March

30, 2009

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 3

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Today we welcome the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for

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

Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; and the

hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 21, 2009, I had the honour of

attending the Bay Roberts Fire Department's annual Fireman's Ball

celebrating their sixty-sixth year of service to their community and surrounding

area.

The Bay Roberts Fire Department, consisting of thirty members, provides fire

protection to a population of approximately 10,000 people. In 2008, the

department responded to eighty-one calls, of which twenty-seven were motor

vehicle accidents.

This department is equipped with two pumper trucks, a heavy rescue vehicle,

two utility trucks, along with rescue tools, including the Jaws of Life. They

are prepared for any challenge.

Also in 2008, they opened a new rescue training centre which is a regional

facility. The event on Saturday attracted 300 people, which shows the support

that exists for this dedicated and committed group of individuals who put their

lives at risk to protect residents and their property.

It was a pleasure to present the long-service award and certificate to

firefighters Geoff Roach, Clarence Mercer and David Churchill for twenty years

of dedicated service.

I ask all hon. members to extend congratulations to Fire Chief Clarence

Russell and all members of the Bay Roberts Fire Department on their sixty-six

years of dedicated service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the talent of young Mitchell

John of Conne River who won the First Nations Language Contest in 2008.

This contest is sponsored by the First Nations Confederacy of Cultural

Education Centres, and Mr. John has indeed stood out, attaining the best in his

category for his magnificent artwork depicting his Mi'kmaq culture

The Conne River Band Council has achieved remarkable success with the revival

of its traditional culture, and youth such as Mitchell John will ensure that

future generations continue to sustain their heritage.

I ask that all members of this hon. House join me in recognizing the

outstanding work of Mitchell John and St. Anne's school.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a school principal from

my district, by the name of Derrick Reid. Derrick is the principal of Lake

Academy in Fortune, and has been on staff there for more than thirty years.

Mr. Speaker, Derrick was recently recognized nationally as one of the best

principals in Canada. His Outstanding Principals Award is an annual program

where candidates are selected based on their contribution to providing

leadership at their local school and their contribution to improving student

achievement. Mr. Speaker, Derrick was one of thirty-one recipients of this award

and the only winner from Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the initiatives that Derrick has been involved with at his school is

in rewarding positive student behaviour. The staff and students of Lake Academy

are extremely proud of Derrick's achievement, and I had the pleasure of

joining them recently at the school to acknowledge his efforts.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous accomplishment and reflects a lifetime

commitment to education and to students by Derrick Reid. His dedication to his

profession and his students is absolutely amazing.

I ask all members of the House to join me in offering congratulations and

best wishes to Derrick Reid, truly one of Canada's outstanding principals.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to formally

recognize the Winter Carnival Patrons for the Town of Deer Lake for 2009.

This year's Carnival ran from March 6 to March 15 and contained a balance

of activities for all age groups. Each year patrons are selected based on their

overall contribution to the community. This year, Joe and Joan Northcott were

selected based on their involvement in the community for the past forty years.

Joe was a successful entrepreneur in Deer Lake and established a business in

1974 known as J & N Automotive. His business was quite a success story and

has stood the test of time. He sold the business in 2001 and it is still in

operation today.

Mr. Speaker, while Joe was busy growing his business, Joan was extensively

involved with several volunteer organizations. She first got involved with the

Girl Guide movement in 1975, and still supports the organization today through

various fundraising initiatives. Her voluntary efforts also include the Tree of

Memories, and she is quite active with the Catholic Women's League.

Both Joe and Joan felt honoured to be selected Winter Carnival Patrons. They

were definitely wonderful ambassadors for the Carnival and I saw them at all the

activities that I attended.

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

congratulating Joe and Joan Northcott on being selected as Deer Lake Winter

Carnival Patrons for 2009.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Government House

Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform this hon. House that the

twenty-five recipients of this year's Alberta Centennial Scholarships have

been selected. Under this scholarship program, established by the Alberta

Government in 2005, twenty-five scholarships valued at $2,005 are provided to

every province and territory in Canada.

Here in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, this government has chosen to

use these scholarships to encourage participation in the skilled trades and,

more specifically, to increase participation among females.

To this end, Mr. Speaker, seventeen scholarships have been awarded to

females, with the remaining eight going to males. This builds on a series of

initiatives designed to increase female participation in non-traditional trades.

For example, approximately $400,000 has been provided over the past two years to

the IBEW to help bring more women to the electrical trade. It is anticipated

this contract will see 96 to 144 female electricians certified over the next

several years.

A second contract valued at $100,000 was announced last fall with the

Carpenters Millwrights Union. With this funding, the union has established an

office of women in apprenticeship and, among other activities, will establish a

work placement program to ensure women apprentices are finding the training they

need to complete their programs.

In addition, the provincial government has ensured the Hebron Benefits

Agreement included the development and implementation of a Gender Equity and

Diversity Program the first time such a program has been included in a

benefits agreement in the Province's offshore.

In total, since 2006, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government has invested

$53.8 million in the areas of apprenticeship, science and technology,

programming, training and infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, these scholarships support two goals of the provincial

government. They help students - which is a hallmark of this Administration

and they encourage female participation in skilled trades. A full list of this

year's recipients will be posted to the government and the Department of

Education Web sites, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate each one of them and wish them

all the best as they move through their blocks and onto journeyperson status.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

to the twenty-five recipients, which we will know their names fairly soon, I

guess, congratulations on winning this year.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that the Alberta government, as the minister has

stated, offers those scholarships to each and every province and territory. It

is for students who are attending university, college or the various

apprenticeship programs. We know, Mr. Speaker, that some of the criteria that is

followed is academic achievement, community service, financial need and

volunteer service to the communities. I am sure each and every one of us know

people who meet this criteria and hopefully, we will all look forward to the

names that will be coming forward.

I want to congratulate the twenty-five, say thank you to the Government of

Alberta. It is good to see that females are becoming part of the skilled trades.

Each and every one of us, I guess, can tell some success stories with regards to

that happening in each of our districts.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for her statement

and to say congratulations to the twenty-five recipients.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge and congratulate St. John's

businesswoman Brenda O'Reilly, who earlier this month was elected Chair of the

Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to say that Ms O'Reilly is in the gallery with

us today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: It is significant, Mr. Speaker, that a Newfoundlander and

Labradorian has been named to lead this national, 33,000-member organization,

which represents independent and chain restaurants, bars, caterers, hotels, and

other foodservice providers.

As I have noted previously in this House, hospitality industry operators in

this Province are increasingly regarded as leaders and innovators in their

field.

As some of you may know, Ms O'Reilly is the owner and operator of O'Reilly's

Irish Newfoundland Pub on George Street, which is well-known for its exemplary

offerings of food, beverage and live entertainment. It is also widely recognized

as a popular gathering place for residents and out-of-Province visitors alike.

She has also recently established a new enterprise, Yellowbelly Brewery and

Public House, and operates a catering service, Food on the Run.

Clearly, Ms O'Reilly is making a significant contribution to the local

economy as a hospitality business operator and employer. It is equally clear,

Mr. Speaker, that she supports the local music scene and the professional

entertainers who perform at her establishments.

It may not be as widely known, that Ms O'Reilly is also a great supporter

of emerging talent, offering young musicians a chance to hone their skills and

gain valuable onstage experience through "Young Performers Open Mic"

events at O'Reilly's.

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that Ms O'Reilly's knowledge and experience

in the foodservice industry will be a great asset to the Canadian Restaurant and

Foodservices Association.

On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that on St. Patrick's Day

two of my sons and I went down rather early in the morning. The brunch was not

ready but there were a few something to drink, put it that way, Mr. Speaker,

early in the morning.

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues in this House to join me in

congratulating Ms O'Reilly on her election as chair and to wish her well as

she takes on this new challenge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for the advanced copy of his message today. I cannot

believe, actually, that our good minister would be having swallies so early in

the morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We would certainly concur with the statement by the

minister, Mr. Speaker. I have had the pleasure of meeting Ms O'Reilly myself

some years ago. I guess anyone who has ever been on George Street or has been in

O'Reilly's has had the pleasure of meeting her, because she is there

virtually all the time. She is not just an owner; she is a hands-on

owner-operator. She buses tables. Her goal in life is to make sure that the

patrons are happy. She is just not a great woman entrepreneur, she actually

delivers when it comes to the service end of things, as can be attested by not

only the locals in this area but many thousands of tourists who have visited her

establishments over the years.

I believe she indicated in a recent interview that her clientele in the

summertime is about 75 per cent tourists and in the wintertime that switches to

be about 75 per cent local.

Her first job, I note, from an interview she did recently, was as helper in a

school cafeteria when she was a student. At the tender age of seventeen she

opened her own catering business. That shows that she started when she was

pretty young, in this world of business, and she has kept it up right through to

this day and has some very healthy, financially active companies.

I would also like to point out, in addition to being a great women

entrepreneur with businesses and causing employment in this area, her support

for musicians but also her support for historic buildings; because the new

business that she just started, Yellowbelly, has a great Irish tradition to it.

To take a building that needed to be restored, and to do that in the fashion

that she has done, deserves to be commended by all of us.

I would certainly stand with the minister and congratulate her on this

appointment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to two members of the

judiciary who are moving into different stages of their careers, and also to

congratulate another jurist on his recent appointment.

Mr. Speaker, Chief Justice Clyde Wells of the Court of Appeal certainly needs

no introduction to the people of this Province, having served as Premier from

1989 until 1996. Appointed to the Court of Appeal in 1998, he served as Chief

Justice since 1999. His resignation as Chief Justice was effective February 20,

2009. He will now sit as supernumerary judge with the Court of Appeal, and we

are pleased to retain his considerable experience on the bench.

Mr. Speaker, as a young lawyer in Corner Brook, I had the privilege of

working with Chief Justice Wells, and later was both a business and a law

partner of his. At the time, he was one of the Province's most well-known and

respected lawyers. It was an honour and a privilege to work with him. He was a

great lawyer, he was a great mentor, and I have the honour of calling him not

only a colleague but also a good friend and I wish him well.

Mr. Speaker, Chief Justice Derek Green, the Chief Justice of the Supreme

Court Trial Division, has now been appointed by the Prime Minister as the new

Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal for Newfoundland and Labrador. A Rhodes

Scholar, he was first appointed to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court in

1992 and to the Court of Appeal in 1996. He then became Chief Justice of the

Trial Division in 2000.

Obviously, all members of this House would be very familiar with Chief

Justice Green as he was the author of the document we refer to as the Green

Report. I know that members of this House will join me in having full confidence

in Chief Justice Green and his ability to hold the highest judicial position in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, since 2001 the hon. Milton Reginald Reid has served the people

of this Province as Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Earlier this month, Chief Judge Reid submitted to me his letter of

resignation after thirty-four years of exceptional service as a judge with the

Provincial Court.

He was born in Norris Point. His career has been a varied one. He was a

social worker, a parole office. He became a magistrate in 1975. Throughout his

time as a Provincial Court Judge, Chief Judge Reid has taken on many roles and

excelled at each, raising the standards in his courtroom.

He served with the Provincial Court in Grand Falls-Windsor, in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, and in St. John's, and before being appointed Chief Judge he

held the position of Coordinating Judge for the St. John's Court.

Chief Judge Reid has informed me that his retirement will take place

effective April 30, 2009. Chief Judge Reid has provided essential leadership at

the Provincial Court, and undoubtedly his presence in both the courtroom and

amongst the legal community of our Province will be missed; but I am pleased to

advise that he will continue in his capacity as Chair of the Criminal Code

Mental Disorder Review Board.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I want to thank Chief Justice Wells

and Chief Judge Reid for their service to our Province and wish them much

success, and also offer our congratulations to Chief Justice Green on his

appointment as the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We would also like to congratulate Chief Justice Wells and Chief Judge Reid

on their retirements.

I had the honour of articling with Chief Justice Wells in 1979-1980, when I

got out of law school back then and went to Corner Brook. Shortly after, a

couple of years later, he moved to St. John's, of course, and the rest is

history. He became the Premier, subsequently, and then to the Chief Justice

position from which he is now retiring.

Everyone who knows him, of course, knows him to be an honourable, principled

individual who certainly, during the Meech Lake debacle back in the early 1990s,

caused quite a storm nationally but was seen by all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians as a person who stood up for them without question.

Chief Justice Green, of course, has been known to many of us who practiced in

the legal profession over the years as a fantastic practitioner, a very fair

person to deal with when you practice with him, and he has taken those

attributes with him, of course, to his capacity as a Justice, whether it be a

Justice or a Chief Justice in the Trial Division, and shown himself to be

principled, ethical, and a man of integrity, besides his overwhelming academic

skills that he brings with him and has proven over and over again. We

congratulate him upon his appointment as Chief Justice of the Province, and wish

him all the best.

Chief Justice Reid is married to a Port aux Basques girl; so, of course, he

has a good connection comes from a good part of the turf - and I have known

Chief Justice Reid for some years. He entered the bench under the old system of

magistrate some years back and took advantage of the law program that was

created by Chief Justice Alec Hickman. Went to Dalhousie and got his law degree,

and we wish him all the best after thirty-four years. He himself has been a big

part of the provincial court system in this Province for many, many years and,

again, proven himself to be very fair principled and a man of integrity and we

wish him all the best in his retirement.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In last week's Budget Speech the Minister of Finance brought forward a new

offer to the Province's nurses. This offer was unscripted, without any warning

or advanced notice to the nurses and again shows the disrespect this government

has for the collective bargaining process.

I ask the minister: Why would you choose to deliver such a message knowing it

was in poor taste and insulting to nurses just days before returning to

negotiations that you agreed would have no preconditions attached?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in these uncertain economic times we are

an exceptional government. What we have done with our public servants is offered

them significant wage increases. For example, the compounded rate of the

template is about 21.5 per cent. That is at a time I think when CBC and the

federal government, over four years, are receiving 6 per cent. So, 1.5 per cent

in the first year versus 8 per cent is what we are offering.

Similarly, with nurses we are being particularly generous. At one point back

in January, and we did not know which way the economy was going, we decided we

should reserve on the template. We are now saying that we are comfortable enough

as to where we are and where the economy is going and we are putting that

template back on the table. It is very, very important I think that we get on

with it and we take the uncertainty out of the environment. Patients are very

concerned about surgeries and everything else.

Last year during the Budget the leader of the nurses' union indicated that

there was nothing in the Budget with respect to recruitment and retention. So

this year we have responded to it. We actually had a Cabinet meeting that

morning to deal with this particular issue and because it was a significant

amount of money, we felt it was important that we get it on the table as soon as

possible. That is exactly what we did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that no one thought to talk to the nurses before springing

that out on Thursday.

Let me ask this question: Why did you agree to go back to the table with no

preconditions attached, to negotiate in good faith, to do bargaining with nurses

to preserve the integrity of our health care system and just days before haul

all that off the table and pull the tactic that you did on Thursday? It is

unexplainable to me.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that morning Cabinet met at 10:00 o'clock.

We were in Cabinet for a fair part of the morning. At that particular point in

time the leader of the nurses' union was actually in the Budget lockup. As

soon as she came out of the Budget lockup she was presented with the offer,

which we are putting on the table, which I might indicate, Mr. Speaker, was a

very generous offer. We are now in a situation where we put the nurses a

nurse now starting at, I guess, probably around $45,000 a year will now start at

about $53,000 to $54,000 a year. By the time the term of this contact is up a

nurse coming out of school will start at $60,000 a year. With regards to a nurse

with several years experience, she will now go, during the term of this

contract, from $58,000 to $74,000 a year. That is a significant amount of money.

That will actually place our nurses in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, either first

or second, and that makes it the best.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the government saying that there is now no need to bargain with nurses,

this is the deal, we have outlined it for you, you can either take it or leave

it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker, take it or leave it is not something

that this government says. Members of the party opposite have said it from time

to time but we decided at that time that we were going to leave it. Now this is

a different situation.

What we are doing now for nurses is we are saying here is a very, very

generous package. We are putting the template back on the table. We are taking

out the first two steps for first-year nurses. So they now move immediately into

step three. A big complaint of about 70 per cent of the nurses was that they

were now capped off. So we have actually added on a step. They now have an extra

step at the end of that particular period.

What we have also done, we have also looked at standby fees and shift

differential. Now when it comes to preconditions, I want to make it very clear,

that what was laid out were the conditions for that particular offer. All

conditions are open. If they want to come in on Thursday and they want to

negotiate anything - if they wanted, for example, Mr. Speaker, take the template

and say: No, we are not going to take the 21 per cent, we are going to take the

federal government offer of 6 per cent. So we will trade that off against maybe

a two-year agreement. We will consider absolutely anything, but there are

tradeoffs in a negotiation. We are not saying anything is cast in stone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week in the House of Assembly the Minister of Health and Community

Services said that the HIV clinic is currently open and Eastern Health has

communicated information to the patients affected as to what physician services

are available.

In actual fact, we have learned, Mr. Speaker, that the HIV clinic is not open

and that no patients have received any formal information from Eastern Health

regarding their medical services.

I ask the minister: Why was this information provided to the House of

Assembly before completing due diligence and verifying its accuracy?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: As I said in this House last week, Mr. Speaker, Eastern

Health runs the clinic for the HIV patients in this Province. They are the

people who are providing the services in that clinic. They are the people who

are responsible for staffing that clinic.

I had indicated to members of the House last week that, in fact, the HIV

committee had been in contact with my office. I have agreed to meet with them. I

think it is next week that we are getting together to have a discussion around

the services they had, the services they believe they need, and the services

they have access to. We will have a full discussion then with respect to the

continuation of that clinic, the services they have, and the future of physician

services to that group of people in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform the minister that I met with them this morning and

they have confirmed that the clinic is closed. With the absence of the

infectious disease specialists in the Province, with the fact that the nurse who

normally runs the clinic is on leave, the clinic has not been open and there is

no first point of contact for these patients.

Can the minister tell me, today, when the clinic will reopen, when we can see

it re-staffed, and where can these people go in the meantime?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, obviously the member opposite has had a

discussion this morning and she is sharing some information in the House this

afternoon that I hadn't heard of until she just shared it with me now.

I will undertake to provide the answer to the member tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also understand that Dr. Bowmer and Dr. Bader, two previous infectious

disease specialists from the Province, will be returning for a couple of days

every five weeks to provide locum coverage to the HIV and AIDS patients.

I ask the minister: what is the

schedule for these visits, and how will these

specialists be able to accommodate the 120 patients in the Province who need

this service, when they can only see approximately five to six patients during

each visit?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: As I have said in this House many times before, for the

member opposite to ask me a question on a clinic

schedule and how that is going

to be arranged and the number of patients to be seen, that is a level of

operational detail that a minister, whether in this government or any

administration, would not have a clear understanding of the running of any

particular clinic, whether it is infectious disease or oncology or urology.

These are things that the health authorities manage together with the physicians

who are in that practice. The day-to-day scheduling of clinics, how many they

will have, how many patients they see, what time they start, what time they end,

what time they break for lunch, all of that kind of stuff is something that the

health authorities manage daily.

Now, if the member opposite would like me to produce a copy of the current

schedule, I will undertake to get a copy of that

schedule from Eastern Health

and table it for the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister's downplaying of this issue is very unfortunate, because it is

a serious issue and one you, Minister, should be aware of and have details

around.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are being told that there should be three infectious

disease specialists for this Province. In fact, we have had one. Today, we have

neither one.

I ask the minister: Why were you unwilling to invest the resources that were

required to retain these particular specialists in the Province, as opposed to

being forced to pay out more money today to attract them on a locum basis,

providing only an interim and a very interrupted service for very sick people in

this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: When the member opposite asks questions about this

government's intention, this government's interest, this government's past

practice of investing in physicians and other human resources in this Province,

you only need to look to this most recent Budget announced in this House last

week.

My colleague stood in this House last week and announced new investments. I

think some $3 million to create some twenty-two new physician positions in this

Province. We heard an announcement in last week's Budget of additional

investments in human resources, whether it is in Child, Youth and Family

Services, in a variety of clinical programs, social workers and nurses, and

others.

I say, Mr. Speaker, this government's track record in investing in human

resources in our health system is second to none. I compare our record in the

last four years to any previous four-year period or any previous five- or

six-year period in the history of this Province. I say, Mr. Speaker, given an

unprecedented investment in health services, in human resources, and in new

people we have added to our four health authorities in the last three or four

years has been unprecedented, Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think that speaks very clearly, very clearly to this government's

commitment to enhancing health services to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, creating positions is easy, filling them is the

challenge that your government has been unable to meet.

Mr. Speaker, we are being told that doctors are projecting more surgeries to

be cancelled in the first quarter of this year than all of last year alone. We

understand that most of these cancellations are due either to a shortage of

anaesthesiologists or nurses.

I ask the minister: Does he recognize this problem, and what is being done to

address the issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I have been informed by Eastern Health that they are

currently in the process of recruiting anaesthetists. As I understand the

current status, they have two; that they are working through some details of an

appointment. They are optimistic that they will be able to reach a deal with

them in the very near future. There is another one who is currently on maternity

leave, who will be returning shortly. So if those two things work through, with

the individual returning from maternity leave, which is, I understand, pretty

much a given. The other two individuals, that they are currently very

aggressively recruiting and they are optimistic about their chances of getting

the deal signed with them in the very near future. We will have an increase of

three new anaesthetists over and above where we are now and I have been advised

by Eastern Health that that will see them through their current demands for OR

time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the past when we have had other areas of our health care system that have

been challenged, such as pathology, there has been a review done to determine

what was required to fix it, such as the Maung report.

I ask the minister, if he is prepared to entertain such reviews for some

other divisions of health care, such as urology and anaesthesiology?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I think this government, as I said a moment ago, the

commitment we have made in human resources has come about as a result of our

analysis, our digging into the issues, getting a better understanding of the

kind of human resources we need, the kind of skills we need and then the numbers

that we need.

I say, Mr. Speaker, working with the four authorities, together with

officials in my department, we have explored any number of service areas that we

have made enhancements to in the last three to four years, and we will continue

to do that. So we are working all the time with our four authorities to examine

how we might improve the service that we provide. What are the human resources,

the financial resources and the technology that is necessary to provide those

services in a fashion that provides quality care to the people of the Province,

and we will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A number of these patients who are having their surgeries cancelled in

Newfoundland and Labrador are now being referred outside of the Province simply

because they cannot wait, Mr. Speaker, to have the surgeries done at a later

date.

I ask the minister: Given the fact that the Medical Assistance Transportation

Program was not enhanced in this Budget to accommodate people who have to go

outside of the Province for this treatment, will he look at some interim

solution or interim program to help families who have to go outside of the

Province to have these surgeries done at a time when we do not have the

resources such as nurses in the Province to provide for it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think this government has a track record of making sure that people of

Newfoundland and Labrador have access to health service. We have had occasions

in the past, you may recall a couple of years ago we were not able to provide

radiation therapy here and we sent people out of the Province for that. You may

recall last year we announced - in fact, the arrangement is still in place, Mr.

Speaker. Last year we made an arrangement with a practice in Halifax, a urology

practice, who was able to help us with some challenges we had in providing

urology services in a timely fashion, and we put that in place. That arrangement

is still there, as I understand it as of this morning. We have had about four

people since January who have gone to Halifax to receive services because of

that arrangement that we put in place.

I say, Mr. Speaker, any time that we as a government are challenged to ensure

that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have access to services within this

Province we will make arrangements to have that service provided somewhere else,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After hearing the Minister of Natural Resources' comments last week about

government's bid for the Star Lake assets, our office did contact the company

to get their version of events. They stated they contacted the Premier's

office in March 2008 regarding the Star Lake asset. AbitibiBowater had signed an

agreement already with a third party for that asset, but had agreed to allow

Nalcor an opportunity to bid. It took Nalcor six weeks to submit an offer, and

that bid was lower than the one that was received from the third party.

I ask the Premier today: Were you given notice of this pending sale prior to

that March 2008 date, and were you given any notice as to the value of the bid

that was being received by the third party?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said here in the House last week, and I do not have the exact dates with

me today, AbitibiBowater did alert us that they had Star Lake up for sale and

then invited us to bid. Nalcor did its due diligence. We do that, Mr. Speaker,

before we rush off and make bids or go headlong into any kind of a business

arrangement.

When the due diligence piece was completed, they made an offer to

AbitibiBowater. I am not aware of what NL had bid for the asset.

When you get in a bidding process, Mr. Speaker, companies do not usually

disclose the amount from the other bidder, but NL did have the right of first

refusal and informed us that they were going to exercise that right, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do know that the third party bidder bid an amount of somewhere around $20

million, so maybe the minister can tell me today what the bid from the

provincial government was.

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I said here in the House last week that we

did our due diligence piece; we assigned what we felt was a fair value to the

asset. We made that bid to AbitibiBowater.

I did not release the amount at that time, Mr. Speaker, and I will not be

releasing it today.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Town of Botwood has been trying to get the

federal government to divest of its port facilities to the town for a number of

years. Now that Abitibi is moving out, there will be even more need for the town

to acquire these assets for future development and opportunity.

I ask the Premier today: Has government provided any financial commitment to

the town in an effort to secure these port facilities either from AbitibiBowater,

the federal government, or other private parties that may be involved there?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of port divesture is a matter that the provincial

government has been dealing with for some years now. As the Leader of the

Opposition would know, and many in the House and in communities like Botwood

would know, in many cases there are considerable environmental issues around

these ports. I guess it is not surprising that the federal government are trying

to divest of them.

The position of the provincial government has been, in the case of Botwood,

and continues to be with any number of ports - Long Pond comes to mind, down in

St. Alban's - that before the provincial government will consider anything

when it comes to divesture of ports, and allowing municipalities or what have

you to take over ownership of it, the environmental liabilities that are

associated with it have to be dealt with by the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Maybe the minister can tell me, in light of the situation in Botwood right

now, and the fact that all the port and waterfront facilities are owned by

different parties, is there any collective effort to have that environmental

work done? Is he aware of the time frames around it, and if it has been started

or not?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government's position has been what it has

been; it continues to be, as I just said. The federal government have made no

movements whatsoever to deal with the issue as it relates to environmental

liabilities in these ports. We have some understanding of what the liabilities

might be, but until the federal government changes their position on the

divesture of these ports there is nothing new to report as it relates to either

Botwood or any of the other facilities that are in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government expropriated the company's timber resources, and there are

certainly a number of people employed in this sector in Central Newfoundland who

are waiting to see what the end result will be for that resource.

I ask the minister: What is government's short-term and long-term plan for

the timber resource and those who have earned a living from it in the past?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when we expropriated the timber assets from AbitibiBowater, the

first area of concern for us was to keep whole the commercial operators who had

accessed fibre off those limits to keep their operations going; and, Mr.

Speaker, I am happy to say that we have been successful in doing that.

The task force and various departments within government have received

proposals from a number of proponents around use of the fibre, but recently,

last week, I did a news release alerting the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and anybody who might be interested in doing business here, that we

were doing a call for Expressions of Interest, so everybody has fair access, all

the proposals that are out there can come together, and we can do a fair

assessment on what brings the best benefit to the people of that region.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, there are three harvesting companies in Central

Newfoundland, in particular, who have had millions of dollars invested in their

operation and have been cutting wood in these areas for Abitibi for a number of

years.

Mr. Speaker, today they are not only out the financial losses of their

business but they have more than 120 employees they have had to lay off.

I ask the minister: In her Expression of Interest for utilization of that

wood, will there be consideration given to these three companies in terms of

allowing them to continue their operations in that area?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all proposals that will be brought forward out of this exercise

will be considered, and I am happy to say that in news reports last week, Mr.

Wilson one of the people who has the companies, one of the three that she

refers was very happy with the decision to call for Expressions of Interest,

and certainly indicated that he will be participating in that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also know that Abitibi and government certainly play a significant role in

silvaculture activities, and this is an area of the Province that would have had

a tremendous amount of silvaculture work taking place, and those workers have

been displaced now for a number of months.

We understand that there was a three-year agreement on silvaculture, and I

ask if government will continue with that agreement, to ensure that these

workers still have employment and that work still gets done.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, AbitibiBowater still has the obligation to continue with the

silviculture plan and the silviculture agreements that are in place and we are

insisting, Mr. Speaker, that Abitibi honour those agreements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the ferry service for Long Island and Little Bay Islands

continues to be downgraded by this government. Government is unwilling to

construct a causeway to Long Island and recently decommissioned the ferry

service to Little Bay Islands. On Friday, the replacement vessel serving the

islands broke down and residents have no clear answers when a replacement vessel

will be brought in.

I ask the minister: When can residents of Long Island and Little Bay Islands

expect to see a regular ferry service again, and will it be able to handle

tractor-trailers when that service is put back in use?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess you reap what you sow, and for too long there had been nothing sowed

when it came to vessel replacement in Newfoundland and Labrador, until this

government came into power five years ago, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: We are in the process, Mr. Speaker, of building two new

ferries for the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. As the member

said, we do have some significant challenges on the Northeast Coast right now.

The Island Joiner is down. The Hamilton Sound struck a rock last

week. If anybody wants to look out the window, they can surely look out through

their office window in the Confederation Building and see the pack ice that is

drifting down along by St. John's now. When you see ice drifting along by St.

John's, you can handy about guess what you have on Cape Freels and Fogo Island

and Green Bay.

Mr. Speaker, right now we have some considerable challenges when it comes to

ferry service on the Northeast Coast. One of our vessels, the Island Joiner ,

was escorted by an icebreaker to Fogo a couple of days ago. The icebreaker, once

ice pressure

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to complete his response.

MR. TAYLOR: Once ice pressure diminishes somewhat, we will get back to

get the Hamilton Sound . We have a new shaft and propeller for the Hamilton

Sound that is being milled right now. As soon as we can get the Hamilton

Sound over to Clarenville, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague, saying you reap what

you sow is very little consolation for the problems these people are having

today.

Mr. Speaker, both islands have representatives on government side; yet, their

silence is deafening. We have more petitions to present today on behalf of Long

Island residents because their members are unwilling to stand and represent

their constituents.

There are currently poor ice conditions, as the hon. member said, and weather

conditions can change quickly.

I ask the minister: what contingency plans are in place to ensure timely

access to medical services at the islands should an emergency take place during

the overnight hours?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will finish my previous answer. As I said, the shaft is being milled right

now. It is on location. As soon as we can get the Hamilton Sound to

Clarenville I think it is Clarenville we are bringing her and out of the

water, it will take us a day or two to do the work. Ice pressure will be the

determining factor in how long it takes for us to get the vessels back in Green

Bay, and how long it will take us to get the vessels out of Green Bay, for that

matter, Mr. Speaker.

As for our contingency plan, it is the same as it always has been when we don't

have a ferry to connect to these islands or anywhere else in the Province for

that matter. We put on a helicopter service in the daytime and, if an emergency

arises, Mr. Speaker, I assume, as is the case in any other situation, we will

depend on Search and Rescue Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the fish plant on Little Bay Islands relies on

the ferry service to ship their product. School children from Long Island must

cross the tickle to attend school every day. The need for a new ferry is

obvious. Government has announced their intention to build two new ferries and

they promised they would be in operation sometime in 2008. Yet, it is my

understanding that no fabrication work has taken place yet.

I ask the minister: When will you promise new ferries to be built and finally

put into service?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you that this government promised them a lot quicker than the

previous government promised them; let's put it that way.

Mr. Speaker, the thrusters, the engines, the propulsion systems, are here in

the Province right now for the two vessels. The contract was signed about four

to six weeks ago, I think it was; I signed the contract. It took some time to

get that finalized. We understand that steel is being ordered probably as we

speak here now. It won't be fifty-year old steel from Estonia, I can assure

you that, Mr. Speaker. It will be brand new steel from Central Canada, I would

imagine. I would expect that rods will be burned sometime in May and we

anticipate right now we will take delivery of our two new vessels sometime in

May or June of next year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the people of Little Bay Islands have asked

government to construct new docking facilities at Halls Bay Head. This would

shorten the ferry route, have better ice conditions, and provide a better

service.

I ask the minister: Is government willing to move forward with new docking

facilities and road upgrades at Halls Bay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To go back to two or three questions ago: we will ensure that the ferry on

the Little Bay Islands, Long Island run this year will be able to accommodate

tractor-trailers in order to make sure that the fish plant is operational. We

are very aware of that situation and will do whatever is in our means to be able

to provide the service to the people there.

It is understood that there will be, on a go-forward basis, a three or four

point service in Green Bay between Long Island, Little Bay Islands, Shoal Arm,

Pilley's Island. How that configuration will work itself out is yet to be

determined. There will be meetings between officials of the Department of

Transportation's marine division and the people on Little Bay Islands and Long

Island.

We are aware of the proposal from Little Bay Islands on Halls Bay Head. There

is a considerable investment required there, my understanding, somewhere in the

order of $15 million, I believe. If that was to take place, the analysis on that

has not been completed yet and will be completed some time between now and when

we take delivery of the vessel that will go on that service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers have expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

Notices of Motion

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I would like to give notice regarding

the committees for Estimates and the composition of these committees.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Government House Leader have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice, and by leave, move that the

following committees be comprised of the following members for the Estimates.

The Resource Committee will consist of the members for Bonavista North;

Burgeo & LaPoile; Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South; Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair; Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; The Isles of Notre Dame; Port de Grave;

Labrador West; and Lewisporte.

The composition of the Government Services Committee will consist of the

members for Conception Bay South; Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; Topsail; Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi; Burgeo & LaPoile; Kilbride; Port de Grave; Exploits; and

St. John's East.

The composition for the Social Services Committee will consist of the members

for Ferryland; Port de Grave; Grand Bank; Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi; Burgeo & LaPoile; Placentia & St. Mary's; Port au

Port; and St. Barbe.

Mr. Speaker, I also give notice, and by leave, will give the composition of

the different committees themselves.

The following heads of expenditure will be referred to the Resource

Committee: the Department of Business; the Department of Environment and

Conservation; the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the Department of

Labrador Affairs; the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development; the

Department of Natural Resources and the Status of Women; the Department of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

That the following heads of expenditure be referred to the Government

Services Committee: Consolidated Revenue Fund; Executive Council; Department of

Finance; Department of Government Services; Department of Transportation and

Works; and, Aboriginal Affairs; the Legislature; and the Public Service

Commission.

The following heads of expenditure be referred to the Social Services

Committee: Department of Education; Department of Health and Community Services;

Department of Justice; Department of Municipal Affairs; Department of Human

Resources, Labour and Employment and the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motions as put forward by the

hon. the Government House Leader, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motions are carried.

Motions carried.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a

bill entitled, "An Act To Consolidate The Law Respecting Revenue

Administration." (Bill 4)

Mr. Speaker, further, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled, "An Act To Repeal The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund

Act." (Bill 5)

And, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act." (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety

and Compensation Act." (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3) with respect to Private Member's Motions

and this Wednesday is Private Members' Motions for the Opposition I

would like to put forward, on behalf of the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair, the following Private Member's Motion, seconded by the Member for Port

de Grave:

WHEREAS nurses of the Province have finished a strike vote with nearly 90 per

cent strike mandate in favour of strike action; and

WHEREAS nurses are continuing to go through the collective bargaining process

with negotiations scheduled to resume on Thursday, April 2, 2009; and

WHEREAS the government's preconditions included such things as a four year

contract with concessions including extended earnings loss, market adjustment,

and classification; and

WHEREAS government held a news conference on February 12, 2009, stating that

preconditions would no longer apply to the nursing negotiations; and,

WHEREAS the Minister of Finance reinstated the preconditions as part of his

unscripted Budget Speech on March 26, 2009;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House calls upon government to remove all

preconditions before resuming negotiations with the nurses union, in an effort

to reach an agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents in my district,

and I will read it into the record because it is the first time it has been

presented.

WHEREAS the price of gasoline in zone 11 from Lodge Bay to Cartwright is

frozen at a rate that is substantially higher than the remainder of the

Province; and

WHEREAS this freeze is implemented early in November prior to all winter

stocks being brought into the communities; and

WHEREAS consumers in these regions are paying for gasoline that is still

being trucked in at the lower cost at a huge profit to oil companies; and

WHEREAS the government must recognize the ineffectiveness of this freeze and

have the Petroleum Pricing Commission act to remove the freeze; and

WHEREUPON the petitioners ask the Minister of Government Services and

government to take steps to have this freeze policy removed to ensure that

consumers in the region are no longer being gouged.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that has been sent by the people in my

district and it is being sent simply because they live in an area of the

Province that pays the highest price for petroleum products of anywhere in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there are times when the prices of gasoline alone, from one zone

to the zone they live in, which is only seventy-six kilometres, have had a

differential of up to thirty and thirty-one cents on a litre. Now, Mr. Speaker,

that is extremely high pricing of petroleum over a region that small and that

size. They have been asking through myself and through the minister for a number

of months now, to have the freeze lifted because they feel that if they were in

the same competitive pricing regime that exists everywhere else in the Province,

that their prices would not be escalated as high as they are.

For example, if you look at most zones across the Province, and there are

something like twenty-four or twenty-five zones in Newfoundland and Labrador,

you will notice that the pricing difference on gasoline, for instance, between

each zone never really escalates more than about three to four cents in a litre.

However, you get into Southern Labrador, into the area that I represent, and all

of a sudden you start seeing those differentials in prices escalating very high.

You certainly do not see the norm of the three to five cents in the difference

of a litre of gasoline. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the transportation cost between

one zone to the next zone, as I said, which is something like seventy-six

kilometres, is calculated right now at more than ten cents a litre to transport

that fuel, which is an unrealistic number. There is nothing else that is being

calculated in that cost category for transportation of products throughout that

region of the Province, so it has caused a great deal of difficulty for the

people in that area and they have certainly found that they are not getting the

co-operation that they had hoped from the Petroleum Pricing

Commission .

In fact, Mr. Speaker, in previous years, people would be notified indirectly

in one fashion or another that prices were going to go up. There were set dates

in the regulatory policy for that area, that stated that freezing on gas prices

would be implemented at a certain time during the year and that freeze would be

lifted at other times during the year.

Well, in fact, Mr. Speaker, those schedules have not been honoured. In the

last two years, we have seen situations where the Petroleum Pricing Commission

has just implemented the price freeze when they felt they wanted to do it, and

sometimes it was up to three weeks earlier than what was normally allowed for in

the regulation.

It has caused hardship for people in that area to the point that they have

asked that the freeze be lifted altogether, that they be calculated on petroleum

products in the same manner that the rest of the Province is calculated on, and

they have asked government to undertake to do that through the Public Utilities

Board and hopefully they will see that it is necessary and it can provide for

some relief on both home heating oil and gasoline products for people in that

area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further petitions.

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

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

I want to present a petition today on behalf of the residents of Long Island

and the vicinity. This is my first petition; I will read it into the record:

WHEREAS on August 5, 2003, the Department of Transportation announced that

they would build the Long Island Causeway; and

WHEREAS on January 15, 2004, government announced that the Long Island

Causeway was deferred until the Province was in a better financial position; and

WHEREAS Long Island has received a ferry service from government for the past

twenty-five years and has been very good until the ferry M.V. Island Joiner

had exhausted its lifespan and now requires a replacement ferry or a fixed link;

and

WHEREAS the causeway is more feasible for the Province than it is to provide

the ferry service already in place;

WHEREFORE we the undersigned petition the House of Assembly and urge

government to immediately undertake measures to construct a fixed link between

Long Island to Pilley's Island and Green Bay; and

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to be able to stand on behalf of those

residents, not only of Long Island but neighbouring communities in the area who

support their cause.

As I mentioned today, I know I asked questions to the minister - I think it

was in our last session and he stated very clearly that as far as they were

concerned there would be no changes when it came to the possibility of

considering the causeway to the island.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have questions today because we are hearing from the

residents in that area, who have concerns about the service they are receiving.

They have major concerns, like was noted in the questions: about emergencies

taking place overnight when they do not have a ferry service; the concerns about

the product from the fish plant being shipped across; as well as children who

have to travel back and forth each day to school. They are also asking now that

government would consider the docking facilities at Halls Bay Head - it being a

shorter route, with fewer problems with ice conditions when that time of the

year is here.

Mr. Speaker, we are presenting those petitions - one today, and I am sure

there will be many others - on behalf of those people. Maybe government will

find it in their hearts to look at the possibility of this causeway. I ask all

hon. members from that particular area, who represent those constituents, during

our Budget debate that they stand in their places and support those individuals

who have major concerns here, Mr. Speaker.

Like I said, those people have major problems with the service they have, and

they believe the most feasible way to serve their island and be less costly to

governments over the years is a causeway. So I am presenting this petition

today, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of those residents, asking government to

reconsider and go forward with plans for a causeway to Long Island.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the Budget debate.

We call Motion 1, that the House approves in general the budgetary policy of

government, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House approve the Budget Speech.

I call on the hon. the critic for the Department of Finance, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Just a few opening remarks, I guess. As anyone who is used to hearing me

speak before will be aware, my voice is somewhat different. That is because I

have a terrible head cold.

Under the rules, I am permitted to have two hours and forty-eight minutes in

response to the Budget Speech which was given in this House last Thursday by the

Minister of Finance. Anyone who watched the legislative sessions over the years,

of course, will be aware that the former Finance critic, Ms Thistle from Grand

Falls-Windsor, actually set the record when it came to responses, because under

the old rules there were no time limits. As long as you did not sit down, or

take a break, you could speak as long as you wanted. She, in fact, spoke

continuously in debate and in response to the Budget for in excess of thirteen

hours.

I do not intend we are under the new rules. The Table Officers advise me

that the Minister of Finance spoke for one hour and twenty-four minutes, which,

according to the new rules, allow me, as I say, two hours and forty-eight

minutes.

Whether I reach that or not is anybody's guess, given my physical condition

today. It is good, in a sense, because my hearing is shot as well. I flew in

yesterday from the West Coast, and as a result of the flight and the air

pressure I cannot hear anything, so that will be very good in terms of any

responses that might come from the government members. That is very good. I will

just talk as if they are not there, because I cannot hear them anyway.

The Speaker is trying to indicate something to me, but I am not exactly sure

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member would allow me to allow me to interrupt,

I think the rule states that the person who speaks immediately after the

Minister of Finance, in delivering the Budget, will get twice the length of time

that the minister took to deliver the Budget, or a maximum of three hours,

whichever is greater. Just for clarification.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I was under the impression that the rule was the lesser of two forty-eight or

three, but thank you very much. That gives me an additional twelve minutes, I

guess.

As I say, I am not certain whether I will need the two forty-eight, let alone

the three hours. It is not my intention just to talk for the sake of talking.

Hopefully, throughout the course of the time period, there will be some

opportunity to respond to what the government has done, and to do so in a it

will not, I am sure, be as cohesive a package as if you were delivering a

hand-written speech. There are obviously breaks that are going to be required in

terms of moving from one part of the discussion to another, but hopefully at the

end of the day the persons who do take it upon themselves to listen to these

broadcasts will have some indication of how the Opposition feels about what the

government has done here.

That is what it is about, because in this House there are only four members

in Opposition, so I am not here trying to preach to the converted one way or the

other not that there is any conversion likely, of course, based upon what I

say but it is my purpose and my role over the next time that I have to at

least propose some questions, provide some information. If the government

members the Minister of Finance, the Premier, or anyone else disagree

with something that I might say, I would certainly appreciate being educated and

informed if I am incorrect.

I would appreciate it at the end of the exercise if the minister, the

Premier, or whatever minister is impacted by my comments, might take it upon him

or herself to provide clarification rather than just let it go as a question

being proposed and no answers forthcoming.

The government members will all get an opportunity in this Budget debate as

well to respond. I am sure we can expect from the government members, when their

turn comes, as they should, they are going to be touting the virtues of

government and the positives of the Budget, probably on a very specific note -

for example, we did such-and-such in education, or we did such-and-such in roads

and so on - but my questions might not just necessarily be of a specific nature;

there may be some more broader themes that I would like to propose or question

the government on - in fact, challenge the government on.

That is the role, of course, of an Opposition. We are called critics, but

hopefully the criticism can be constructive, and I mean constructive in the

sense that if something is raised that the government admits is a legitimate

concern the government will propose what they intend to do about it. If it is

not based upon proper information, I would hope that the government would

educate us as to what is the correct information rather than have at least the

Opposition in the dark as to what the facts are. If there is information and

facts that we do not have, we would certainly appreciate it.

I say that because you can only discuss based upon the information that you

have. We have just for the benefit of those who are watching this is a

package of information that was given out to us by the government on Thursday.

It is not a case of the minister just stood up, had a speech, and that was the

end of it.

In terms of preparation, there are one, two, three, four, five different

volumes of information that result from the minister's Budget Speech - pretty

complex information. There is the Estimates; there is another one that talks

about all of the salary details in all of the different departments of

government; there is another one which is a copy of the Budget Speech itself;

there is another booklet which deals with the economy, what is happening in our

economy in 2009, or expected or projected to happen; and then there is a bunch

of press releases and everything that government puts out at the same time that

they deliver it as well.

This person who is speaking here, I am the critic for Finance but I am not an

economist. I am not, by training, an accountant. In fact, that is not my forte

or my liking, necessarily. I am more of a social type person, being involved in

a legal background as opposed to an accounting figures type background, so bear

with me because sometimes I might use words like accrual, cash, deficits or

whatever, and somebody might say: he hasn't got a clue what he is talking

about. I am sure the Member for Topsail, for example, who is an accountant

herself and a former Auditor General might say, no, no, no, that is not right,

and she will be shaking her head over there saying, that is not correct.

Anyway, I say that with good intentions again. If I say something that is not

correct it is not because I intend to mislead anyone, it is because I truly don't

understand, probably, the concept. I will try my best, based on the information

we have, and we will see where we go from there.

Now, the government put out its Budget, as we say, last Thursday. We all

know, as well, in the midst of the Budget we had what we call the unscripted

part, where the minister alluded to the comment about the Nurses' Union. I

will come back to that, because that was, I would think, considered

disrespectful by many in the public, as to how that unfolded last Thursday and

how the government, the Premier and the Minister, chose to do that. I will come

back to that, because that does require some further commentary.

First of all, with an overview, I guess, of the Budget itself, we, as an

Opposition who listened to the speech and who have some familiarity with how

government operates, had a chance over the weekend to look at the figures, as to

what is being spent where; the preliminary assessment, shall we say. It is going

to take us weeks, probably, to drill down to the details and find out what all

this means.

In fact, there is another process called the Estimates Committees that the

public might not see. I don't believe they televise the Estimates Committees.

This member asked, in fact, that they be televised, but the government has not

taken it upon itself to do so. What happens in the Estimates Committees, of

course, is - there are dollar signs attached to every department of government,

as well as Executive Council, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and so on.

There are a bunch of figures associated with every one of those. What happens

is, there is an Estimates Committee and a minister it might be the Minister

of Government Services, for example - would show up here in the House of

Assembly. It is not during the regular televised hours. There would be a bunch

of people on this side of the House, myself included and my colleagues and

government members as well, and we would get to drill down into the details in

the estimates of that particular department: what money is being spent in the

minister's office; what money is being spent on staff; what money is being

spent on programs; very specific things. That is where you get an opportunity to

ask questions of a minister because anyone who watches the House of Assembly

proceedings, you know that in the course of Question Period, thirty minutes, you

do not get to ask a lot of questions. In fact, the Official Opposition, the

Liberal Party, we get twenty-six out of the thirty and the third party, the NDP

gets four minutes. So you cannot ask a lot of questions in Question Period.

Also, anybody who has watched Question Period is well aware that it is called

Question Period. It is not an answer period because albeit you ask a question,

you do not necessarily get an answer. So that is why it is called Question

Period. During Question Period you normally only get maybe seventeen, eighteen

questions on an average for that time period that we have, twenty-six minutes a

day during Question Period. So that does not give you a chance, and the minister

in that response of course can tell you what he likes, but you are limited

ultimately to your twenty-six minutes, seventeen or eighteen questions a day. So

it is not a very informative process.

The only other way you extract information out of government is you go

through the Access to Information and Privacy Act. Now anybody who has been

watching the media knows full well that this government has not been very

forthcoming when it comes to information. We actually stood up here last year

during one of the discussions; we had gone as an Opposition through the Access

to Information Act to get some information about the Department of Aboriginal

Affairs. They refused the information so we got the Privacy Commissioner

involved. He went to that department and said: look, you should cough up some of

the information. What we got back was a sheet of paper, standard size writing

paper that said Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Every single thing on the page

after that was blacked out. Now that is the kind of open, accountable government

you have. Everything, there was absolutely nothing on the page except for the

Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Now, if you cannot get your information from government voluntarily, if you

cannot get your information through Question Period, the only other option you

have, another option that you have is through the Estimates. That is good,

because the minister is there then. He has all of his officials with him, deputy

ministers, assistant deputy ministers, directors and so on and you can grill him

or her, no such thing as a time limit. It says three hours but I do not know of

a minister yet who refused to go beyond three hours, but it says three hours.

Usually you try to get it done, and you can actually drill down into some of the

details. If the minister needs help he has all of his officials to help him or

her, which is good, very informative process. Besides the little nitty-gritty

details that you get in Estimates, you also get an opportunity to ask about

general policy stuff: Where are you going with such and such a policy that you

brought in last year, two years ago, four years ago? Where do you see it going

next year? What about this problem that happened to it? What are you doing to

address those concerns? The minister just does not get to give you a one-off

answer or say: Never mind, I am not going to tell you. He or she has to respond,

if they do not, it does not look very good.

That is why I would personally like to see it televised because some

ministers are very open, you ask a question in Estimates and they do not have it

and their staff does not have it available, they would say: Thank you very much,

we will get it for you. We will forward it along to you, no problem. Other

ministers are not so forthcoming, shall we say. Some of them it is like pulling

teeth.

I remember last year I believe it was, the Minister of Business sat in this

very House and we were doing Estimates and he got very upset with me. I just

asked simple questions like: Minister, could you tell me where the money for

such and such went? He lost his cool, did not want to give me the answers,

thought I had no right to ask the questions. Now I do not know if it is because

he did not have the answers or he did not like the answer he would have to give

me, I do not know, but that is not the purpose, the purpose is to be

informative.

Anyway, we will pose a few things today but we will also, in the Estimates

committee, get an opportunity to ask some nitty-gritty detailed questions as

well.

Now back to the overview. I guess the word used by the Leader of the

Opposition last week in her media interviews after she heard the Budget, her

first phrase that I heard her mention was: It is a healing Budget. I reflected

upon that over the weekend and wondered why she chose to use those particular

words. Then I read in greater detail the background of her press releases and so

on that she had and it made sense why she used that phrase. There are things in

this Budget by the way, this person here will not be totally critical, give

credit where credit is due. When good things are done it needs to be

acknowledged, confirmed and go forward. If something is not so constructive, not

so positive, that should be pointed out, not condemning anyone, but pointing it

out that it was not acceptable or it is not a good standard.

For example, the current Budget, there is no doubt there is some healing

involved when it comes to home care, no doubt about it. I will come back to some

of the details. This is just an overview sketch right now of the Opposition

reaction to the Budget.

Home care was a positive. No doubt about it. Some moves were made. Now, we

will get back into the details later about exactly how substantial were the

moves that were made, or were they appropriate moves?

Student debt. No question. I listened to the commentaries of the president of

the students' council at Memorial University. He was very pleased. Opposition

was very pleased as well, that this happened.

Some attention being paid to prison services, particularly with respect to a

psychologist and a psychiatrist at Her Majesty's Penitentiary, which will also

service the Clarenville Women's Institute as well. Very positive moves. So

healing again in that respect; healing some of the sore points, some of the

deficiencies that exist in our social structure.

The mental health issue. We all know anyone who has been paying attention

in this Province since last fall. We all know the shocking situation involving

youth mental health, not only youth addictions but also youth mental health

issues. It was very positive to see in the Budget that some move would be made

with regards to the construction of facilities for both the youth addictions, as

well as the youth mental health issues. Now, I will come back to these in more

detail later on, and of course it was positive in some of the things that we saw

happening with the Cameron Inquiry.

Justice Margaret Cameron came down some weeks ago with her report. There were

a substantial number of recommendations in it, and government has put something

to the tune of $21.6 million in this year's Budget into trying to implement

and satisfy the reports of the Cameron Inquiry. So that was nice to see. Very

positive moves, and the government should be given credit for those. Absolutely!

I would say as well, just to give credit where it is due, that the Opposition

pushed every single one of these issues. Every single one of these issues that I

just mentioned, as being acted upon by government, were raised in this House

through Question Period, and many of them, repeatedly. Repeatedly.

Now it goes to show two things. Somebody could get negative and say: well it

shows that government reacts when they are pushed on an issue. They were asked

about it in the House and they had all kinds of various interest groups who were

pushing the thing outside. Letters, meetings, complaints. They had the open line

shows that were blowing these things up, but the bottom line is they did react.

If you want to call it react or act, the bottom line is they paid some attention

to it; but, again, it was because, partly, the Opposition kept the feet of the

government to the fire when it came to these issues. It was not a case of: I

didn't hear about it; or we didn't know about it; or, if it was of any

importance, surely the Opposition would have raised it in the House. It should

have been, and we did, and it is good to see that government reacted to it and

did act towards trying to correct some of these matters.

Now, there was a lot left out. I guess you cannot do everything in one year

either - I am a firm believer in that - but some of the things that were left

out were substantial in a way that they needed and still need to be done, and

could have been done without a large infusion of cash, and a great opportunity

in this economic downtime for the government to have done them, with very few

dollars involved, and yet they chose not to. I guess that is obviously the

prerogative of a government, to choose your priorities and decide what should

and should not get done.

I was at a couple of functions over the weekend in my district and, quite

frankly, I had no problem whatsoever with the student interest piece. I thought

it was a very positive move. Someone in my district was very, very outspoken

towards me and said they did not think that was a good move at all. They did not

think it was good at all, and pointed out something else that they thought

should have been a priority. I said: Well, that is how the system works.

Government has to size up all the needs. Government has to decide what the

priorities are, and put the money there.

We will point out, as the discussion goes on today, what some of those other

areas were that members of the public were saying they felt should have been a

greater priority. For example, on the Cameron piece, there was not a very

overall positive reaction, I would not think. The lady at Eastern Health who is

moving on seemed to be very positive, saying it was a start. You know, you have

to start somewhere, but the general consensus I would think is that it is too

little and more should have come on the front end.

Now, I heard the Minister of Health's explanation as to why that could not

happen. According to the Minister of Health, you just cannot take the money and

throw it at the system and expect that it is all going to get done in one year.

There has to be a process in order to implement it at the proper stages and in

timing. It is no good to put $50 million in, in 2009-2010, if all the system can

handle and be prepared for from an implementation point of view is $21 million.

That is his explanation, but that is not what some people in the health care

system are saying, by the way. What the minister explained, that we could not

put any more into it right now because you needed to timeline it better, not

everybody in the public agrees that his statement is correct. A lot of people

who are on the inside, very familiar with what is happening, know about the

recommendations, know about the needs, they are saying: Whoa, he could have done

more. He could have done more quicker than the government has now done. We will

come back to that as well.

The issue of Central, and what is being done for Central Newfoundland - now,

the Member for St. John's West, who is the minister, he is responsible, the

Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is responsible for the

overarching committee, I would think, that deals with the government

AN HON. MEMBER: St. John's Centre.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: St. John's Centre, excuse me, who is the Minister

of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, is the chair of the government

committee that is to deal with what has happened in Central Newfoundland.

Now, the government keeps talking about $41 million being set aside to help

Central. Well, folks, if you take out the $5 million of that $41 million that

they talk about, which is coming out of the development pot, I do believe, which

is a federal funding initiative, if you take that $5 million out of the $41

million, my math tells me you are left with about $36 million. I have gone

through the list of what the government is going to do with that $36 million,

and there is not a lot there that is any different from any other year of

government operations, not a bit, if you take out the $5 million. You have money

in there for hospital construction. You have money in there for road

construction. All of that would have been there anyway, folks. That is nothing

special for Central Newfoundland. That would have been done anyway - you take in

the area of Buchans, Grand Falls-Windsor, Botwood, Bishop's Falls - so you

have to be careful when you look at the figures, because government would let

you believe that they took a whole new pot of money, $41 million, and said: We

have a problem in the Central Newfoundland Region. We are going to fix it. We

are putting our money where our mouth is.

The devil is in the details, and when you look at some of the details you

see, whoa, just a minute. Other than that community pot, the vast majority of

that would have found its way into Central anyway. So what are they doing new

about it? What new are they doing about it? Anyway, I am going to come back to

Central because that is a burning issue right now. It is probably one of the

single biggest issues we have in this Province right now, what we are going to

do in Central Newfoundland.

Quite frankly, I never got caught up in all of the rhetoric that the

government would feed you because I went through that two years ago with

Stephenville. I went through all of that two years ago, with Stephenville. The

bottom line is our pulp and paper industry here in this Island is shot, other

than Kruger in Corner Brook. It is shot on the watch of this government. It is

shot because this government did not do enough in the first instance in how they

dealt with these issues. As a result of that, two very substantial issues,

districts, regions of our Province, are suffering the brunt of it today.

Stephenville, Port au Port region in Western Newfoundland, and Central is going

through the same thing. Throw a committee at it and hope that it works.

Used as an example there. They talk about they are going to put the youth

addiction centre in Grand Falls-Windsor; just one example. A few million bucks,

they are going to go out and build a physical structure. We know we have a

problem with youth addictions. Nobody denies that we have a problem with youth

addictions. Nobody denies that we need a facility, a physical facility to do it,

but there is nothing in this Budget whatsoever, and that is where we have to go

looking for some details. I do not see any details by just reading the Budget

documents. Where are the supporting programs, services, personnel, to deal with

it once you get it built? That is one thing. Can the supporting programs,

services and personnel that you need be accessed in Central Newfoundland? For

example, anybody who has listened to the debates in the media in the last year,

or two years, the possibility of getting and retaining health care professionals

in Central, or anywhere else outside of the overpass is an amazing problem.

Are we going to be able to get the child physiologist, the psychiatrist, the

analyst, the support staff that are needed once you build the facility? Quite

frankly folks, I do not think that was thought about. The reason it was not

thought about is because this government, as part of trying to deal with the

problem in Central said, let's build a facility out there. It will create a

few jobs while we are building it. But little, scarcely any thought has been put

into how we are going to run it once it is done. Now that will be a problem. It

might not be a problem this year because they will be building it in 2009-2010,

hopefully, but it is going to be a problem in 2010-2011. I hate to say we will

be here saying: I told you so. You did not have the professional support that

you needed out there, so why did you do it, other than trying to make yourself

look good and look after the Abititi situation? So, there is a lot of negativity

out there on that move. Was it a wise move? It was a wise move to do it, but was

it wise to put it where it was? That is not to take away from the fact that the

people of Central should get as much stimulus and as much assistance as they

should. The question is, is it done in the right manner with the right facility?

That is the issue.

You talk about the infrastructure spending. The government touted its horns

two months ago and said: We are putting $800 million into new infrastructure

spending because the backside has come out of the world economically. We have to

do something to stimulate the economy here. So we are going to spend $800

million, a great thing, we are going to build roads, we are going to build

schools, we are going to build hospitals. If you just left it at that and

accepted that, you would say: Wow, what a government. They are going to spend

$800 million, $800 million. Well, we went back through the figures, got out all

of the press releases, went back as early as 2005 to find out how much of the

$800 million is re-announced money? In other words, projects that the government

said they were going to do before but for some reason did not do it. I will give

you one example.

The College of the North Atlantic school for Labrador West. I noticed the

good mayor, Mr. Letto, the Mayor of Labrador City was in the audience the other

day. It will come back to him later too because he is certainly not pleased with

the Budget. When we went back and checked, the College of the North Atlantic to

be built in Labrador West was first announced back in 2005, 2005 the first time.

Announced again in 2006, again in 2007, twice in 2008, and now we have it

announced in the Budget again in 2009. Now I do not know, maybe somebody thinks

- I always call on my friend Joe Chesterfield. That is the person out the public

who sits back and watches all this stuff on TV. Now maybe somebody thinks myself

or Joe Chesterfield fell off the turnip truck this morning but when you hear

something being re-announced for the seventh, eighth time you start to say, what

is going on here? Come on, who is pulling my leg? Somebody is telling me that we

are going to put money up in Labrador West and it is part of a quote stimulus

package because the world economy has collapsed since October of last year and

we are going to do this now as part of a stimulus package. Now, I do believe

that is playing with words a little bit. That is misleading, folks.

That was only one example. I also went through the francophone school in

Happy Valley-Goose Bay, pointed out. That was announced - the Member over

there for Baie Verte was saying the other day: Not 100, not 200, not 300. Well,

I will use his expression. He got it from a good person, the first Premier of

the Province, Mr. Smallwood, who was famous for doing that, of course. I will

say to the Member from Baie Verte: It was not announced once the francophone

school in Happy Valley not twice, not three times, not five times, and not

seven times; it was announced eight times. As recently again as last Thursday.

Eight times they told us they are going to build a school in Happy Valley-Goose

Bay.

Now, I will not go through all of the re-announced money that is in the

stimulus package. Suffice it to say that of this so-called $800 million in the

stimulus package, at most and this is giving the government its due, now,

folks; this is not taking a word back from government - out of the $800 million,

if you were to stretch it to the absolute, absolute maximum, there is about $200

million in there as to what you could call true stimulus - true stimulus package

out of the $800 million.

Now, some of the members here, of course, you have to go back to your

districts too. We all have to go back to our districts and answer the questions,

and be able to give the answers, and they are asking more questions. Maybe a few

years ago people did not ask them like they do, but I notice now on the open

line shows, and I notice the protest groups now, they are a little bit more

questioning of the government, and the members just do not get to walk in and

say: Well, this is what the Premier said, and it is all okay.

They are starting to get a bit more picky, because now they say: Never mind

what the Premier said. My question is to you. What are you going to do about?

I am hearing more of that. I am hearing it from members, actually, and as

time goes on you are going to hear more of that as a government member. People

are not going to accept that everything that you do is perfect and without

question. The world doesn't work that way.

Anyway, moving on along here to some of the positive things - as I say, the

home care, the Cameron report and what some of the disappointments are. I

notice as well, you talk about retreads. I remember being a part of the

government, I believe it was in 2000-2001, and the Premier at the time was

Premier Tobin. We got together as a Cabinet and as a government and said: We

think it would be a nice thing if, rather than everything being inside the

overpass, all the government departments and all the government jobs being in

St. John's a lot of government jobs are high-paying jobs, good benefits

associated with them, pensions, for example, associated with them. A lot of

people out in rural Newfoundland were saying: Just a minute. We all pay into the

pot for taxes. Shouldn't we have some of the government jobs out our way?

The government of the day listened and said maybe that is not a bad idea, so

they went out and looked all through the government and said: Are there a few

things that we could possibly do outside of St. John's to spread the wealth

around a bit?

I didn't think that was a bad idea. It came up on a number of things. The

Department of Forestry, I do believe, substantially upgraded out in Corner

Brook. The MCP headquarters were put out in Grand FallsWindsor. We put, at

that time at least I think it is all back now we put at that time the

Fire Marshal's office out in Deer Lake. The College of the North Atlantic was

put in Stephenville. So that was government's intent: spread it around a bit

so all the jobs weren't in one place.

Well, I will tell you, if you ever wanted to see a firestorm from the

Opposition, saying that was a crazy, crazy thing to do, absolutely foolish, you

had no thought for money and you were spending like drunken sailors to do it, up

one side and down the other side of the government because they moved things

outside of St. John's. How dare you! That is what they said.

I do notice, however, if you look at the Budget now, you start to see a

little bit of that creeping back in. It is okay, for example, because the

government lost the paper mill in Stephenville. It is okay to boost up the

College of the North Atlantic because now we are doing it for a good purpose: we

are saving Stephenville.

It is okay to boost up the manpower and womanpower out in MCP in Central,

because Central has a problem. It is okay to put the youth addictions facility

in Central because they have a problem. It is okay to do it now.

So this government, again reactionary. It was not okay when somebody else

did it as a thought-out plan to spread the wealth. It was not good enough, but

all of a sudden, wherever problems pop up, government addresses them in the very

same fashion that was unacceptable to the prior Administration.

I always thought what was good for the goose is good for the gander, but I

guess this government uses it when it is only to their own benefit, not when it

benefits the people but when it benefits their agenda and depending upon what

happened. Well, that is not good enough.

Anyway, those are some of the positives and the negatives we saw, little

trends you see developing. I am going to get into, sometime soon, a whole bunch

of detail and a whole bunch of charters that I am going to reference, because I

am going to try to be factual. As I said, if I challenge government on something

and what I am saying is not correct, by all means somebody correct me, because I

don't want my friends out in the public who are listening to this to think

that I might be saying something that is not correct. If you have a problem with

anything I say, by all means call a point of order and get up and educate us.

The Opposition's general response to the Budget was: it is a healing

Budget. It didn't go far enough in many ways. Government spent a pile of

money. There is no doubt about it, spending was up. In fact, for the first time

I believe it is roughly about a $750 million deficit. Now, deficit, by the way,

folks, was a dirty word in Liberal times. If you were in the Opposition back

then I remember, for example, back in the 2003 Budget the price of a barrel

of oil was $25. The government of the day thought they were going to have a $30

million deficit. Just get the figures now! This was only six years ago, 2003 in

the spring. The government said, we are going to run a deficit of $30 million.

We are just not bringing in enough money to do everything we have to do, for

health, education, all the social programs, justice, police protection, and

everything, so we are going to spent $30 million more than we take in. That is

called a deficit, you spend more than you make.

Well, the Opposition went bonkers. What are you doing? Absolutely moronic

actions! You can't run a government! Who is in charge of the money? Who was

spending the till? That was a $30 million deficit on a barrel of oil for $25.

Well, folks, I do believe as of Thursday this government is telling us the price

of a barrel of oil is $50 - that is what they are using in their Budget - and

their deficit is going to be $750 million, fifteen times what the deficit was in

MR. BUTLER: Twenty-five times.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Twenty-five times, for sure. But that is okay, don't

question our ability to govern, don't question our ability to manage, because

we are part of the economic tsunami that hit the world back in October. Because

everything happened in the world, and we are only one little place in the world,

we are going to be impacted as well, so we have to do it. In fact, not only

might we have to do it this year, we might have to do it again next year in

2010, but we hope that in 2011 this thing is going to be past us. Hopefully, we

will be through the storm and we will move on.

I point that out for one reason, because depending on what side of this

hallway you are sitting on here in this Chamber, something is either good or

bad. If it was a Liberal government that had a $30 million deficit, tough,

terrible managers. All of a sudden a $750 million deficit, don't worry about

it. We will fix that down the road. We have to deal with some tough times right

now.

Well folks, don't you think the tough times existed back then? Don't you

think back then when the price of a barrel of oil never ever saw $150 a barrel,

that that government of that day had the same issues? We never had a Voisey's

Bay back then. We never had Labrador City with the mining prices that we have,

but yet, still only had a $30 million deficit.

That dirty word: deficit, I will come back to that when I get into some of

the charts because that is another dirty word that found its way back into the

lexicon of the government and they tried to clean it up. It is a clean word now

or they are trying to make it look like, if not a clean concept at least a

necessary concept; not their problem, they cannot help it.

Now it is a funny thing, when we had the big budget surpluses in 2005, 2006,

2007 and this year: Boy, what a manager we are, we made all of this money in the

Province. They had diddlysquat to do with the price of a barrel of oil. We have

all of the figures here. I am going to show you all the charts.

This government never did anything whatsoever to increase the oil revenues,

not a thing. They never did a single, absolutely, solitary thing in terms of the

mining resources, nothing. The price of iron ore in Labrador City went through

the roof, the Province benefited. The price of oil went up and tipped $150 a

barrel. This government never created the price of a barrel of oil, but

meanwhile now, they took all of the credit for the money that went into the

coffers. I guess that is what governments do they say, or some would have you

believe. Do not blame us for what goes wrong but give us credit when something

looks like it is right and we are certainly going to take credit for it even if

we did not do it anyway, and that is exactly what happened here.

There are a couple of other issues that I have not mentioned yet in terms of

money in the coffers. I am going to give credit where credit is due, and that is

in respect to the Atlantic Accord, give credit where credit is due in terms of

money in the coffers with the Atlantic Accord. No question about it. The Premier

stuck to his guns. Absolutely! He drove the crowd up along in Ottawa bonkers.

Ripped down the flag, was not going to fly the flag any more, got all of the

mainlanders upset. Margaret Wente started to call us everything under the sun.

Anyway, he walked away with the cheque of $2 billion. Great move! Give credit

where credit is due. Now, what happened with the cheque when we got is a

different story. Then you have to ask yourself, okay, you did a great job when

you got the cheque but where did you put the cheque when you got it, and how

much of that cheque is left today?

I will come back to that because I think we put the cheque mostly on a thing

called unfunded pension liabilities and I think we took a large smack in the

head on our pension funds as a result, again, of something that government had

no control over. Government had no control over that. The backside fell out of

the world, economically. We lost so many hundreds of millions of dollars,

including the Accord money that we shoved into the pension funds. We cannot help

it, we are sorry but it is gone. You have to tell both sides of it. Give credit

where credit is due when you get it but then tell the full story. Where did it

go to, where is it today? Now maybe it might come back, but if it is like my own

RRSPs I suspect it is going to be a long ways out before it comes back to where

it was. Everybody I talk to, and I do not have a lot of accountants and

everybody else, I just have a couple of fellows who know a little bit about

stock markets and investing, a few banker friends, and they are telling me:

Kelvin boy, you are going to be looking at least ten years before you get back

what you lost in your RRSPs. So, I would think the government pensions is pretty

well on a par with that unless they have some magnificent advisors that are

going to get the money back sooner than we lost it. We will only see to that as

time goes on.

That is just the Opposition reaction to the Budget so far. I have lots of

time left. That is our reaction as an Opposition. As I say, some good, some bad,

but then there was the public reaction. I drove across the Province Friday

morning. I left here before daylight, got the Open Line show. I do not usually

get time to listen to the Open Line shows, actually, but when you are driving

from here to Port aux Basques it is a great opportunity to listen to the Open

Lines and see how the public, what kind of issues are on the go, what are the

current issues from all over the Province. In fact, there were people calling in

there from all over the country, the United States, and e-mails coming into the

host. This was the morning show I guess it is, with Mr. Randy Simms that I was

listening to for two hours in the morning. Also, before I got home, I got to

hear part of the Bill Rowe show which comes on again in the afternoon. I am

telling you, what an education as to what the general public felt about the

Budget. Again, to give government credit, it was not all negative, not at all.

The Open Line shows on Friday were not all negative at all. There was

commentary both ways, but what I found striking most of all was it was different

than last year. It was different than the year before. It was different than

2003 and 2004 because when the government brought down its first Budget in 2004,

the government had changed, had a new Premier. The first Budget came out in the

spring of 2004. The first thing they did was point out how bad the other guys

were, the old guys, the other crowd. They went off and got a financial report

done and showed just how bad and what kind of state we were in. They said we

have to tighten the belt now and way we go. So 2004 and 2005 was a tighten the

belt thing. Then of course, thank God, no doings of this government, the price

of oil and the price of our resources started to go through the roof, which gave

the government money to deal with. Of course they did try to deal with some of

these things. They did try to deal with some of the social needs that we had

here.

The current Minister of Justice, who was the Minister of Finance last year,

talked about the fact that we are investing in some of these social needs that

have been there for some time. We did not have the fiscal capacity to be able to

do it before. It looks like things are on the rise. It looks like we are okay

for a little while so let's try to catch up with some of these things that we

needed, both of an infrastructure nature because a lot of our infrastructure had

become dilapidated over the years. We simply did not have the money to do what

you needed to do. That is the bottom line. It is not a case of you would not do

it.

I am sure anybody in this Chamber or anybody in this Province if someone

could give you $10 billion a year and all you needed to run your Province was $5

billion, you had $5 billion to play with. That makes it pretty easy to manage.

You do not care what happens on a go-forward basis if you have a pot full of

money. You still have to be wise of course. You do not throw it at foolish

stuff, but if you have the money it is that much easier to do stuff than if you

do not have the money.

It is like somebody running a family, there might be a lot of things you want

to do for yourself and for your kids but you live on a budget. Now, surely God,

if someone slipped $1,000 a month into your family pot that you were not aware

of and it was above and beyond what you had, you could do a lot with it, and

that is what the government tried to do. The minister used the word - I believe

it was even in the headlines of the Budget Speech, it might even have had

something to do with the title, and the word was sustainability. I think that

was in the title. What the minister was getting at, of course, was he was

saying: whoa, don't go overboard here, don't go overboard with our spending,

because even though we are in the good times right now and the money is rolling

in as a result of the oil and the minerals, there may come a time when we don't

have the money. Therefore, if we go out and we crank up the public expenditures

on programs, every year we have to pay for that. We have to pay for the wages,

we have to pay for the doctors, we have to pay for the nurses, we have to pay

for the education and the teachers and the schools, the operational stuff, every

year, the programs and services.

He said, that is fine, but if we ratchet the services up and the bottom comes

out of the money bucket, what are we going to do? We don't be able to sustain

the services. Then we are going to find ourselves in a position where we have to

cut back. Politicians know what that is all about. The former Premier Wells, of

course, went through that. He came into power in 1989 after seventeen years, I

believe it was, of Tory rule. Find the books! He couldn't even find the books.

Never mind was their red ink in the books. He couldn't even find the books.

Anyway, by the time he did find out what was going on, he had to slash and

burn; rolled back wages, did it all, to try to make it fit, to try to make it

all new.

MR. BUTLER: Rolled back contracts.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: He rolled back contracts, yes, contracts that were

signed.

MR. BUTLER: Tore them up.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Contracts: tore them up. He said: can't afford to

pay for them.

The Minister of Finance last year, the current Minister of Justice this year,

was trying to say the same thing: be cautious here. It is fine to pay for stuff,

fine to have the money, but you can't create and pay for things if you can't

sustain it down the road.

I will bet you what? There is not one person in this House, there is not

one person on this Island, not one person in this country, or in this world

maybe one who thought that we were going to find ourselves in the economic

situation today versus twelve months ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, don't pride

yourself on being so intelligent, Sir. There are far more people in the world

who knew nothing nothing! about this economic tsunami that hit us;

certainly not this government, certainly nobody in this House.

The bottom line is, last year a barrel of oil was pushing about $150 at one

point; $150 a barrel. Now, what is it? Thursday, when the Budget came down, I

believe it was $52 or $53 or $54. In fact, the government reassessed its

budgets. Last year, I believe they used $85 or $87 a barrel for their estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eighty-seven.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Eighty-seven, the minister tells me, and this year we

are using $50. Reality smacked us in the head. Nobody wanted it, but we all got

it and you have to deal with it.

Driving across the Island, you want to see how the public reacted. Actually,

I did not have to drive all of the time so I could make a few notes as we were

driving. The first thing that came through loud and clear I have not heard

from anybody except from the Premier, and except from the Minister of Finance,

whom I listened to on Issues and Answers yesterday, and not a single,

solitary person agreed with the manner that the government dealt with the nurses

unscripted in the Budget. Not one! That was unanimous, folks. Forget about

whether it was right or wrong, or what the contents were, or the message. The

bottom line was there was total shock for the disrespect to the process that was

shown by the government in throwing a new wage offer on the table in the middle

of a Budget Speech. Absolute shock! The funny part was I was here watching as

the Minister of Finance was delivering it, and the minister says: I am going to

do something that is not done very often now; it is unscripted.

The Premier looked as if he were shocked. Oh, my God, what is he going to do

now? Folks, we found out later that it was not very unscripted. It had, after

all, been discussed in Cabinet that morning. That was acknowledged right after

the Budget Speech, by the minister himself, so the Premier, no doubt, knew about

it, so it was no shock to anybody. The only one who was shocked was the leader

of the nurses' union, first.

I notice today the Premier says: Well, we could not get her the message

because she was in the Budget lock-up. Well, I got messages when I was in the

Budget lock-up. They did not have the courtesy to give it to the president of

the nurses' union, to go down to her while she was in the lock-up and say: Oh,

by the way, this is what we are going to do today in the Budget. What do you

think of it? and give her some chance to prepare. They did not do that. When

the lady comes here she was an invited guest, as I understand it, an invited

guest of this House to hear the Budget, and somebody taps her on the shoulder

and says: Here is what the minister is going to say.

Now, I do not know what anybody else thinks about process but there should be

some respect for our collective bargaining process.

This is not the first time, by the way. This is not the first time, but there

is a pattern. This Premier is the same guy who meets up back of the gas station

after midnight with the former leader of NAPE, a parking lot meeting in the

dark, after hours. It shows a lot of respect for process. Anyway, that will be

dealt with. They are going back to the bargaining table now on Tuesday, I

understand, so we will see where that goes. That was the general comment that

came from everybody I heard on the open lines on Friday, and at the various

functions I attended on the weekend.

The other thing, I mentioned already the addictions centre in Central. It is

fine to do something, we need the facility, but some questions are being raised

as to the appropriateness of putting it in Central. Not to take it away from

Central, but is that the place to put it given the professional needs that are

going to be needed once that facility is constructed? Are we going to have and

be able to provide the professional care and counselling that is required,

putting it in Central versus putting it somewhere else?

I have already alluded to the $800 million in infrastructure, the so-called

$800 million stimulus, which is actually about $150 million to $200 million in

stimulus. The others are all rehashed, re-announced projects that were done

before.

That brings me to a point of there seems to be a problem with the government,

that they cannot get the money out the door. Surely God, if you are going to

build a school in Happy Valley-Goose Bay for CONA, what is the problem that you

have to announce it six years in a row and you cannot get it done? Is there some

problem that the public ought to know about? Is there some reason why that

school did not go ahead?

I notice, for example, we have had bigger projects, or at least as big: the

courthouse in Corner Brook. That was announced, bang, goes out, goes to tender,

gets started, money put in, and we have money in the Budget this year again for

it. That seemed to be the way that the projects normally should unfold, but the

government has not once taken it upon itself to explain. They are right there to

announce the stuff, but they are not there to tell you when something does not

happen, to give you the reason why. Maybe there would be no question. If we

knew, for example, why CONA could not be done in Labrador City and it had to be

re-budgeted seven or eight times, surely God that is easy enough to explain.

Surely, by the seventh or eighth time, somebody could take it upon themselves to

tell the people of Labrador City why that is not being done and let the public

know generally.

I do not know; maybe there is a problem getting money out the door. If that

is the case, I think we need to review the process as to how we get it out the

door. Is there a lack of construction companies to do it? Is there nobody

capable of doing it? Is the bidding process wrong? I do not know the answer, and

I have had discussions with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for example, and

her predecessor, the late Mr. Byrne, when he was the minister. I think

government made some good moves in terms of the timelines of agreeing to do

something, get it out to the districts and get it started, but obviously, albeit

government has made those moves to try to expedite the project's approval and

to get it done, obviously it is not being done for some reason when you have

hundreds of millions of dollars in the system unspent.

Then there is the question of all the money that the government - this was

brought up, too. Somebody ask