that they all hang

out together. I believe they are pretty close. I really and truly do, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with the social announcements this year I was shocked, actually.

We announced the other day $100 million in this House for poverty reduction -

$100 million and I expected the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to come to

her feet, a round of applause. I figured she would be jumping on top of the

desk, clapping.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, she did not make a murmur. She did not make a

squeak.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you of one thing. I thought I

read somewhere on the weekend that they had their convention this weekend.

Obviously, there were a number of NDP people at that convention and I can assure

you that many of them had a lot of respect for the things that we have announced

so far, including the $100 million for poverty reduction.

MS MICHAEL: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: You can rest assured, Mr. Speaker - I hear a Liberal voice

coming from the right of me, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure you right now that

there was not one person in that room who was against that $100 million for

poverty reduction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I recently - and I have it here somewhere in

front of me, if I happen to find it any time in the next few minutes, a number

of social activists in this Province who praised this Budget, who have a very

social - and I applaud the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. She comes from a

very unique, distinct, social background, and I applaud her for that, so she

should certainly be applauding a government that makes those kinds of

initiatives.

I heard Lana Payne, known around this Province as a social activist; she

applauded this government's Budget for our commitment to social issues. I

heard Penny Rowe, head of the Community Services Council, applaud this

government on their initiatives in poverty reduction. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I see my

friend from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, not as much as a grin or a clap when the

good news was announced in this Budget. It is for that reason that I believe she

is part of the Liberal caucus. That is the reason I have that comparison made.

Mr. Speaker, if I could go on and talk just a little bit about the Budget,

this was a record year for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We saw a

surplus of $1.4 billion. We saw our debt going to be reduced from $11.6 billion

to $10.3 billion, and hopefully by the end of the next fiscal year down to as

low as $10 billion, Mr. Speaker.

The other day I was watching a news clip and there was a lady on, and her

words were: I have never been prouder to be a Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

She has never been prouder to be a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. We are $18

million away from coming off equalization and, as Canadians, as part of the

Canadian federation all of a sudden - if you listened to Question Period

yesterday, as a matter of fact, it seemed like every gun in Canada was lined up

against Newfoundland. All of a sudden we have made it the have-Province, Mr.

Speaker, and all of a sudden that is seen as some kind of a bad thing.

Mr. Speaker, we are proud to be leading the country, coming off the have-not

status and becoming a have Province. As the Premier referenced yesterday at his

interview, we have no problem with helping out the rest of this country, doing

whatever we can with them and supporting them in their time of need, Mr.

Speaker. We certainly look forward to doing that. It is an honour, actually, as

a Newfoundlander and Labradorian we have been supporting the workforce

across this country for years. We have been making contributions in many, many

ways. Next year, Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say - we are only $18 million away

from being a true contributor financially to this country and it is certainly an

honour to be there.

Mr. Speaker, with that, of course, come significant things happening here in

this Province. All of a sudden, in the first half of last year we saw a net

increase of 2,000 people moving to this Province, people coming home,

tradespeople, Mr. Speaker. The reality of it is that we are only on the cusp of

this. This is just the beginning. We are just starting to build this.

Last year we had record employment, the highest is has been in twenty-six

years, Mr. Speaker. Still I hate to talk about it. It is not something I would

brag about. I mean, our unemployment rate is still at 13.6 per cent. However, it

is the lowest it has been in twenty-six years. Mr. Speaker, we are headed in the

right direction.

We had income growth of 4.3 per cent. Disposable income increased by 5 per

cent. Our retail sales tax increased by 9.5 per cent, which means people are

making more money, they are spending more money. That makes the wheels go

around. It certainly makes the wheels of the economy go around, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, our housing starts as well for last year

were 2,625. That is almost a 10 per cent increase in residential construction in

this Province.

Mr. Speaker, like I said and like the Finance Minister referred to in his

speech, we are certainly as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador going to

be the economic driver in this country in the next few years.

Mr. Speaker, I am half way through my time and there is so much to talk

about, but first of all I would like to speak to my district just a little bit,

just to have a quick recap for my district. People say: Oh, what does the Budget

mean to me? It is important, Mr. Speaker, that I just touch on a couple of

things of what the Budget will mean to the people of Conception Bay South.

The 15 per cent cut in taxes on our insurance announced just before the

Budget but certainly part of the Budget: an investment of $94 million this year

and I think it is $75 million a year annualized after this current year. Mr.

Speaker, everybody pays insurance. God knows, I pay it. I have a car, my wife

has a car to go to work and we have a house, Mr. Speaker. That is going to be a

significant savings for us as our family. Everybody, regardless of how old you

are, once you are old enough to purchase insurance it will be a save.

We heard a little bit of talk about seniors recently. Mr. Speaker, that is

one of the items that will certainly - seniors who like to live in their own

homes, who like to drive their own cars, this 15 per cent a year is going to

have a significant impact on the disposable income that these people will have,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, of course the reduction in our license registration fees from

$180 back to $140, as you know that was a commitment made and we heard a little

talk earlier about announcements made. Mr. Speaker, that was part of our Blue

Book, that was part of a promise that we made when we ran in government, as was

what the member talked about, the baby initiative, to increase our population,

for mothers and children. That was an initiative that we talked about and

committed to in our Blue Book. Mr. Speaker, as everybody out there in the

Province knows, this stuff does not happen the minute you announce it. The

Liberals had a load of stuff in their Red Book or whatever you want to call it,

but Mr. Speaker, that cannot happen. They did not form the government, so it is

not going to happen.

We made a commitment to a number of initiatives that we would do over the

term of office that we were here, and, Mr. Speaker, we are living up to our

commitments, living up to our promises. That is what we committed to and that is

what we will carry out.

Mr. Speaker, I had someone who talked about the baby initiative, who said:

Well, how come you don't go back to the year before, and how come you don't

go back before that year? The nex