May 5, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIV No. 16

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to offer congratulations to Paul Lane, who

has been named as Mount Pearl's Citizen of the Year for 2002.

Paul's record of achievement and involvement in Mount Pearl is exemplary

and brings into focus the truth of the saying that the heart of any community is

its volunteers.

Paul Lane has been a volunteer with Mount Pearl's Parks and Recreation

Department for more than five years, has chaired Mount Pearl City Days every

year since 2002, is the Secretary to Mount Pearl's Library Board of Directors,

and is the current chairperson of St. Peter's Elementary School Council.

He chaired the Terry Fox Run Committee in Mount Pearl in 2000 and in 2002. He

has volunteered with the Canadian Cancer Society, has served with the Mount

Pearl Frosty Festival as Chairperson of the Programs and Events Committee for

the past four years and is the Chairperson and Founder of the Masonic Park

Garden of Friendship Foundation.

In addition, Paul Lane has served as Chairperson of the Kenmount Park

Neighbourhood Association and also finds time to canvass door to door for the

Lung Association's Christmas Seal Campaign.

Mount Pearl is well-served by volunteers like Paul Lane. We are a better

community because people like Paul see a community need and try their best to

make a difference.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this hon. House will join with me to

offer Paul Lane congratulations on his being named as Mount Pearl's Citizen of

the Year for 2002 and, in doing so, give him and all other volunteers every

encouragement to continue their exemplary contributions to our communities.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate some students from my district who performed

extremely well at a recent Regional Science Fair for the Burin Peninsula

District at St. Joseph's Academy, Lamaline.

Ninety-five projects from around the Burin Peninsula were displayed at the

junior, intermediate, and senior levels in four divisions,

life/environmental/biotechnology, earth and physical science, engineering and

computer science, and mathematical science.

Placing second overall was Jennifer Graham of Marystown Central High School,

with her project, Oh No! My Spaceship is Rotting', in which she studied the

effects of simulated micro gravity on the growth of a unique fungus. Jennifer

was also nominated for the Regional Biomedical Science Award and will advance to

the Canada Wide Competition in Calgary on May 10.

Gaetan Kenway, also a student of Marystown Central High School, was

recognized for his design of an innovative flying machine.

Gaetan will be in Cleveland, Ohio, May 11-17, as part of Team Canada,

presenting his project, The Future in Flying Low III' at the international

level.

Mr. Speaker, I would to congratulate these students in their accomplishments

and wish them the best of luck in their future competitions. I would also like

to applaud the other students who were involved in this science fair, and thank

the teachers and staff of the Burin Peninsula School Board for enabling these

students with these opportunities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Tuesday, April 15, I had the pleasure of presenting the Queen's Golden

Jubilee Medal to two outstanding members of the communities of Labrador City and

Wabush.

The first recipient was awarded posthumously to the Late Joseph Roberts. Joe

was active throughout the community. He served twenty years as a volunteer with

the Wabush Fire Department, during which time he took on the role of Assistant

Fire Chief and an executive member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Fire Chief

Association. For eleven years with the Boy Scouts of Canada and fourteen years

with the Royal Canadian Cadet Corps. Joe devoted time to the youth of Labrador

West.

In 1981, he became the founding member of the Labrador West Ground Search and

Rescue Team and was active in starting the local

chapter of the Canadian

Rangers. From 1983 to 1997, Joe was an elected member of the Town of Wabush and

served many years as Western Vice-President of the Combined Councils of

Labrador. Joe was well-known and respected in Labrador West and indeed,

throughout all of Labrador.

The second recipient is a long time resident and active pioneer in the

Community of Labrador City, Mr. Norman Peckham. Norm is a retired Royal Air

Force World War II Veteran. As a member of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 47,

he served over twenty years on the executive. He is very active in the Roman

Catholic Church and is a member of the Knights of Columbus, Reverend Doctor

Whelan Council. He was an active member of the sports community in Labrador West

with coaching and executive duties with the youth organizations of minor hockey

and minor softball. In the early years of educational development he served on

the Labrador West School Board. For twelve years he served on the town council

for the Town of Labrador City; ten of those were as Deputy Mayor. As one of the

pioneers of Labrador West, Norm is also a well respected and known person in the

area.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the many schools

who participated in the seventh annual Avalon West Theater Arts and Musical

Festival held earlier this month. This festival highlighted the best acting

ability, talent and dedication of the many students and their coaches.

I am especially proud of all students at Amalgamated Academy and Ascension

Collegiate; two schools that participated in this festival from my district.

At the intermediate level, Amalgamated Academy took home the following awards

and nominations: Best Play; Best Supporting Actor went to Bradley Mercer, and

honourable mention went to Nick Giles; honourable mention for Best Set;

honourable mention for Best Female Actor went to Sarabeth Fitzpatrick;

Certificate of Merit for Best Ensemble Work; and Director's Certification of

Merit went to Corey Morgan.

In the senior level category, Ascension Collegiate received: the Best Male

Actor went to Scott Yetman; honourable mention for their play; honourable

mention went to Bobby Gushue for Best Actor and Crystal Coombs for Best Female;

and Certificate of Merit for Direction.

Mr. Speaker, this festival is a very important event for those students, and

it provides them with the opportunity to express themselves, their talents,

their hard work and dedication.

I would once again like to congratulate both Amalgamated Academy and

Ascension Collegiate on their well-deserved wins. I would also like to commend

the efforts and determination of all other schools and students who participated

in this festival, and give a special applause to all students who received

awards or nominations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Voisey's Bay Nickel Company's

generous contribution to the construction of a new health facility in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay. Over the last five years, this company invested $15 million to

help construct the Labrador Health Centre for the people of this Province, and

we have now received the final installment.

This cost-shared project was first announced in 1996. At that time,

government recognized the need to replace the Melville Hospital, a wooden

structure built in the 1950s which was becoming increasingly costly to maintain

and operate. As a long-term corporate citizen of Labrador, Voisey's Bay Nickel

Company also recognized that the area hospital needed to be replaced. A

subsidiary of Inco Limited, Voisey's Bay Nickel Company believes it has a

social responsibility to improving the quality of life in communities where it

is located, whether it is Thompson, Manitoba; Sudbury, Ontario; or Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we value the organizations and individuals who

partner with us to provide quality health care services to improve the health

and well-being of the people of this Province. The Labrador Health Centre opened

in the fall of 2000. It has twenty-four beds and provides twenty-four-hour care

in the areas of acute, primary and secondary health services to approximately

14,000 residents of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Northern Labrador communities.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company for its continued

investment in the health needs of the people of Labrador. I am sure that hon.

members who have had the opportunity to see the Labrador Health Centre will

agree with me that this is a beautiful facility which has significantly improved

the health care needs and community services system of this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to commend Voisey's

Bay Nickel and all other corporate partners for their contributions to our

Province's health care needs. However, Mr. Speaker, we note with concern on

this side of House that our health care boards find it increasingly necessary to

rely on corporate partners as sources of funding for essential equipment or for

other capital needs.

The underfunding of our health care boards and our health care system in

general is a consistent cause of concern to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

So great is the need, Mr. Speaker, that the health care boards in this Province

have now hired full-time fundraising persons and fundraising teams to try to

find corporate partners or trying to organize various events to purchase needed

equipment.

While we recognize, Mr. Speaker, and sincerely congratulate Voisey's Bay

Nickel as a corporate partner for their contribution in the new health care

facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, we also call upon the government to

recognize the need to address the underfunding of our health care system in

general.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and

I would agree with the minister that this is a great facility. I have been there

many times and it was a facility that was, no doubt, badly needed.

Health services in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, are not at the levels that they

should be, and I would like to use this opportunity to say to the minister and

the Premier that when the MRI machine is being purchased, the second one for the

Province, I hope it is indeed a mobile MRI machine that will be able to go to

hospitals like the one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, like the one in Labrador West

and other regions of the Province, to cut down on the huge cost of travel that

people have to incur when they have to come out for medical reasons.

Again, I congratulate the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - on his announcement and I congratulate Voisey's Bay

Nickel on their corporate responsibilities to the communities in which they

operate.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

Mr. Speaker, many people in the Province today, particularly those involved

in community economic development, are telling me, and certainly telling people

within their regions - and members in this House, I am sure, are aware of this -

that there is a crisis coming in economic development, there is a crisis facing

zonal boards in this Province, all because of a lack of a federal-provincial

agreement.

For example, Mr. Speaker, from 1994-2002, $341 million was spent in this

Province, and 267 of that came from the federal government. On top of that,

there was probably another additional $50 million raised through how that money

could be leveraged to take advantage of other programs.

The minister has on her desk right now many projects from many zones: the

Emerald Zone, Capital Coast Zone, the Avalon Gateway zonal board, and all of

them. I would like to ask the minister today: What can she tell people who are

involved in community economic development? What can she tell people who have

actively pursued and put together strategic plans, who have put together

projects that are now on her desk? What does she tell the people that her

government's plan is to continue with community economic development in the

Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we take no pleasure in the fact that there are no

longer any cost-shared agreements in place between the Province and the federal

government. Yes, it will have a devastating impact on some areas of the

Province. We have made the case to the federal government. We continue to make

the case to the federal government. We are at the table with our portion of what

we would normally have put into these cost-shared agreements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: We know that there are any number of agencies and organizations

out there that are putting together initiatives and submitting them for

consideration by both levels of government, but we have made it quite clear to

all who will listen - because we are about being open and accountable and

telling the truth - that we have the money on the table that we have always had

on the table to respond to requests from agencies and organizations throughout

the Province. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has chosen not

to be at the table, which is causing us some concern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, this funding over the last several years has gone into tourism

marketing, such as the Cabot celebrations. It has gone into technological

innovation in the marine industry. It has gone into Memorial University, which

has enabled it to access other research funds. It has gone into skidoo trails,

snowmobile trails. It has gone into every sector of our economy.

I would like to ask the minister this question: Mr. Speaker, has the minister

and her officials done an analysis of what the economic hit will be? Have they

done any analysis in terms of what this lack of an agreement will mean to their

own document on the renewal for jobs and growth? One of government's

assumptions, Mr. Speaker, on the renewal for jobs and growth was the continuance

of the federal-provincial program. What impact will that have on the jobs and

growth strategy that government has put forward?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to promote every opportunity for the

people of this Province. We, as I said, have put our money on the table.

The member opposite goes on and on in terms of the types of initiatives that

have been approved in the past under community economic development agreements.

I share his concern and I appreciate where he is coming from, but, having said

that, Mr. Speaker, we are committed, as a government, to doing everything we

can, bearing in mind it is not this government that has the surplus, it is the

federal government that has the surplus. We are doing the best we can do with

the resources that we have. When you keep getting requests, Mr. Speaker, for

more to go into health care, more to go into education, we are doing what we can

with the resources we have to respond to the organizations and agencies

throughout the Province that want to do more, whether it is in tourism, whether

it is in small business, whether it is in snowmobile trails or whatever the

initiative might be; but, Mr. Speaker, we can only do so much.

Having said that, we are not giving up on the federal government in terms of

hoping they will come back to the table, which is precisely why we put forward

the proposal of a Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador economic development board.

We have written again to Mr. Rock to say we want an opportunity to discuss this.

He has yet to get back to say whether it is a go or it is not. Even though

Minister Byrne has indicated it is not a go, we hope that Minister Rock will

come to the table and work with us, recognizing, just as this document showed,

Mr. Speaker, which is why we had it prepared, the impact that having to go

without a comprehensive government agreement will have on Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer, but maybe she could really

answer the question that I asked her, which was, and I will ask it again: Has

the minister and the officials in her department done any analysis whatsoever on

what the economic impact will be by region and by zone board? If you have, would

the minister, Mr. Speaker, be able to share that analysis with the people of the

Province, so we can all get an acute understanding of how much of a crisis this

situation really is?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we respond to these initiatives as they come in.

It is very difficult to do an economic analysis on proposals that have yet to

come forward. Clearly, people bring proposals forward based on what the need is

out in their various regions. How can we do an economic impact when we do not

know the types of proposals or the number of proposals that would be coming

forward?

What we have said, Mr. Speaker, is that we are there as a Province to

response to what needs to be done in this Province from our perspective. Our 30

per cent dollars are on the table. Don't look to us and say, we are not

responding. We are, in fact, responding. The fact that the federal government is

not, is not something we can deal with, if they do not want to be at the table.

We can continue to bring pressure to bear and we are doing that, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we are going to continue with our renewal for Jobs and Growth Strategy.

Yes, we will do what we are meant to do as a government, and we will be there,

and all of the agencies and organizations know that.

Can we bring the federal government to the table? We can only ask. We can

continue to put pressure on them, and we are doing that; but, at the end of the

day, doing an analysis of what happens if they are not at the table - clearly,

if we do not have the proposals in to say: Look if you do not support this, then

we are going to be short by this amount of money.

We have made the case to the federal government. This shows the economic

impact of what has gone on in this Province as a result of having cost-shared

agreements. Clearly, the answer is here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude her answer.

MS FOOTE: - but if we do not have money, and this is the analysis that

was done, this is the impact that it will have on Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to take her seat.

MS FOOTE: That is why this report was done. That is why it has gone off

to the Minister of Industry for Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister says she is unable to, or not in the position to do

any analysis because nothing is in. Here is a news flash: Every economic zonal

board has on your desk right now proposals on which you can do an analysis,

based upon which -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - the minister knows today, or ought to know today, that

the proposals on her desk, which ones will or will not be funded.

I will ask her again: Based upon the proposals that zonal boards have put to

you, and are on your desk right now, have you done an analysis of what you can

fund and what you cannot fund? And, if you have, can you tell us what that is?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, unlike the members opposite, we have not given up

on these proposals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: We are hopeful that we will get additional funding. We know

there will be an impact, which is exactly why this was done, to show the federal

government, and all who will listen, exactly what it will mean for Newfoundland

and Labrador.

This is the type of analysis that has been done for the federal government

and for all of us. It is not that we are not aware. It is not that we do not

know. What I have said to the members opposite is that there are proposals

coming in daily. With what we have on the table now, we are trying to deal with

them in the best manner that we can. In fact, what we are doing with some of

those proposals is having discussions with ACOA about the ones that they can

support 100 per cent; because it is ACOA, Mr. Speaker, that has the funding to

cover off these projects. It is ACOA that saw an increase in its budget. It is

ACOA that can do these types of initiatives 100 per cent as long as they are not

so-called provincial priorities. So an analysis, Mr. Speaker, we are hopeful

that the federal government will fund the majority of these proposals that are

on the table 100 per cent, because they can do it if they want to do it. Then we

will have our money to do those that are strictly provincially oriented.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

People involved in community economic development through the zonal boards,

all of them throughout the Province tell me, and as the minister has indicated,

that the federal government is going to continue to fund projects. At what level

and to whom remains the question that deserves to be answered.

People in community economic development associations and zonal boards tell

me that some of the Province's current models in terms of how they apply for

money or how the zonal board process applies for money may not fit the new

programs that the federal government will fund.

My question is simply this, Mr. Speaker: Is that true? Is that so? If it is,

have you had discussions with the federal minister about what models they may

look at the fund, and are you going to put in place such models?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, like the member opposite, we have been having

ongoing discussions with all parties, all stakeholders in this process,

including the Regional Economic Development Boards, including the Rural

Development Associations, including all organizations who come to the table

wondering now how they are going to get their initiatives funded.

We have had ongoing discussions with ACOA and, to give the officials at ACOA

the respect they deserve, they have been at the table working with us and having

discussions with us. It is not the preference of the officials at ACOA to go

this route. This has been a political decision that has been taken by the

federal government, Mr. Speaker. So, we are trying to deal with Minister Rock,

and we are trying to deal with Minister Byrne, to say: It is not working the way

that you are proposing it. How can we take provincial priorities into account

if, in fact, it is only the federal officials that are getting to do an analysis

of the proposals that have been put forward?

So, yes, we have had the discussions. It is precisely why we had said to the

federal government: We want to go down the path with you of continuing to have

comprehensive partnership, which is why we want to have a Canada- Newfoundland

and Labrador Economic Development Board. We want a chance to sit down with the

federal minister to show how that can work, which is why we are hopeful that

they will come back to the table and work with us in partnership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Let me see if I can ask the question from a different perspective, because an

answer is critical. Many zonal boards and community economic development

agencies, and this is the seriousness of the situation, Mr. Speaker, that if

sustaining funding is not captured or gotten, that many of these groups may be

in jeopardy of closing their doors. The minister knows this, so when I asked the

question about what models will the federal government fund, they may not fund

economic zonal boards. They may not fund certain groups or organizations like in

the past that they have funded, and that poses this serious question: If they

are not going to fund the current models for community and economic development

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, then what models do we need, all

of us in this Province, to put together so that we can continue to get any and

all federal economic development money available to the regions and people in

this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Let me start, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we have no indication

that the federal government will not continue to support Regional Economic

Development Boards. In fact, that was one of the entities that they agreed to

enter into with us in terms of a three-year agreement. So, to suggest that they

will not continue down that path is not really accurate, and we are hopeful that

we will be able to continue to get them to realize the importance, since they

sit at the table as well, of continuing with the REDBs.

Having said that, we are concerned, too, about other agencies and

organizations; but again I will go back and tell you that on some of the

industry associations like NATI, and like NEIA, in fact, they have come to the

table 100 per cent. So they can do it if they want to do it, Mr. Speaker,

leaving the provincial dollars there for us to focus on provincial priorities,

things that we consider, as a Province, to be so important that we cannot see

them go by the wayside; but, at the end of the day, we are continuing to work

with the federal government. We are working with ACOA officials. We are working

with anyone who will listen to us, to recognize that we have to have a model

different than what existed under the comprehensive development agreements.

I have so say again that the federal government has been there for REDBs; so

we do have an example, and within the industry organizations, and will indeed

support them to the tune of 100 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is now the twelfth day since the Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans of Canada announced the closure of the Northern and Northern Gulf Cod

fisheries. In that time there has been extensive protesting, roadblocks, office

closures and occupations. This past weekend there were three rallies against

this decision.

Mr. Speaker, during the past twelve days everyone in this House have stated

their desire to see this decision reversed. While the demonstrations have

carried on, what has the government done? What correspondence, either written or

verbal, have the ministers of this government had with their federal

counterparts, and what have been the results of these discussions if they did

take place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no doubt the past twelve days have been trying times for many people

in our Province as it has been for us, as a government, as we move forward to

try and achieve resolution on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, we have been in contact with a number of ministers within the

federal government. We have made our case to them quite firmly, quite

substantially, in terms of where we think this decision should be. I think we

have outlined to the public of the Province, on many occasions, what that

position is. We are continuing to make contact with them. We are continuing to

ask that they come to the table for further discussions on the decision that has

been taken and on measures that could accompany a reversal of the decision to

close these fisheries.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits &

White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I attended a rally at Port au Choix on Saturday, for the

information of the Member for Bellevue. At the rally, and certainly from time to

time over the past twelve days in this House and outside, the Premier and the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and others, have stated that government

will do everything it can to get Ottawa to reverse their decision. The minister

just outlined some of the things that they have done.

Many people in the fishing industry, certainly in Port au Choix on Saturday,

want to know: What is government planning to do next? What will they do to see

about getting the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to reverse the decision? What

are government's plans for the coming days? Are there any meetings planned

with Minister Thibault or anybody else in the federal government? Mr. Speaker,

the people want to know: What is government planning to do constructively to get

this decision overturned in the next couple of days?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, our efforts have been very focused and very

directed to having this decision overturned to ensure that fishers in

Newfoundland and Labrador are able to go on the water this year to fish for cod

in the various regions.

Mr. Speaker, we have been in contact with the federal ministers. We have

written. We have phoned. We have put our position forward as a government. Not

only that, Mr. Speaker, we have continued to lobby collectively as a government

on behalf of the people of this Province. We understand fully the impacts. We

understand fully the urgency of having a resolution to this matter. As a

government, we will continue to be firm as we move forward with our strategy to

deal with this critical issue today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits

& White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On a related issue, last week the Member for Bonavista South asked the

Minister of Human Resources and Employment if he had been in contact with his

federal counterpart, Minister Jane Stewart, on the issue of extending EI for

fishery workers as a result of this spring's severe ice conditions.

Mr. Speaker, too many people in the fishing industry, who have been without

income for several weeks now, would like to know: Have any discussions on this

issue taken place over the past couple of days? Are there any discussions

planned over the next couple of days? Given the urgency of the matter and the

immediate need for this to be resolved, can we expect a decision on this any

time soon?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions. I know that there are an awful lot

of people concerned about exactly what the prospects are. We had to spend some

time in the last week, as people have recognized, to make sure first and

foremost that our MPs in Ottawa were onside to have the decision reversed, which

they clearly are, through the emergency debate and also to focus on the

immediate short-term, which is the EI extension. Not only because of this

decision that has been taken which we are trying to have reversed with respect

to the cod fishery, but also the other issues with respect to other fisheries

and ice problems at this time of the year.

Everyone of the federal MPs, who are the ones positioned to be most effective

with this because it is their government. It is the government that they got

elected to be part of to speak out for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in

Everybody here knows that the EI program is not a provincial program. It is a

Our federal MPs, everyone of them, of all parties, to my understanding, again -

and I regret having to say this - except our federal minister, to my knowledge,

everybody else is lobbying with us, with our minister, with everybody in this

House, the federal Minister for Human Resources Development Canada to have the

decision put in place to extend EI as a first necessary step. We are not sure,

because we have not heard it said. I don't believe there is one person in this

Legislature, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, who can find a quote or a statement,

anywhere, from Minister Stewart's colleague in the Cabinet from Newfoundland

and Labrador, who says he is working on EI extension, licensed buyout or early

retirement. Every statement from our minister, not from everybody else -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: Every statement, Mr. Speaker, from our minister is that

he wants to talk about economic diversification for the long term, which is a

good thing, and we are glad to do that, we have already started the discussions,

but also wants to look at make-work projects as being the answer, not an

extension of EI -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to take his seat.

PREMIER GRIMES: - not a licensed buyout. Mr. Speaker, we are going to

continue to work on it and we hope to have more support soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to read on the weekend that the Minister of

Education will be more than delighted to speak to anybody about the teacher

allocation formula. The minister is quoted as saying, Mr. Speaker: If we can

come up with a better formula, obviously we will adopt that type of formula.

My question to the minister is this: Whether or not he would be prepared to

take the initiative to take the lead, Mr. Speaker, to meet with education

stakeholders on this important issue, for example, the Newfoundland and Labrador

Teachers' Association, the School Boards Federation and the Federation of

School Councils, so that this issue can be addressed immediately in a cohesive

manner, which will allow for further investigation and review of this very

important matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the teacher allocation and the formula, the Premier and I met

- in fact, the Premier addressed the NLTA convention here last week or the week

before. He told the group in that room, the president, the executive, members

from all across the Province, that he would sit down and talk to them about

teacher allocation if they so desired. I met with the school councils on the

weekend in Grand Falls and I told them the same thing. I have talked to

individual chairs of the school boards and told them that I would gladly discuss

the issue with them. What I said in the paper is exactly right and I will do

what I said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is fine to offer an invitation and in somewhat of a haphazard

manner indicate to groups and individuals that you are prepared to meet. This

issue requires leadership, and I ask the minister: Will he take it upon himself

to invite all stakeholders to deal with this very important issue, to bring the

matter to a head in the interest of what is in the best interests for the

students of our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know where the hon. member is coming from. I just told him that we

addressed the various stakeholder groups in the Province. We told them our door

is open, we are willing to discuss it, and even went so far as to advertise it

in the paper on the weekend, saying, my door is open, come forward, and we will

do exactly that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On a related issue, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that

educators within his own department regularly bring to his attention the

negative impact that large class sizes have on both effective teaching and

effective learning within our classrooms.

The minister often cites examples of instances throughout the Province where

there indeed exist small numbers of students in particular grades or in

particular classrooms, but the minister knows full well that is not always the

case.

Will the minister again take it upon himself to review the concept of maximum

number of students per classroom situation in primary, elementary, junior high

and high school levels? Has this issue been addressed? If not, what plans does

this minister have to see that it is, in fact, addressed?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite talks about teacher

allocations. We have not heard where he stands on the issue. He talks about

elected school boards. We have not heard from where they stand on the issue. In

fact, his colleague from Harbour Main said out in Carbonear, a week or two ago,

that they have a policy on education. But, guess what? They are going to hide it

until the election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: They are going to hide it until the election.

With regard to allocations, as I have said in this House, and I have said in

the media time and time again, we have the best student-teacher ratio in the

country, bar none. As for the numbers, yes, there are some classes in the

Province that are large, but what the hon. member does not realize is that 69

per cent of the classrooms in our Province, Mr. Speaker, have fewer than twenty

students. We have classrooms with fewer than ten and we have classrooms with

fewer than five, but we never hear about those classrooms from the members

opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that transportation is a challenge in Labrador at

the best of times; however, sometimes it creates very inhumane and stressful

situations. I am referring to what takes place when a person receives a phone

call informing them that a son, daughter, mother, father or some other loved one

has just passed away or is critically ill, and they call an airline only to find

out they cannot get a flight for one, two, three or more days, sometimes a week.

The same applies for serious medical referrals. Air transportation is the only

way to travel in these situations, and these situations, I say to the minister,

are happening all too often.

I want to ask the minister if his government will work with Provincial

Airlines to guarantee two seats for emergencies on each flight from Wabush, that

will not be filled until the last hour. These seats, in the vast majority of

cases, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the minister, would be filled because most

flights are over sold. I want to ask the minister if he would, through

Provincial Airlines, the only carrier into Labrador West, guarantee two seats

per flight for emergency situations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not even quite sure how to answer the question. I know what the answer

should be. I do know that if a family is going through that kind of a trauma and

sadness that they should not be required to do it. I am not sure what the

solution is, as I stand here today. It is not often that I will be stuck for

words but I think this is one of the times that indeed I am.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I gave the minister the answer to my question, and that is to guarantee two

seats per flight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: But I do want to thank the minister for the sincerity in his

response, and I want to ask the minister: Given the fact that the Quebec

Government, to residents of Fairmont, next door to Labrador City and Wabush,

provide a subsidy to all of their residents when they are travelling just for

regular reasons, I want to ask the minister, given the fact that other provinces

do this, will the minster agree at least to set up a meeting with Provincial

Airlines and with representatives from Labrador West, myself included, and

particularly the Mayor of Wabush who has given up his seat on a number of

occasions to allow people to travel, will the minister at least agree to set up

a meeting with Provincial Airlines where we can - and we have some plans -

discuss a way of making sure that people who were in a situation like the one

this weekend, who had to drive from St. John's to Deer Lake after their

husband and father passed away and were still not be guaranteed a flight to

Labrador today, will he at least agree to set up a meeting through his office

and through representatives from Labrador West, with Provincial Airlines, to put

in place a plan whereby people will never be in this situation again?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I am at a little stuck for words

is knowing and listening that a family who is trying to get home because a loved

one had passed away, what they must have gone through, and the pain and the

aggravation that they must be feeling all in one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) every week.

MR. WALSH: The member says, it probably happens every other week.

I will say this to the member, based on the representation he has made here

today, that with my colleague, the Minister responsible for Labrador &

Aboriginal Affairs, that within five days from us standing here now, with you at

the table with us, we will meet with both airlines to find out what the solution

is, and we will work collectively to find a solution.

If it comes down to the fact that we have to have, in order to make sure

families do not go through the kind of trauma that a family went through this

weekend, that families do not have to go through the torment of knowing,

probably in some cases, they are not going to get home to be with a loved one

who is in that situation. I tell you, that is not acceptable here or anywhere,

and it is certainly not acceptable in this Province. Within five days we will

all be at a table together with both airlines to find out what the solution is.

Let's find something that will meet the needs of the people who have gone

through the kind of torment that this family has gone through this weekend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

them referred and have approved, without amendments, the estimates of

expenditure of the following departments and agencies: Municipal and Provincial

Affairs; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; Environment; Works,

Services and Transportation; Finance; Public Service Commission; and Government

Services and Lands.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Cape St. Francis has tabled a report.

When shall the report be received? Now, or tomorrow?

MR. LUSH: Tomorrow.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, when Your Honour asked: When shall the report be

received? I said tomorrow. I meant that we possibly would debate it tomorrow. We

will receive it now.

MR. SPEAKER: That is fine.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have a petition. It reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament

assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador humbly sheweth;

WHEREAS the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the only Province in

Canada that does not have a downtown library in its capital city; and

WHEREAS the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the worst rates of

illiteracy in the country; and

WHEREAS the citizens and visitors of downtown St. John's require a library

in the downtown area for access to literature, the Internet, and a place to

develop their literacy skills; and

WHEREAS the children of downtown St. John's need access to books; and

WHEREAS the Province and the city used to provide the citizens and visitors

of St. John's with a downtown library;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to return the downtown

library to the citizens and visitors of St. John's and to take whatever action

is necessary to ensure that the downtown library has adequate hours of

operation, adequate staffing and adequate books.

Mr. Speaker, I have presented a number of these petitions, as did the Member

for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. The reason I have presented these petitions is that

in the downtown area of the City of St. John's there is a high number of

children who do not have access to transportation. There are families who cannot

afford the transportation to get their children to libraries and other areas of

the city. There are children in the downtown area, Mr. Speaker, where the

illiteracy rates are higher than in other areas of the city.

I have asked that government - I am not demanding, as I have said on other

presentations of this petition. I am not demanding that government put a library

in the downtown area. What I have asked government to do is to study a library

in the downtown area to determine the viability of putting a library in the

downtown area. Looking at the Read to Succeed campaign, their literacy campaigns

and the cost, the enormous cost to this Province, of illiteracy - whether or not

a library in the downtown area, the cost of that, would be viable, considering

the cost of illiteracy in the Province. I still say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe

it is. I believe that if we were to put a library in the downtown area of St.

John's that the benefits to this Province, in terms of literacy, increased

literacy - access to the Internet for children in the downtown area would far

outweigh the cost of putting a library there.

We heard from the Minister of Education that it would cost, approximately,

$100,000 to put the books required in a library in the downtown area. I believe,

Mr. Speaker, once that investment is made and with a small investment on an

annual basis -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: - to keep those books updated and maintained, that it

would far outweigh the cost of illiteracy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to rise to present a second petition from the

residents of Western Newfoundland concerning the provision of an MRI facility

for Western Newfoundland.

As you may recall, last Thursday I presented a petition of some 10,400 names,

which had been collected in a period of about seven days in support of a fixed

MRI in Western Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I will not go into the

WHEREAS - it is the same as the petition

we presented last week - but the resolved

section of the petition simply states:

Whereupon the undersigned residents of Western Newfoundland and Labrador resolve

that Magnetic Resonance Imaging equipment must be purchased by the provincial

government and established at Western Memorial Regional Hospital, Corner Brook,

to serve the greatest good for the largest number of people.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today, since the presentation last Thursday of

a 10,000-name petition, I stand in my place today to present 11,000 additional

names, for a grand total of 21,000 signatures on the petition for a fixed MRI in

Western Newfoundland at Corner Brook. The compelling reasons, Mr. Speaker, there

are many, foremost of which is the geography of Western Newfoundland. We are

talking about a geographic area which comes from St. Anthony down to Port aux

Basques and east as far as Grand Falls. A huge piece of geography.

As well, Mr. Speaker, in Western Newfoundland we, perhaps, have the best

cadre of medical practitioners who are in absolute dire need of an MRI piece of

equipment. They need it for a proper diagnosis, to be able to practice the

various surgeries that they need to do day in and day out.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I present this petition today on

behalf of 21,000 residents from the entirety of Western Newfoundland as far

north as Happy Valley-Goose Bay and yes, Mr. Speaker, as far east as St. John's.

There are a number of signatures on this petition from the great City of St.

John's and other locations in Central Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this particular petition and ensure the

residents of Western Newfoundland that I will do whatever is within my power to

ensure, at the end of the day, that due consideration is given and final

consideration is given for the establishment of a fixed, in- place, MRI in the

City of Corner Brook.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, to move that this House approves in

general the budgetary policy of the government, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible). I am sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: I knew the hon. member has adjourned the debate.

MR. E. BYRNE: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I know that on Thursday past the

hon. Government House Leader adjourned debate. If he is not finished with his

remarks, certainly I will provide the necessary leave so he may be able to

finish his remarks. Mr. Speaker, it certainly may even provide some more

information and ammunition for what is to follow his closing remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned the debate on the last day we were debating

this issue, at the finish of the Member for Ferryland, after twelve hours and

four minutes of speaking in this debate - the rest of us, mercifully, do not

have these unlimited times. We speak for twenty minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I was indicating that this government have a plan by which the

people of this Province can make a judgement as to who is better to govern this

Province: whether it is the present people on this side of the House or whether

it is the people on that side of the House.

I was indicating that the plans of this government are clear. They show

clearly the vision of this government in many documents, and I pointed out how

two major documents would show the plans of this government were the Economic

Strategic Plan and the Social Strategic Plan. I pointed out how this Social

Strategic Plan was unusual and unique in Canadian politics, and how this

government had been praised and lauded all over the country for this great

document integrating the social development of the Province with the economic

development of the Province.

The Member for St. John's West commented that it was great on paper. Well,

Mr. Speaker, all plans have to start on paper. This is where they start; they

have to be written first. They must be written first. My question is: Where are

the plans of the hon. members opposite? Where is their economic plan? Where is

their social policy plan? Where are the plans by which the people of this

Province can make a judgement, can make an assessment, and say which group of

people are better equipped, have the better vision, have the better objectives,

have the better policy for developing this Province?

Mr. Speaker, I challenge hon. members opposite today to talk about their

plans. The role of the Opposition, as I understand it - and I spent some time

there - as outlined by many political pundits, experienced politicians and

political scientists, the role is twofold. One is to oppose, to be critical.

These are important, to oppose, because many times there are flaws in government

legislation, so to make sure we have good legislation, to make sure that we have

good economic policy, that is the role of the Opposition, to point out flaws,

but to do so constructively: to be critical but to criticize in a constructive

manner.

The second part, Mr. Speaker, and very important, the second part of that

role is to offer alternative policies, alternative plans. That part has not been

done by the Official Opposition. They have heaped criticism, they have piled

criticism on the government, but the second part of their role, the second part

of having plans and suggesting alternative policy, they have been very weak in

that particular area.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that they have made one alternative suggestion, so

I challenge them today, in the remaining time left in the Budget Speech, to

advance their plans, to tell the people of this Province what their plans are.

Let's give up the negativity. They have done enough of that, Mr. Speaker. We

have had twelve hours of that from the Member for Ferryland. Let's hear the

plan for the future.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, they are not permitted to comment upon it. That is

another difference in the government and the Opposition. On this side of the

House, we believe in openness and accountability, freedom of speech. All members

here are free to comment on the policy of this government. They are free to

articulate what the policy of this government is, what its plans are for the

future, but I hear no such comments coming from the other side.

Maybe they can drop their negativity, maybe they can drop their cynicism,

maybe they can drop their pessimism, and today come out with what their plan of

action is, what their alternative policy is, to develop this Province, that is

fair and just for the people of this Province. The people of this Province have

a right to know what the policy of the Opposition is going to be. They know what

they have criticized, they know what they are opposed to, but what are they for?

What do they stand for?

We, on this side of the House, know what we stand for. We know what we stand

for. It is clearly documented and has been articulated in the Throne Speech and,

as I have said, in other documents. It has clearly been documented.

Let me just quote from the Throne Speech, "A Government with a Plan: The

hallmark of My Government is a commitment to a plan; a plan that sees a healthy,

well educated people prepared to control their own destiny by seizing the

opportunities that are now before them. This can occur when clear goals are

established, agendas are set and commitments are delivered."

Now, I know the Opposition House Leader believes that, because I have heard

him articulate that, that clearly the role of the Opposition is to have an

agenda, an agenda for the future, a clear plan, but his leader does not seem to

be saying that. His leader has been saying the role of the Opposition is to

oppose, to criticize. Well, Mr. Speaker, they have to put these two roles

together. They should put these two roles together, but clearly that has not

been the case. So maybe when the Opposition House Leader speaks today he will

allay the fears of the members on this side, and allay the fears of the people

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, by laying out to them what the

alternative plans of the Opposition are, what their plans for government are, so

that the people will be able to look at what members on this side are advocating

and what members on that side are advocating, and make a clear choice. Because

that is what democracy is about, making choices, but in order to make a choice,

obviously, we have to know what the various political parties in a province, in

a country, are advocating, what their stand is, what their policies are.

We have clearly indicated, Mr. Speaker, what our plans are. "Our plan is

compelling and focused. It is not grandiose and unrealistic." It pointed

out that, "My government strives for: Excellent education for our children.

Quality and accessible health care. Jobs to provide for our families. More money

in the hands of our people to spend, save and invest. Transportation and

technology networks that conquer our geography. A true and equal partnership in

the Canadian union." That is where we stand, Mr. Speaker. This is where the

government stand. These are our goals. These are our objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I challenge hon. members opposite today, let's fulfill that

aspect of the Opposition. Let's fulfill that part of your job, by enunciating,

articulating clearly to the people of this Province what are the plans of the

Opposition. As I have said, they have heaped criticism. They have piled

criticism on top of criticism on this government. Now is the time for them to

show what they plan to do.

The page, I say to the hon. member, is page three - page two and flowing over

to page three - clearly enunciating what are the plans of this government for

the future. So, when members opposite stand, they should clearly articulate what

their plans are, and we look forward to it, because we wonder if hon. members

opposite are allowed to comment upon the policy, if they are allowed to comment

upon the plan. We wonder that, because I remember clearly one member, in a radio

interview not too long ago, when he was asked a question, who said that he could

not answer the question before he got some further guidance and advice from

somebody within the party.

As I have said, as I have indicated, people on this side of the House are

permitted to articulate and annunciate upon the policy of this government

because it is clear and it is written. People from this Province know what our

policy is. What has not been written in two major documents, our Jobs and Growth

Strategy, and our Strategic Social Policy - what is not there, Mr. Speaker, is

in the Throne Speech. It is clearly written for the people of this Province to

be able to make a decision.

I finish by challenging members opposite, for the duration of this Budget

Speech, to articulate what their plans are, what their policies are, and

demonstrate in this House of Assembly that they have freedom to clearly tell the

people what their plans are for the future. What their plans will be as opposed

to being continuously prophets of doom and gloom, Madam Speaker. I make that

challenge to members today.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to have just a few opening remarks first of all generally

dealing with - I guess the motion is that we, as members in this House and as

members on this side of the House, support and adopt the motion put forward by

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and that is the motion

to support the budgetary measures of the government.

I listened with interest and some amusement, Madam Speaker, to be honest with

you, to the speech by the Government House Leader. Here is why, today he is

challenging us to release our plan. Now, he might have forgotten, and purposely

I suppose - but this only happened on Thursday. Here is what he said on

Thursday, Madam Speaker. Today he is challenging members opposite to release

their plan, but on Thursday, he said: We have a plan maybe, Mr. Speaker. We have

a plan. We could wait, and we are going to wait to reveal our plan in time. That

is what he said on Thursday. Right out of Hansard. This is what he said: We have

a plan. We will get ourselves out of this deficit position of $666 million, but

we are not going to tell you now. We are going to wait. Here is what he says: We

have a plan to get ourselves out of this deficit position and that will be

revealed in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: On Thursday, Madam Speaker, we had the Government House

Leader, who will not tell us how they are going to get the Province out of a

$666 million deficit this year on current account, but his answer is: We have a

plan that will be revealed in time.

Today he has stood and completely and utterly swallowed himself whole in

front of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what he did. That is all he did.

What we are seeing - and I predict that every time a government member gets

up, minister or otherwise, what we will continue to see is government

challenging the Leader of the Opposition, challenging members opposite for their

plan.

Madam Speaker, what the Government House Leader mentioned was a uniqueness in

this House. I would like to inform him of how unique that government is. Since

the abolition of government during the Second World War by Winston Churchill,

this is a Premier who has continued to serve the Province longer than any other

premier, any other leader in a parliamentary democracy in the Commonwealth,

before going to seek the people of the Province, in history. Since the abolition

and the introduction of the War Measures Act, which abolished government for a

period of the war, this Premier, right here, has continued to serve the people

of the Province as Premier without seeking a mandate. No other government in

parliamentary history in the Commonwealth since 1942 has done that for such a

long time.

Now, Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the core of the Government House

Leader's challenge today to the Opposition, and the continued challenges they

make. He fails to reference all of the policies that the Leader of the

Opposition, and members on this side, have already articulated publicly. He

fails to acknowledge, purposely, I believe - I hope not, but I have to be

suspect about it because I know he knows it. I know that every time we have a

press conference many of the public relations people who work for government are

at it. They take our documents. They feed it to the minister. I know, in his own

case, his own public relations director spends a great deal of time on Open Line

condemning the Leader of the Opposition, but that is fine. That is fair enough,

but he knows that what he is saying is not true.

Maybe what we need to do is just point out the ridiculousness of the

argument. Every election, Madam Speaker, since I have been here, since 1993 -

which was ten years Saturday past - each party, when the election was called,

had always put forward a pretty comprehensive document. As a matter of fact, the

government, right now, the Liberal Party, which is the government right now, has

a former minister and former people who are working on their policy document.

So, maybe what we should do, I say to the Government House Leader, is meet at

high noon tomorrow, right outside the Legislature, and exchange documents and

then people could really see what we are talking about. Because the fact of the

matter is, that what the Government House Leader is talking about is a pure

election ploy. It is a pure ploy by the government.

This is the first time in ten years, since I have been elected on three

separate occasions, that I have seen the government in such a desperate move and

a desperate shape to try to flush out what we are about. People can tune into

this channel everyday and see what we are about. They can tune into Question

Period. They listen to us. Every press release we put out is our policy. Every

statement that our leader makes, or any member of this caucus makes in this

Province represents how we feel and what we believe in. We do not need a

Government House Leader standing up, or any other member opposite, asking us:

Where is your plan? What will you do? - when each and everyday they hear it

themselves.

The fact of the matter is that what they are looking for, Madam Speaker, is

exactly what they do not have completed themselves. That is exactly what they

are looking for. They are looking for a Progressive Conservative policy document

that sets out our plan and our vision for the next four years. The very thing

they are looking for is the very thing that they do not have completed

themselves. Now what nonsense, what utter nonsense.

Madam Speaker, people know, for example, in this Province when the Minister

of Finance stands up and talks about how great and fantastic the Newfoundland

economy is, that by any measure - she said: Gross Domestic Product, we are

leading the nation 13.9 per cent. Yet, every banking institution in the Province

or in the country, or in the international monetary markets, while they

acknowledge that, they also say that the GDP is not trickling down. Now, I have

said in this House before, and I will continue to say it, Gross Domestic

Product, for anybody who wants to know, is the sum of all of our wealth that we

create in the Province. That is what it measures, it adds it all up, and by any

measurement to any other economy, it has to be judged against something and

somebody else. So, against every other province in the country, and against the

federal government itself, all of the wealth that we are creating is - and we

are creating wealth at a larger and a faster pace than any other province. Here

is the real story: It is not an accurate or reflective measurement of what is

staying here. What we need to do, like Ireland and other places, Scandinavia and

Denmark and other countries do, is they measure gross national product. In our

case it would be gross provincial product. Do you know what it would do, if we

did that measurement? Not only would it measure all of the wealth that we are

creating, Madam Speaker, but it would also measure what is staying here. The

difference is what we really need to be concentrating on. It is one of the

reasons why I will not and cannot support this government's budgetary policy.

For example, growth in our economy by gross domestic product, which the

minister stands up and beats her government's chest and says, look how great

we are doing, is being led by two factors, primarily, oil and gas. Everyone

knows what type of wealth oil and gas is creating. Now, how much of that is

staying in the Province?

We saw the

article last week. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the

Leader of the New Democratic Party, asked a question about it. Terra Nova, I

think he said last week, in three months produced $670 million worth of oil and

less than $10 million stayed here. Whatever Terra Nova produces is measured and

that is included in the minister's thirteen point whatever statistic. Two

hundred thousand barrels of oil per day being pumped at Hibernia contributes to

the gross domestic product. Ask somebody in Flower's Cove, ask somebody on the

Burin Peninsula, ask somebody on the Southwest Coast, what it means to their

supper table and family budget tonight. The answer will be real and people in

this Province are not surprised by the answer, because that wealth, while we are

generating it, is going into someone else's pocket, not our own.

Look at, for example, in the Budget documents this year, Madam Speaker, and

look at how much money we are taking in on tobacco tax, how much money we are

taking in on lottery taxes, VLT machines, and then look at how much money we are

getting from resource rentals. It would shock any person in the Province. The

answer is unbelievable. We take in about a hundred times more in consumption

taxes on alcohol, on cigarettes and on gambling than we do on our own resource

rentals. And you wonder why people in the Province, and we on this side of the

House, will not support government's budgetary policy!

We have a plan, he said, to get ourselves out of this deficit - this is what

he said on Thursday - and we will reveal it in time. Then he has the audacity

and gall to stand up today and say that members on this side of the House are

not allowed to speak or that we, as an Opposition, are failing our

responsibility. I say to the Government House Leader, words are important, words

are extremely important, in this Legislature, and that was demonstrated to the

Premier one day when he got on a little bit cocky about how important words

were. Then he was reminded of a few of his own. He didn't get on so cocky

after that.

The fact of the matter is, when you talk about the role of the Opposition,

yes, we have a very important role here, and one of the most important roles we

have in this Legislature, in the place that the people of the Province have us

at this moment, is to hold your feet, as a government, to the fire on every

policy, on every announcement, on every subhead in that Budget. Maybe, just

maybe - one never knows, because the people of the Province will be the ultimate

arbiters of that - the Government House Leader himself will have a chance to

practice on this side of the House again some day; and he understands, he

understand clearly, because at one time he was the Finance critic, Madam

Speaker, and I have a few interesting quotes from a time when he was Finance

critic.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely.

When Dr. John Collins, who was the Finance Minister at the time, and the

Member for St. John's South, delivered a budget in this House, he projected a

$110 million deficit for the year. That was everything. That was not on accrual

methods or non-accrual methods of accounting; that was everything.

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely true, I say to the Minister of Education, and

you will have your chance to tell the people of the Province why you think what

I am saying is not true, but it is true.

Compared to this year, this government, all of what we owe, what we are

spending this year and what we are taking in, the difference this year is $666

million. In a budget that was presented when the Government House Leader was

Finance critic in this House, his response was pretty telling. He said: This

government are spending us and putting us into the abyss. This is an astounding

number. This is an outrageous number. This is an unusual number. This is an

incredible number, Mr. Speaker. That is what he said at the time.

They introduce a budget, probably twelve or fourteen, longer than that,

sixteen or seventeen years later, and the former Finance critic, while he was in

Opposition, was part of a government that introduces a budget with a $666

million deficit this year; won't reveal how they are going to get us out of

it, saying: We will reveal that in time. We are not going to tell you right now.

We are going to reveal that in time.

Yet, fifteen or sixteen years ago, a budget was introduced in this House of

$110 million and he said we were into financial abyss. People remember these

things and, if they do not, it is our job to remind them. That is the fact of

the matter; it is our job to remind them.

Last week in this House, Madam Speaker, the Member for Ferryland asked the

Minister of Finance what her plan was to eliminate $300 million from the

provincial Budget over the next four years. The Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board stated publicly that in the next four years, which

will be the next four years of a new government; that her and her government

have a plan to demonstrate and eliminate $300 million from this Budget, from

what we are going to spend. Where does that come from?

The Member for Ferryland, and our Finance critic, who has done an excellent

job in that critic's shadow, asked the Minister of Finance, could she lay out

before the people of the Province how she plans to eliminate $300 million.

You will not find anywhere in the record of this House, publicly, outside in

newspapers, in any personal addresses that the Minister of Finance has made in

her capacity as Minister of Finance, where she, on behalf of the government, has

demonstrated and clearly laid out where they are going to get that $300 million,

who it is going to affect. Is it coming from tourism, health care, education? Is

it coming from increased taxes? Is it coming from the privatization of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Board, for example? Is it going to come from

the privatization of parts of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing? Will it come

from the privatization of parts of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Where will

it come from?

They won't answer it. Is it because they won't, or they are afraid to

share the information with the people of the Province of where they are going to

eliminate that $300 million? That is the question that people have to ask.

Madam Speaker, I will conclude my comments today by saying this: When

government begins to be forthright with people, and begins to lay before this

Legislature, and through this place to the people of the Province, how they

actually plan to deal with the deficit, do not waste your breath to tell me or

members on this side of the House that you have a plan to deal with the $666

million deficit but we will reveal it to you at some point in the future. That

is not the type of government people want. Do not tell me or waste your breath

that you have a plan that you are going to eliminate $300 million from the

current Budget over the next four years and then do not speak about how you are

going to do it. The very things that you are thinking about doing - things I

have just talked about, in terms of privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador

Liquor Board, privatization of aspects of housing - are the very things that you

are fearmongering about, trying to tell people that we are going to do. Well, I

can tell you, it is not on.

Madam Speaker, let me say this: Unless government lays out those details for

all of us to see, which enables us, as an Opposition, to do what we were

democratically elected to do, which is to hold every one of you to account for

the actions that you take, or fail to take, then I will not be standing in this

House and supporting this budgetary motion.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, today I want to spend some time talking about the differences

that I have been noting over the last weeks and months between this side of the

House and the opposite side of the House.

One of the ones that I have noted more than anything else is the demonstrated

lack of knowledge about rural Newfoundland. It occurred to me the first time

last summer when I was on the South Coast of Labrador - actually in the Minister

of Fisheries district - I was at the bakeapple festival. I was listening to the

Leader of the Opposition talk about being in that area of the Province. One of

the first things he talked about was the need for a tunnel across The Straits.

When he talked about the need for this tunnel across The Straits, he did not

bother to ever, ever mention the fact or support the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Now, what is the point to a tunnel when you do not have a highway to connect

Labrador either with the mainland or with the Island? I think that shows that

over the months and over the years while he was there talking about this - now,

he was not talking about this in St. John's. Then, a little while later, he

was down in Port aux Basques and talking about how this won't affect the Gulf

ferry. So, what he said depended on where he was in the Province.

Every single rural community that I have seen the Leader of the Opposition

speak in, he immediately goes in and says: My, this is a beautiful community.

My, this is really well-kept; like it is the first time he has ever seen rural

Newfoundland. Then goes on to talk about: My, there is a strong rural business

out here; like it is the only rural business that is succeeding in all of

Newfoundland and Labrador, like he is really surprised. Why is he really

surprised? Because, on the whole, it has been the first time that he has ever

been in many of these communities.

I would also like to comment this afternoon on women in politics. I am proud

to be one of seven women in this Legislature; six who are on the government

side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: One in Opposition, but six on the government side.

Some months ago on CBC television, I remember it well, the Leader of the

Opposition was commenting about the reason the PC Party of Newfoundland and

Labrador lacks adequate female representation in the House of Assembly. The

reporter, I remember, then, very clearly, made a favourable comparison with the

Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador when she said, "after all, the

Liberals have set a high standard of gender balance. Women ministers are among

the highest and most powerful in the Grimes cabinet."

Madam Speaker, the Opposition Leader then made a comment which I thought was

very, very telling about why his party has only one woman in the House. An exact

quote of what he said, "they just didn't have the artillery to win the

nomination, they went in - they did not have the support, they did not

understand the process and they just got beaten at the nomination level".

Now, you know, here is where words are important. In his inaugural speech on

April 7, 2001, the PC Leader said to women in the audience who might be

considering a career in politics - this is where words are important, Madam

Speaker, "I commit to them that our party will provide the training and

support for those that may feel intimidated by the political process."

Now, Madam Speaker, while there may be hurdles for women to overcome, lack of

intelligence concerning the actual nomination process is not one of the hurdles

that women are facing.

What qualities, I ask you, does a male have that a female does not have that

permits him to have a better understanding of the political process? We have six

examples on this side of the House that show very clearly that we are not

intimidated and we understand the political process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the members opposite that

this is just another example of the old boys' mentality of the Leader of the

Opposition.

Also, I have been hearing a lot in recent weeks about federal-provincial

relationships. The Leader of the Opposition says: Well, if I was elected, the

first thing I would do is work with them. I would show them respect. I would

consult, and if all of that does not work, I will fight them.

Well, what does he think has been happening for the last fifty-four years?

Does he think that we have never talked with, consulted with, respected, sat

down with, and tried everything under the sun to have Ottawa listen to us? But

do we see any new ideas coming forth from the side opposite? None, Madam

Speaker, none.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Madam Speaker, this is the government. This is the Premier who

put in place the Royal Commission on Strengthening our Place in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: This is where the new ideas are coming from. Let me tell you, I

think it is very timely that the Premier - little did he know seven or eight

months ago when he put this Royal Commission in place that yet many other

negative decisions would be coming out of Ottawa. Little did he know what would

happen with Port Harmon in the Stephenville area. Little did he know what was

going to be happening to the Newfoundland forecasting unit in Gander. Little did

he know that forecasting would be leaving this Province completely, another area

which we still have a lot of fighting to do on; and little did we know that the

fishery would again be such a problem for rural Newfoundland in this Province.

Let me tell you, the federal-provincial working relationship is of great

concern to this side of the House, but until we see some new ideas from over

there, let me tell you, I am looking forward to the Report of the Royal

Commission.

I think I would like to speak a little bit now about the difference in the

two leaders. You know, it has been said all across this Province that we need

bold, creative, innovative and responsible leadership and policies. I think one

of the best examples that I can speak to today, given my previous experience, is

that we have a bold, creative, innovative, responsible position when it comes to

post-secondary education; that this Premier's policy on post-secondary

education is the best, bar none, in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Our post-secondary education policy includes: taxation cuts;

tuition cuts; debt reduction grants; a new student loan program. As a matter of

fact, we are leading the country.

I was just looking at some notes I saw recently which said that the Canadian

Federation of Students says that our Premier's post-secondary education policy

is, bar none, the best in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: As a matter of fact, the Canadian Federation of Students said

that they want this Province's post-secondary education policy to be the

template for every province in this country, for this whole country. They say

that we are, by far, the leaders in this country when it comes to post-secondary

education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: As a matter of fact, next week our Premier has been invited to

speak to the Canadian Federation of Students at their annual meeting so that he

can outline to them the progress this Province has made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for The Straits

& White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Speaker, it has happened once too often, so I am not

going to let it pass today.

The Member for Bellevue just made a reference to the fact that I moved to

Mount Pearl. Since the former minister, the Member for Gander, was just talking

about women in politics, I would just like to make the point that I moved to

Mount Pearl to allow my wife to pursue a nursing career, which she was not able

to access in St. Anthony, to go to school at the Centre for Nursing Studies,

where she worked very hard over the past number of years, because for the past

ten years, since we have been married, I have been running around so much that

she has not been able to pursue her own career in nursing.

I would like to know if - and there have been a number of them, the Member

for Bellevue, the Minister of Finance, and a number of others over there, who

have constantly brought it up over the past six months about my move to St. John's.

I would just like to ask if they share the same view as a former member of that

government about where women should be. I believe my wife should be allowed to

pursue a career if she wants to, irregardless of my life in politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I am offended by it, she is

offended by it, and I think every woman in this Province should be offended by

comments like that from the Minister of Labour.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I hope that point of order, which has nothing to do with the

points that I have been making, does not interfere with my time here today

because I have several other comments that I would like to make.

I would like to finish my comments, Madam Speaker, on the lack of an

education policy from the members opposite, by just noting that into today's

telegram, after their convention in Corner Brook this weekend, they are talking

about four resolutions that passed, and some of them about to construct a

long-term care facility. I was really pleased to see this one: to support the

continuation of the Gander Weather Office.

Do you know what the very last one was? It says: And to make education a

priority for the party. Well, you know, education has been a priority for this

party for a long, long time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: I would like to close my comments on education and just speak

about a time last fall, I believe it was, when the Leader of the Opposition was

at Memorial University, and, of course, many students were interested in hearing

what the Leader of the Opposition would have to say about his post-secondary

education policy. When they asked what he would do if he was elected Premier,

would he keep cutting tuition, would he bring in debt reduction grants or

continue them, what other new ideas did he have, do you know what his reply was?

He said: I cannot respond. I could not give you an answer to that unless I was

Premier and I could see the Province's financial records. Now, you know, all

of us can see the Province's financial records whenever we want. If ever there

was a lame excuse, this is a time when it was one of the lamest excuses I have

ever heard in my life.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: I thought when he said that: oh, well, I cannot comment because

I have to see the books. I thought, well, this is a really well thought out

post-secondary education policy.

I would like to close my comments today by talking just a little bit about

how the members opposite are constantly talking about the need for change. Now,

change can be positive but it can be negative too, but never in the political

history of this Province have we seen a Premier who has brought in so much

change in under two years. It is absolutely phenomenal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: And I have to say that this change was planned. It was bold,

creative and innovative, not like the party opposite who have no plan at all. If

you just look at the amount of change that has been brought in - Voisey's Bay:

for years we have been trying to do a deal on Voisey's Bay. We finally have a

fair deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: White Rose: let me tell you, this summer in Marystown when

there are 700 to 800 jobs down at the shipyard, we will know what change is all

about compared to the last few years. We have seen tuition cuts. We have seen

debt reduction grants. New owners in the Marystown Shipyard. The settlement of

the boundary dispute which, in the very near future, could have a huge impact on

this Province because it is felt by many that there is gas, and lots of it, in

that area. The Petroleum Pricing Commissioner: can you imagine how much that has

saved for the taxpayers of this Province just in the last two months, having

someone who can respond to the fluctuations in the market. Fine enough, when

they are negative and the price has to go up, but when they are positive, the

price can go down. We do not have to wait months and months for our consumers to

get the benefit of a downward price in oil. Televising the House of Assembly:

this was inaugurated well over a year ago. This was the government who brought

it in. The Citizens' Representative, who has been kept so busy. Fraser March

who was appointed in December of 2001. The new Access to Information Act, which

will become law this year. The Child and Youth Advocate, which was brought in

December of 2001.

MR. MANNING: Are you reading from our policy?

MS KELLY: I say to the hon. member opposite, of course I am not reading

from your policy. Go back and look at the brochures that I had when I was

running for election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: They certainly did not come from your brochure, I would say.

The Strategic Social Plan, which now, after having a Strategic Economic Plan,

we will be the first in this country to integrate the Strategic Social Plan

after the social audit is done with our economic plan, because many of us

recognize for this Province to work, we have to integrate our economic plan with

our social plan, and we will be world leaders in this area. There is no one else

in this country who has ever done that. We will be the first.

Our new health care plan, called: Healthier Together, there is no doubt that

this needs to be done. Health care is a priority of this government. We just do

not talk about spend more money. On the one hand we have members opposite, in

almost every single Question Period, standing up and saying: we need more money

for these roads, for these hospitals, for this school. Yet, in the very next

breath stand up and say: Oh, irresponsible. We are all irresponsible over here.

We cannot spend money properly. Well, let me tell you, this is a government that

is responsible, that responds to change and has a forward vision. This is a

Premier who has already demonstrated that in the last two years, with more

change in two years than any period in this Province's history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Madam Speaker, I would like to close by saying that change can

be positive or negative. We have shown that we are a party of change. In the

last two years we have brought in more change than any other government in our

history and we plan to bring in even more.

They keep talking across there about their Blue Book. Well, I would challenge

them to just pay attention because we do not just hold everything close to our

chest. We tell the people of this Province what we intend to do. We show them

what we intend to do. We have already done so much. When we commit to something

we do it. We do not just talk about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: A commitment made is a commitment kept.

I would like to close today by saying that I fully support the Premier of

change, the Premier who has brought more change to this Province in the last two

years and will continue to do it with the plan he has in place, that is a great

vision for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am happy to stand today to take

part in this Budget Debate and to use my

twenty minutes to talk about some things and to refer to some things that were

just brought about by the opposite side.

Madam Speaker, when the Government House Leader stood up, in the few minutes

that I listened to him there, he talked about the bold things that they were

doing. He challenged people on this side, and our leader here, to come forward

with our policy and to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador what we

would do. Somebody shouted out and asked him to bring forward his policy. The

Member for Gander referred to it as well. He was very quick to say: our policy

is clear. He stated in the Strategic Economic Plan, in the Strategic Social Plan

and in the Throne Speech. Madam Speaker, do you know how many elections have

been fought by that government on the Strategic Economic Plan? How many

elections were brought in by Clyde Wells? There have been three elections fought

under the Strategic Economic Plan. Where is the bold initiative in that?

Madam Speaker, then he referred to the Strategic Social Plan. He said that is

another one of our bold moves. I ask you, how many elections have been fought on

the Strategic Social Plan? That was a plan which was brought forward by Brian

Tobin and there has been at least one election already fought on that particular

plan. So I say to you, Government House Leader: Where are the bold initiatives

that you are putting forward?

Then he referred to the Throne Speech, Madam Speaker. He referred to the bold

initiatives in the Throne Speech. I never saw many bold initiatives in the

Throne Speech. There was nobody dancing in the street about the bold things that

were brought forward by the Lieutenant-Governor in this Throne Speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: What we are looking at is a tired old government with no

new ideas trying to con the people of this Province into believing that what

they are doing is working.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Go down to my district, Madam Speaker, and I think my

district is reflective of a lot of rural districts. I can take you to one

community where 160 people live and five people get up in the morning and go to

work. Five people have the privilege of getting up in the morning and going to

work. Is that a bold initiative that is working in rural Newfoundland? Is that a

bold initiative where people are happy about the strategic economic plan?

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Gander talked about the wonderful things they

were doing. Well, let me tell you about her trip over to China a few short years

ago. She came back and she made the big announcement - it was on the radio for a

full week - about an agreement that was signed in China, Tuesday, that could

result in the start-up of an apple juice concentrate blending facility in

Argentia. I say to the Member for Argentia, how many bottles of apple juice or

orange juice (inaudible) in Argentia?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: He must have it fenced in with the Inco fence.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, that was for Argentia and that same Member

for Gander, when she made that pilgrimage over to be the salvation of

Newfoundland and Labrador to bring about economic prosperity, signed another

agreement. There were three agreements. I will refer to two of them. Neither of

them have worked.

The third agreement was signed in Shanghai and involved Friede Goldman

Newfoundland Limited. Where is Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited now, Madam

Speaker, in your district? Here is what the initiative was. They were going to

construct, at the Marystown shipyard, Madam Speaker, sixty fishing vessels. The

agreement was signed by her trip to China, came back, did the announcement two

or three weeks in a row, and led the people in this Province to believe that

those projects were going to happen.

Is that the bold initiative that is being brought forward by this government,

Madam Speaker? I say to you, if that is the kind of message and the kind of

thing that is going to be brought forward by this government, to try to make the

people believe what is happening, then it is about time that we had a change in

this Province.

Madam Speaker, when the House of Assembly opens for the spring session,

normally what happens is your first meeting here is you come forward and the

House is prorogued to start a new session of the House of Assembly. The next day

we hear the Speech from the Throne which clearly sets out government's

intention. It is a direction, I guess, which government is going in. Shortly

after that, there might be a few days go by, probably a week, two weeks at the

most, when we debate either pieces of legislation that were - well, not left

over because it is a new session - but when we probably debate the Throne Speech

or Interim Supply. Then, Madam Speaker, the Budget is brought down, and we spend

pretty well the entire spring session debating the Budget.

When the Budget is brought down, Estimates Committee meetings take place

where committees are structured and they sit with ministers and their

departments to ask questions on the appropriations that are brought forward for

that government department.

Madam Speaker, I feel betrayed, and I feel that I was less than being honest

with, and every member in this House was dealt with in less than an honest way.

When you go forward and question ministers and question departments as to the

appropriations that are brought forward by a particular budget heading, and you

find out, when you get the Auditor General's report, that the money was taken

completely out of one department and spent by other ministers for reasons that

were not put forward, that is not the way that it should be.

I am going to refer specifically here to the Protocol expenditures, where

there were appropriations brought forward and you ask questions to the minister

who was directly responsible for the Protocol Office, and you would be given

answers only to find out when you get the Auditor General's report that the

money was spent in a completely different way and was spent for travel by

ministers.

Let me read out to you some of the expenditures that were taken out of the

Protocol account and put forward to other ministers' offices wholly and solely

for travel. When you ask questions to the minister dealing with the Protocol

Office, you are informed that this money was brought forward in order to look

after the dignitaries when they come to this Province on government business,

and for other things for which the Protocol Office is responsible.

Let me just refer, Madam Speaker, to some of the expenditures transferred

from the Protocol account to other government accounts, other government

departments, used wholly and solely for travel purposes, for purposes that it

was never intended to be used for, but buried in another account.

The Executive Council, Premier's Office: The Premier of this Province, in

addition to his own travel, took another $78,833 from the Protocol Office to

look after his travel budget - $78,000. You might say he is gone. Yes, he is.

Executive Council, Intergovernmental Affairs: The present Member for Virginia

Waters is still here. That member, when he was the Intergovernmental Affairs

Minister, reached in and took $14,958 out of the Protocol Office, wholly and

solely for travel. An account that we could have asked whatever questions we

wanted but would never have been told, and this money should never have been

spent for other than what it was intended to be spent.

The Minster of Fisheries and Aquaculture dipped into it for $19,340 for extra

travel, taken out of the Protocol account.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the present Member for

Gander, reached into it for some $6,000.

The present Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, when he was the

Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, reached into it for $3,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was three years ago.

MR. FITZGERALD: Never mind three years ago, I say to the member. It is

facts and figures.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know what you are talking about.

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know what I am talking about? Refer to the

Auditor General's report and answer to her, I say to you, Sir.

Development and Rural Renewal, $2,000. This is money that was taken out of

the Protocol account and spent by government members, government departments.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the member, he can be as mad as he wants; those

are not my figures. Those are the figures that are brought forward by the

Auditor General, and told the government of the day that this money should never

have been spent in this particular way. It should never have been. This money

should be spent in the Protocol Office. When you come forward here and you sit

with government departments and you question government departments about the

appropriations that are brought forward in their budget, then you should be

given the answers wholly and solely for what those expenses are. That is the way

that some government departments have been able to reach into other offices in

order to get money.

If you look at the Labrador Coastal Marine Service and see where there was

some $990,000 in refit costs for the Labrador ferries, a million dollars brought

forward without even going to public tender. In fact, that particular operator

of that particular ferry service got paid for refit service and charges for

their labour while that particular ferry was in operation - in excess of $1

million. What a great contract to get! How can you lose money on it? How can you

lose money on the Labrador Coastal Service when you have a boat, you are

responsible for the operation of that particular boat, the government decides

that they are going to sign a contract with you, and that particular contract

states that you are going to be given so many dollars a day to operate the

service. Then, in addition to that, you charge out refit work while the ferry is

operating and you get paid for that as well.

In fact there was over $50,000 paid out there - I think it was $50,000; I do

not have it right in front of me, but it was something close to $50,000 - that

was paid out to hire another vessel whereby it clearly states in the contract

that is the responsibility of that contractor while he is supplying that

particular service.

No, it is only government money, it is only taxpayers' dollars. Submit it,

we will pay it. It is a business and it is a contract on which you cannot lose.

It is unbelievable, the amount of money that is being spent here without going

to contract, without going to tender. That is the kind of things that we would

do differently, I say to the Member for Bellevue. That is the kind of thing that

we would do different.

I will just move away from that now, but I wanted to raise those points

because I think they were important points. It was brought forward by the

Auditor General. It was discussed in Public Accounts. It was affairs that came

from the operation of this House, this Legislature, and that is where it should

be debated and this is where it should be brought forward.

I want to refer to roads, the roadwork budget that was brought forward this

year, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. This year, we see

something like $23 million brought forward for roads upgrading and

reconstruction.

I have stood in this Legislature many times and talked about the need for

roadwork in my District of Bonavista South. I heard the Member for The Straits

& White Bay North last night talking about the need for roadwork and the

number of kilometres in his district that need to be not only upgraded but,

because it is gravel road, need to be upgraded and paved for the first time.

Twenty-three million dollars.

I think the minister indicated at the time there was $300 million worth of

applications brought forward for roadwork and then, in his own words: It would

take us something like $900 million in order to bring the roads in Newfoundland

and Labrador up to today's standards. We know that is never going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about trying to build a tourism industry, and

if we are serious about trying to attract industry in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, then we have to provide the basic infrastructure. I guess the basic of

the basics is to provide a decent road to drive over. Twenty-three million

dollars.

Back in 1989, if I recall correctly, at that particular time, the Budget

brought forward in 1989 had something like in access of $49 million for roadwork

reconstruction and upgrading in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at just a few short years ago, every depot in this

Province was provided with funding where not only could they maintain the

shoulders of the roads and the local roads that they were responsible for,

without using capital funding for upgrading and paving, they were always awarded

and always provided with an amount of money where they could do three or four

kilometres of roadwork, paving it, recapping it.

Go and talk to some of those depots today. In their budget if they can manage

to scrounge - I use the word scrounge because that is what they have to do -

fifteen or twenty tons of asphalt, that is maximum, that is tops. That is all

they can get out of their budget.

You look at the shoulders of the road. A few short years ago, we used to put

some decent stone on the side of the road. A lot of people walk. We do not have

sidewalks out in rural Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people like to be

able to go out and walk on the side of the road. I get calls from seniors, I get

calls from people who enjoy going out on the side of the road for a walk, to

walk through their community, and they cannot do it anymore. Do you know what

the department of highways have to use today because of the cutbacks and because

of money not being provided for road maintenance and upgrading? The depots have

to go into the pit and take what they call pit run. They would take the gravel

and rocks that is scooped out of the hills and put it on the sides of the roads.

That is what is put there today, and then you see a couple of workers having to

go and take the boulders away. They cannot take all the rock away because, if

they do, there would be nothing left. They would be right back to where they

started before.

That is the kind of maintenance that we are doing on our highways today. Two

of the main highways leading into Bonavista, Route 230 and 235, you drive down

over them today, Mr. Speaker, two of the main highways leading to the Bonavista

Peninsula, major fish plants there, major tourist attractions there, and you see

the speed limit, thirty kilometres an hour. Speed limit, thirty kilometres an

hour. That is less than twenty miles an hour, I say to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. Two main highways leading to the Bonavista

Peninsula.

Is that the kind of thing that tourists expect to find when they come and we

promote this Province and we promote certain areas of this Province as tourist

attractions and we encourage people to come and spend their money and build this

industry? Is that the kind of thing that they should see on the side of the

road, signs saying, bumps ahead or a bump every - I always said they could put a

pump on each end of the Bonavista Highway and just have one sign saying, a bump

every hundred feet. That is about what it is. That is the kind of thing that we

need to be looking at. That is the kind of thing that we need to do if we are

sincere and serious about building industries, allowing industries to succeed in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and allowing our tourism industry to grow, not

what we have seen today. We have to have a major infusion of funds in order to

upgrade the highways, especially the major highways in this Province.

We are all waiting to see what the minister is going to bring forward. I am a

little disappointed as well, Mr. Speaker, because normally before funding is

announced we get a chance not only to write to the minister, when they ask for

our priorities, but to sit down with him, because we put forward our priorities

but nobody ever expects to get everything that they ask for, but it is always

nice to be able to go and sit down with the minister and go over what it is they

see as a priority when they know how much money they are getting.

The Member for Mount Pearl, when she was the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, afforded members on this side that opportunity to come and sit

down, and said: Here is how much money you are getting. Now, you tell me where

you want that money spent. Who knows the district better than the member who is

driving over the highway every day visiting his district, talking to his

constituents, listening to people tell them what they see as a priority and what

they would like to see included in this year's capital works budget.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Gander referred to the weather station being

taken away, and that is certainly frustrating, I say to the member. Everybody,

not only everybody in this Legislature but everybody in Newfoundland and

Labrador, there is no other place in this country that depends on the weather

and depends on a facility, especially -

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just by leave to finish up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a minute to clue up.

Mr. Speaker, there is no other province, there is no other area of this

country, in this hemisphere, that depends on weather more than this Province. It

is not uncommon, when you go into people's houses, to hear them turn the radio

on. They do not turn the radio on to listen to the songs, or to find out what is

happening in other places in the world. They turn on the radio to find out the

weather, to get the local news and to find out the weather. It is not uncommon

to go into people's homes and see the weather channel on television. That is

how important it is to the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, to see that particular facility leaving this Province shows what

contempt the federal government holds us in, and how meaningful we are to fit

into the overall picture of our place in Canada, and how we fit in.

Mr. Speaker, there is lots more to talk about but I understand my time is up.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened with interest to the comments that the Member for Ferryland made

over a period of hours here in this House in the last several weeks.

As pointed out by my colleague from Terra Nova, of course, it is the role of

the Opposition to be critical of government and where government stands on

certain things, and what they do or do not do, but it is also, as he pointed

out, their role to be constructive. To be constructive is, by implication, that

you are going to make a contribution, you are going to make a constructive

contribution. That is what I find missing here. We had hours and hours of

debate, so-called, or commentary, but very, very little of contribution,

constructive contribution.

The Member for Bonavista South raised the issue of change, time for a change,

time for a change; but, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province want to know:

change to what? Change from what? You cannot change to something if no one has

ever taken the time or the effort or had the courage to tell you what it is that

they want to change to. That is what has been missing here in the last number of

hours and hours of debate. To change to what? There is only one true catalyst

and agent for change that this Province has seen in the past two years and that

is by way of Premier Roger Grimes and the Liberal Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: That is the agent of change that we have seen here.

I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of the people not knowing where

somebody stands on an issue. There have been many, but I will only take one for

the sake of simplicity and explaining things, just one example, and that is the

Mining Tax Act that we had in this House last December. Just one example, Bill

21, passed through this House last December, had certain end purposes, of

course, to amend the act, make certain regulations concerning mining operators

and owners of mines, but also towards the royalties and the royalty tax. In this

particular case, of course, we saw a full page ad in The Telegram from

Archean Resources and so on saying that, you could not tax us, it was unfair and

everything else.

Now, this government took the position that if you were lucky enough to find

a Voisey's Bay, which they did in that case, and you were going to make

millions and millions of dollars in royalties from that find, that it was a

logical step that you should pay a reasonable, fair share back to the public

purse so that you can use it in this Province to do things like health care and

education and much needed infrastructure.

By the way, that was there since 1975, the 20 per cent rule. Nobody was

talking about changing the 20 per cent rule, but we had the Opposition who were

terribly opposed to this bill, terribly opposed to the amendments to the Mining

and Tax Act.

Now, they claim to be the blue party, probably, but there is nobody for sure

who thinks for a moment that they represent the blue-collar worker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: None whatsoever, because we heard references while that was

going on to the millionaires' bill and the millionaires' club, making

provisions for the millionaires and so on.

Also at that time, Mr. Speaker, in the course of debating that bill - I give

credit to the Member for Labrador West. He probably said it better than anybody

throughout the whole debate here because he is a blue-collar man himself. He got

up and talked about who makes contributions to this Province. The miners in this

Province who pay taxes and the companies that are now no longer going to get a

$2 million maximum bill, but who will get a $2 million tax bill a year if they

take our resources as they should. I thought he gave an excellent blue-collar

speech in support of the legislation. He said it was good because it was good.

It was the right thing to do and I applaud him for doing that. That is the kind

of initiative you see over here which the Opposition had been opposed to,

vehemently opposed to that bill and the amendments that were in it.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that you cannot talk out of both sides of

your face. The thing is you cannot on the one hand say: We want more money for

health care. We have to find a plan to have money for education. We have to have

a way to get more money into the coffers to use for needed infrastructure in the

Province. You cannot do that. We need roads. People need roads. People need

pavement in their areas; always referred to by members on the opposite side.

Everybody agrees, you have to have a way to do that. One of those ways was to

make sure that the people who use our resources pay something for the use of

them and the benefits they get from them. We ought to have an obligation, as a

government, to maximum the benefits that we can for this Province, whether it be

by royalties, by way of taxation, by way of employment opportunities and so on,

but that is not what we seen from the Opposition here.

We saw an Opposition who, when we were trying to maximum these royalties, be

opposed to that piece of legislation. That, Mr. Speaker, I would submit, is

improper. That is not in the best interest of the Province and that is not where

we need to go. If that is the kind of change we are looking towards, where we

protect the interest of the rich and forget about the blue-collar man in our

society, that is when we do have a problem because that is where we are going

down a road where we certainly need not and ought not to go.

I call it the peekaboo platform; peekaboo. They have a peekaboo platform.

They will not let anybody in this Province peek because they are afraid we are

going to boo if we see what they have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they will say one thing one day and

something else on another day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Did you notice we are not interrupting?

MR. PARSONS: This comes back again to - I will be very short and brief as

I say, because I just want to make the point about how inconsistent some people

are. The point I would make is, that is one example of an inconsistency, where

this party stands for something that is not in the best interest of this

Province, and they showed it by way of their answers in the debate in this House

on Bill 21. That is a major inconsistency on their part but it shows where they

are going. It shows where they are going and it is not where we need to go.

I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, as well, and I am sure the people of this

Province would like to know: Where does the Leader of the Official Opposition

stand on this issue, and where does he stand on so many important issues? Now,

that's not being critical. The people of this Province have a right to know.

This is the people's House and this is no better place and no more appropriate

place to ask a question. I raise that question here. I have seen the Leader of

the Opposition speak from prepared scripts, whether it be Question Period or

whether it be questions debating the Freedom of Information. I have never heard

or seen the Leader of the Opposition stand in this House and speak to a piece of

legislation without having a prepared script and to give a definite answer when

he is called upon to do so.

I challenge the Leader of the Opposition - I challenge him like we are

constantly being chal