March

31, 2009

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 4

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we welcome the following members' statements: The

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

District of CartwrightL'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District

of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the

hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's; and the hon.

the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a recent accomplishment by a

group of students at Lewisporte Collegiate, a senior high school in my district.

The students are Denika Benoit, Landon Hiscock, T.J. Hart, David Ropson and

Meagan Gould.

These students have been participating in a provincial trivia game that was

developed by the Workplace Health and Safety Compensation, in partnership with

the Department of Education and Futures in Newfoundland and Labrador's Youth (FINALY.)

It is a game designed to educate high school students about workplace health

and safety issues. Four school districts, involving eight schools, have been

competing for over $20,000 in scholarships and prizes throughout this academic

year.

Participating schools: Exploits Valley High from Grand FallsWindsor;

Lewisporte Collegiate; Elwood High of Deer Lake; Corner Brook High; Menihek High

of Labrador City; Mealy Mountain Collegiate of Goose Bay; Carbonear Collegiate;

and Mount Pearl Senior High.

Lewisporte Collegiate students under the direction of Mr. Edmond Mitchell and

Mr. John Walsh won their first battle against Exploits Valley High on October 3,

2008. They won their semi-final game in Gander playing against Carbonear

Collegiate on February 25, 2009.

The finals, Mr. Speaker, are scheduled for May 8, at Holy Heart of Mary

auditorium. At that time, the member from Humber Valley and I will be on

opposing sides as Lewisporte Collegiate competes with Elwood High of Deer Lake

for the grand prize.

Congratulations to all students, teachers, et cetera, that have been involved

in bringing attention, in a positive manner, to the importance of workplace

health and safety.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Even as we sit here today, the bells of Parliament Hill in Ottawa are chiming

the Ode to Newfoundland over the National Capital Region in celebration of the

sixtieth anniversary of the Confederation of this Province with the nation of

Canada.

In the 500-plus years of our history as a people, Confederation represents

one of the greatest milestones that we have achieved in our Province, a union

fostered by former Premier Joseph R. Smallwood, a founding father of

Confederation who championed the cause as one of the greatest orators this

country has ever seen or heard.

Since Confederation, we have seen greater prosperity for the people of our

Province than ever before. I do not need to go through the entire list. They are

already familiar to us: social supports for families and individuals, such as

the baby bonus; income support and old age pension benefits; institutions of

higher learning across the Province, such as Memorial University, trades

colleges, and the Marine Institute; economic opportunities for our people, both

here at home and across Canada as we industrialize through the development of

hydro resources and iron ore mining, and further development of the pulp and

paper industry; transportation links within our own Province, through the

completion of the Trans-Canada Highway on the Island portion.

These improvements to our lives are very obvious to those who recall life in

Newfoundland and Labrador before Confederation. But, Mr. Speaker, Confederation

was not all about our wallets and what we can get out of it for ourselves.

Confederation was also about what we brought to Canada: a proud people ready to

contribute and to take our place within the larger Canadian federation.

In sixty short years, there is no doubt that this Province has left a mark on

Canada, just as Canada has left a mark on Newfoundland and Labrador, and we can

never forget the brave people of this Province who have fought and died fighting

for freedom under the flag of Canada, just as their forefathers fought for

freedom under the Union Jack.

My district in Labrador has particular attachment to Confederation, and voted

overwhelmingly in its favour. Those referendums were the first time that the

people of Labrador were permitted the right to vote during more than a century

of Responsible Government in Newfoundland. For the first time, the people of

Labrador felt that their opinions were valued, that they felt included which is

why today they have a strong attachment and pride in our union with Canada.

Confederation is like a marriage: no doubt there are occasional spats and

fights, we might take each other for granted from time to time and we have

periods of not speaking to each other. But, just like a marriage, the

relationship is based on lasting mutual respect for each others positions.

On this sixtieth anniversary, as the bells of Ottawa ring, I think all the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the people of Canada, should take a

moment to reflect on how fortunate we are to live in a nation with publicly

funded social programs, a country known the world over for champion freedoms and

equality for all peoples and a country that promotes peace around the world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the efforts of Jean

Thompson and her sister Marion Brett of Point Leamington for their contributions

to the Canadian Blood Services.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Thompson and Ms Brett have been volunteering with the Point

Leamington mobiles for many years, Marion as a coordinator and Jean doing

refreshments, but what is unique about their story is that recently Jean gave

her one hundredth blood donation leading her sister Marion with ninety-two.

The way I am going, another seventy-five and I will catch up with them.

Mr. Speaker, donors and volunteers are the heart of the blood systems in the

Province and in Canada and according to regional communications manager for the

Canadian Blood Services they need 90,000 new donors each year to keep up with

the growing demand for blood and blood products.

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

these two ladies for their dedication, and especially to Ms Jean Thompson on

reaching this milestone of 100 blood donations.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo &

LaPoile.

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

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Leah Prosser of Port aux Basques

on being the first local junior curler to win her way to the nationals.

Leah was a member of the Gateway Curling Club at Port aux Basques for eight

years, all through junior high and high school. She is currently attending

Memorial University at St. John's and a member of the Bally Haly Club. Her

team mates include Alysha Renouf, Kylie Power and Erin Porter.

The ladies won the provincial Under 21 competition at Stephenville in early

January and went on to represent the Province in the national Under 21 Women's

Curling Championships in British Columbia in early February. Although the team

did not win, they did make an admirable showing with each game coming down to

the very last shot.

Leah is the daughter of Richard and Gertie Prosser of Port aux Basques.

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

congratulations to Leah on being a member of the winning team for the provincial

Under 21 curling competition and a good showing at the Nationals. All the best

to Leah, her team mates and her family. Way to go, ladies!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St.

Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute

to a native of Dunville, Master Warrant Officer Donnie Marshall, who was

recently inducted as a Member of the Order of Military Merit during a ceremony

at Rideau Hall in Ottawa on February 24.

Mr. Speaker, the Order of Military Merit recognizes continuous service and

devotion to duty by members of the Canadian Forces, and is similar to the Order

of Canada for civilians.

Master Warrant Officer Marshall is an aerospace control officer, specializing

in precision approach radar controlling. He is stationed at the Aerospace

Control and Warning Operational Training Squadron in North Bay, Ontario. This

squadron, through Master Warrant Officer Marshall, develops controller graduates

who provide surveillance, identification, control and warning for the aerospace

defence of North America.

In his twenty-six years of service, Master Warrant Officer Marshall's prior

awards include: 5 Wing Goose Bay, Wing Commander's Commendation, the

Commemorative Medal for the 125 anniversary of Confederation, and An Airman of

the Quarter Award presented by the Commander of the Air Command.

During his posting in Goose Bay, he controlled an L-1011 Tristar, with two of

its three engines out, to land safely in bad weather, a feat which he describes

as his most rewarding experience.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members today to join with me in congratulating

Master Warrant Officer Donnie Marshall for the tremendous honour and distinction

of being inducted as a Member of the Order of Military Merit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, Ascension Collegiate of Bay Roberts recently was

recognized as the top school of all schools in Atlantic Canada to raise the

largest amount of money for World Vision. They were presented with the World

Vision award for raising $9,000 for World Vision during the 30 Hour Famine held

last year.

The 30 Hour Famine is an international youth movement to fight hunger. The

students fast for thirty hours and raise funds to help feed and care for

children around the world. A total of $23,000 has been raised in the past four

years. To participate, students have to raise at least $60. The students at

Ascension Collegiate have sponsored other events such as: the Helping Hands food

drive, AIDS walk, the Happy Tree, Janeway hospital and Daffodil Place.

Ascension principal, Mr. Neil Kearley, stated, "This event makes

students more aware of global issues such as world hunger and gives them an

appreciation for their own lives."

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the staff and students at

Ascension Collegiate on receiving the World Vision award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about our efforts to

encourage regional co-operation, a key initiative in our department.

Creating sustainable municipalities is a critical issue. Many communities in

rural areas are finding it a challenge to provide quality services to residents.

Regional co-operation is a way of securing improved services - such as snow

clearing, waste management, or fire services - by coming together.

This government has committed to increase regional co-operation initiatives

and assess regional service delivery opportunities throughout the Province. We

allocated $1 million in Budget 2008 to facilitate such co-operation initiatives,

and more than eighteen groupings involving over forty municipalities have

expressed interest in exploring such ventures.

I am pleased to report that under Budget 2009-2010, we will continue to

promote regional co-operation in an effort to sustain our communities. We will

again invest $1 million this year to eliminate barriers to regional

co-operation, such as disproportionate debt loads, and to dedicate resources to

facilitate discussions and negotiations.

I was extremely proud to be in attendance for the official amalgamation of

the new Town of Roddickton-Bide Arm in January. This successful merger has

further ignited an interest throughout the Province in co-operation ventures.

I commend the people of Roddickton and Bide Arm for taking the initiative to

investigate and pursue the concept of regional co-operation. They wanted a

better quality of life for the people of their communities and took the steps

necessary to make it a reality.

The residents of Roddickton-Bide Arm will see many benefits from the merger.

They will have a stronger local voice, less service duplication and great

economy of scale. Most importantly, they will have improved services

particularly road upgrading and the expansion of older water and sewer systems.

On the Avalon, we are assisting the communities of North River, South River,

Clarke's Beach, Cupids and Mackinsons to form a regional fire protection

service.

Regional co-operation is indeed the way of the future. I encourage other

municipalities to explore how they, too, could benefit from co-operating with

their neighbours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

say that we totally agree with any towns that wish to come together under

regional co-operation. We know that by coming together the smaller communities

have a better opportunity to avail of many services that are offered to some

larger communities.

I know full well how it happened back a few years ago, when the municipality

of Bay Roberts came together with Shearstown, Coley's Point and Country Road,

and the tremendous difference it has made in that area. I want to commend

Roddickton and Bide Arm for taking on that initiative now.

The minister also mentioned at the end of her statement about how they are

assisting the communities of North River, South River, Clarke's Beach, Cupids

and Makinsons with a new fire fighting service. I want to say also, minister,

that I think those communities are also considering coming together. It is not

finalized, but they are considering coming together as the one municipality. I

know there are talks ongoing about it, but the only thing, some of the smaller

communities are concerned that possibly the cost will be too great for them.

I have to say that we totally agree with regional co-operation, and hopefully

many other communities throughout the Province will come together and avail of

the services that a larger municipality can put together, rather than smaller

entities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to announce the Williams

government's latest effort to ensure safety remains the number one priority of

the Department of Transportation and Works.

I am sure many of you are familiar with the tragic story that brought the

issue of truck side guards, or under guards, to the attention of the general

public, but it bears repeating.

On December 19, 2005, twenty-one year old Jessica Holman-Price of St. John's

lost her life while preventing her ten-year-old brother from being crushed by

the wheels of a snow-removal truck in Montreal. The two were standing on a snow

bank at a busy intersection, waiting to cross the street. When the light turned

green, the truck came around the corner and caught the edge of the mound,

causing the boy to slide under the vehicle. Jessica reached for him, but she too

lost her footing and slid under the wheels of the truck. In a split-second, she

managed to push her brother out of harm's way before the massive truck fatally

injured her.

Jessica's mother Jeannette, who lives in Portugal Cove-St. Phillip's, has

been lobbying to require all heavy trucks to be equipped with side guards to

prevent such tragedies. You can find out more about her crusade on

thejessicacampaign.com Web site.

I first met with Ms Holman-Price in late January, and her story touched me,

as I am sure it touches all who have heard it. Her determination and ongoing

effort to ensure some good comes from this tragedy is to be commended.

Our government is entering the fourth year of a five-year, $50 million plan

to replace old snowplows. When our next order is placed, it will be stipulated

that the thirty plows will be equipped with side guards to prevent pedestrians

from rolling under our trucks. We anticipate receipt of these new trucks next

spring. The provincial government will invest approximately $80,000 for this

life-saving equipment. All future plow truck orders will also include the side

guard stipulation. These side guards have been widely used in Europe for years

and I encourage all governments in Canada, and those operating trucks in the

private sector to adopt this policy as well. This simple, relatively inexpensive

piece of equipment is also easy to assemble and disassemble. The bottom line is

that it saves lives and it makes sense.

Mr. Speaker, Jeannette Holman-Price, Jessica's mother, could not be here

with us today. She is in British Columbia to speak to the RCMP Chief of Police

as part of her ongoing safety campaign. Jessica's father, Mr. Peter Price, is

joining us in the gallery today, I believe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

that we are in total agreement that this is a wonderful initiative that the

minister has announced here today.

I had the opportunity to speak with Ms Price at the municipalities'

convention in Corner Brook - I think it was last fall - when she gave a

presentation to all the municipalities throughout our great Province.

Like the minister said, it was a story that will last with you for a

lifetime. I think it was only recently that the Municipality of Portugal

Cove-St. Phillip's more or less took on an initiative that their own municipal

truck will be equipped with this life-saving device. To know that someone took a

cause and was so determined that she kept this drive going and the campaign

continues today. As the minister said, the lady is in British Columbia.

We in the Opposition want to commend Ms Jeannette Holman-Price and to say

that - I guess it is a message to everyone, if you have a cause be persistent

and at the end of the day I want to congratulate the government for the

initiative that they are taking. Hopefully, as the minister said, all other

businesses and various contractors throughout our Province will listen to this

cause, listen to the campaign that is ongoing. It is all for the safety of those

people that not only live in our Province, but throughout our great country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, today is the sixtieth anniversary of Confederation

with Canada, and there have been many discussions and debates as to our place

within that union, but the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are

proud Canadians and proud of their country.

I ask the Premier today: What recent efforts have been made in an attempt to

improve your strained relations with the federal government and strengthen our

union with Canada as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank Joan Marie, I mean, I am sorry, the hon. member for her

question.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to our relations with Canada, we have done

everything we can to try and improve our relationship with the existing federal

government but we are not going to stand back and allow them to punish our

Province. We are not going to stand back and have them create an economic

stimulus package right across this country, and stimulate every province and

every jurisdiction, every territory in the country and allow them to punish us.

So we are going to state our piece.

Any time that, whether it is a federal government and happens to be a Liberal

government, Progressive Conservative government or an NDP government, we will

stand up for what we believe and we will fight for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians and we will be heard.

With regard to our relationship with Canada, we are proud Canadians. We are

proud to be part of Canada but we will not be trampled on by governments of

Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Premier appointed our Ambassador to Ottawa,

Mr. John Fitzgerald, several years ago in an effort to strengthen our

relationship with the federal government. Seeing that our relations today are at

an all-time low, I ask the Premier: Has the appointment of John Fitzgerald done

anything to strengthen our relationship with Ottawa or is it just a waste of

taxpayers' money in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, our relationship with Ottawa has not hit

an all-time low. It will get lower if they continue to do what they are doing

right now. So do not mark that as a low watermark because that is not

necessarily the case. If Stephen Harper and his ministers and the people in

Ottawa want to continue to try and nail Newfoundland and Labrador and punish us

for exercising our democratic rights, even though it may have been questionable

electing Liberals by the same token, but by the same token, when you do not have

much other choice you elect Liberals and you elect New Democrats. Having said

that, Mr. John Fitzgerald is a tremendous individual. He is a capable individual

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: He is a very knowledgeable individual. He works

extremely hard, and just recently he has visited and spoken with most of the

ambassadors in Ottawa, with respect to preventing the seal ban in Europe. As a

consequence of his hard work, I have written all the ambassadors. So, he is

doing a very good job, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation spends millions of dollars

each year marketing Newfoundland and Labrador as a destination of choice for

other Canadians, including the multi-million dollar campaigns they launched last

year, one called Fresh Air, I think, and the other one called the "Find

Yourself Here" campaign.

Well, Mr. Speaker, given the fact that we still find ourselves here in a

Confederation with Canada, would it not have been a good opportunity to

highlight some of the positive outcomes of our union and to bring a little fresh

air to our relationship with the federal government through our Department of

Tourism?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the focus of our ad campaign, as everybody

can see - it has been internationally acclaimed, it has been nationally

acclaimed, and it has won all kinds of awards - is building on our strength. It

is building on what we are all about. It includes the fresh air of our Province,

it includes the clotheslines, it includes the beautiful communities, it includes

the wonderful names, and it includes the beautiful view-scapes. We are selling

what we are all about.

That is why we, as a government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

take such pride in those ads. That is why people all around the world have taken

notice of those ads. That is why other jurisdictions and other territories are

copying those ads. Because they represent what we are all about as a people. We

don't have to sell our relationship with Canada to sell who we are as

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The diamond anniversary of Newfoundland's Confederation with Canada is

obviously not even an event worthy of comment by the government opposite, and

that was apparent in the Throne Speech only last week.

Mr. Speaker, the government is planning a celebration this year, a huge party

across the Province to celebrate another important event in our history and that

is the legacy of Bob Bartlett.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, if the government would consider adding the 60th

anniversary of our union with Canada as a part of those celebrations as we go

through them this summer.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have a celebration in

this Province, we will celebrate our pride, we will celebrate our strength, we

will celebrate our determination, and we will celebrate our resilience. We will

celebrate the resilience of the people of the Port au Port Peninsula and the

people in Stephenville. We will hopefully be able to celebrate all the people in

the Grand Falls-Windsor and surrounding areas.

Interesting enough, I heard the Leader of the Opposition last night on Out

of the Fog she was also on CBC - and I heard her say how we should

change our mind about the addictions centre in Grand Falls because maybe there

is not enough support around the area to support an addictions centre. She also

said we should also reconsider relocating people for the home heating benefits

from Grand Falls.

So you do not even support Grand Falls-Windsor and Botwood and Badger and

Bishop's Falls trying to get ahead. You said exactly that. I was absolutely

horrified and amazed that you would even say it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - but you said it, and you do not want Central

Newfoundland to prosper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not use my time to debate that with the Premier in Question Period but

he can go back and read my transcript and he will know that is not what I said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has recently stated that the Province will go it alone in trade

negotiations with the European Union because Canada will not serve the Province's

best interest at the table.

I ask the Premier: If this is your government's position, why did your

former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture send a letter in August to the

International Trade Minister expressing his strong support for the federal

government's bilateral trade negotiations with the European Union?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, because at that point they

had not shafted us again for the third time when they turned around and took

away over a billion dollars from us. In all fairness to the minister at that

particular point in time, he was indicating that there were good relationships

with Europe; but from my perspective and from our government's perspective and

from that minister's perspective, who is an experienced Fisheries Minister, we

are going to stand up and we are going to protect the fishery in this Province.

We are going to protect the seal hunt in this Province, no matter what the rest

of the world thinks about it, and we are going to continue to do so. That means

that we are going to have to stand up and we are going to negotiate alone with

Europe. We will do so because we believe in the culture and the heritage of this

Province. We believe in those industries. We make apologies to nobody. If we

want to change our mind after the federal government have gone out and shafted

us, and we believe that we cannot trust them, then we do not trust them and we

act on our own and we go it alone!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: So, Mr. Speaker, it was never about Canada's position at the

European Union. It was never about Canada's strength to be able to represent

Newfoundland and Labrador. The Premier has confirmed it was all about the fact

that they had shafted you, as you say, once again, and therefore it does not

matter if we throw out all the good with the bad. That is what I am hearing, Mr.

Speaker.

The minister wrote in his letter - the former minister, who is currently

today the Minister of Transportation and Works "We strongly endorse

your commitment for bilateral agreements and look forward to working with the

federal government to achieve a bilateral agreement with the EU."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Given that statement, given the fact that in August you had the

confidence in their ability to be able to respond to this issue, are you now

going to work with them to ensure that it happens?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have stated all along, and we continue

to do so, we believe in free trade with Europe. We have traded with Europe for

over five centuries. We believe in it, but we are not going to allow a Prime

Minister who works contrary to our interests to go over there and do a deal on

our behalf whereby he will not deal with tariffs, he will not deal with quotas,

he will not deal with the seal hunt, he will not deal with issues that are

important to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We will go back to the age-old trading whereby they will trade away our

quotas, they will trade away our fish, and they will trade away our jobs in

Newfoundland and Labrador, in the interests of Canadians on the Mainland. We, as

a government, will not stand for that, believe me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know today that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is in Ottawa

meeting with representatives of the European Union, looking for allies to

support the seal hunt and oppose the EU ban on sealing products.

I ask the Premier: Has government had any discussions or correspondence with

our fisheries ambassador, Loyola Sullivan, regarding this issue, and what role

he is playing in these discussions?

MR. SPEAKER: Order,

please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, as Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and my colleague,

the Minister of Natural Resources, both participated with Ambassador Sullivan on

what can be best characterized as a bit of a junket to Europe last year and the

year before.

On both occasions, the federal government assured us and the delegation - the

delegation that I was a part of, and I am sure the delegation that the Minister

of Natural Resources was a part of that Canada would stand up to protect

Newfoundland's interest in the seal hunt in the face of a proposed European

Union ban, and that they would initiate action under the World Trade

Organization.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where Mr. Sullivan is now, unless he has gone to

initiate action under the World Trade Organization. We have not laid eyes on him

or the issue of the seal hunt with the federal government since.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, as the seal hunt prepares to open, there is much

uncertainty regarding market conditions and prices.

I ask the Premier today: Do you have any indication as to what the marketing

and pricing conditions will be facing sealers this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say precisely what we expect conditions

to be at the seal hunt this year, only to say that every indication is that

prices will be far lower than they were in the previous couple of years.

Indications are, out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, out of Quebec, that prices

this year are somewhere in the order of I have heard, anyway - $30 a pelt.

That includes some level of subsidization by the Quebec government.

Mr. Speaker, the market appears to be very soft and I would anticipate a very

low uptake in the hunt this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the last election the Premier raised a long-standing interest

regarding the Province's establishing its own fisheries research vessel and

facilities. In light of the recent news that the Canadian Centre for Fisheries

Innovation in St. John's is on the verge of closing, I ask the Premier today:

Will you please provide us with an update of your interest in establishing our

own research initiatives and research vessels in this Province, as was promised

in the last election?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would have to say I am not sure if the hon. member would be aware of

this - I think in large part the reason why the Canadian Centre for Fisheries

Innovation kept going for the better part of the last year or two was as a

result of a considerable amount of money that was identified by the provincial

government through the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development,

and the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. We wrote to the other Maritime

Provinces, and Quebec and Nunavut, to ask for their participation in a

cost-sharing formula with the federal government.

My understanding, Mr. Speaker - the last I heard on it - was that some of the

other provinces and jurisdictions had indicated their willingness to support

that initiative on a go-forward basis, but it appears, Mr. Speaker, that once

again the federal government have walked away from funding initiatives here in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister can give me an update, then, on your commitment and

promise to the people of the Province to look at research vessels for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can report that there have been significant discussions over

the course of the past year-and-a-half or thereabouts, since we made that

commitment in our Blueprint back in the fall of 2007. As anybody who is

knowledgeable of fisheries research would know, and oceans research, you have to

put together a research program before you determine what your vessel will be.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with those who are knowledgeable in

the ocean sector in Newfoundland and Labrador, including fisheries researchers,

including the Marine Institute, Mr. Glenn Blackwood and company, officials in

the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and the Department of

Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time when we have our ocean sector strategy

more fully developed, and in consultation with the Newfoundland and Labrador

Research and Development Council, we will put our money where our mouth is and

get an appropriate ship to conduct research in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, while government continues its monitoring activities of the Joir

River caribou herd, the Quebec Innu are killing the animals to extinction. The

minister stated yesterday that it was too dangerous to act to protect the

animals, and they would monitor instead. The same situation has been occurring

over the past number of years, and all government has done each year is monitor

and document the killing of these endangered animals.

I ask the minister: When is government going to act to protect the remaining

few animals left in that particular herd?

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is true, we have a very sad situation that has developed in

Southern Labrador over the last week. We have forty-five hunters hunting caribou

amongst a snowmobile group of at least seventy-five snowmobiles, demonstrating

very dangerous behaviour. We have100-plus women, children and elders in that

area and up to this point they have taken just about half the herd, over forty

animals.

Mr. Speaker, we have been involved with this particular group of Innu hunters

since 2004 on a regular basis, educating them as to the status of these animals,

underlining the importance of protecting these animals, and asking them not to

engage in the hunt. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that plea has fallen on deaf

ears.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Falling on deaf ears, I would submit, is not good enough. Mr. Speaker, the

rights of the Quebec Innu to hunt do not override the legislative powers of

conservation and safety. We have numerous incidents where conservation officers

have participated in dangerous operations here at home, to protect fish and

wildlife. It will be too late to protect the Joir River herd once they are

decimated to extinction.

I ask the minister: Besides documenting and watching these animals being

slaughtered, do you have any plans developed to protect the remaining herd?

MS JONES: For three years you could not even negotiate (inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the Leader of the Opposition talking about, over three

years we did not have the ability to negotiate an agreement.

There is no political agreement, or no agreement on rights, that is going to

trump conservation, Mr. Speaker. Conservation overrides every other right.

We want to protect this herd, and I can give a list of activities that we

have undertaken, even to a point that the Grand Chief of this Innu group is a

member of the Woodland Caribou Recovery Team. They are well aware of the status

of these animals; but, as important as these animals are to all of us, Mr.

Speaker, not all of them are worth the life of one of my conservation officers

and I absolutely refuse to put them at risk.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The minister's diplomacy is not stopping the bullets. Government cannot

just sit back and watch the Quebec hunters come into our Province. We talk about

standing up for ourselves as a Province in this very Legislature today. They

cannot be permitted to come into our Province and wipe out an entire caribou

herd.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am sure it would not be tolerated if it were the

other way around.

I ask the minister: Have you at least even spoken to the Labrador Innu or the

federal government, as part of this diplomacy, to see if we can start some

tribal negotiations even to stop this slaughter?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government's involvement with Quebec Innu hunters is well documented

since 2004, Mr. Speaker. Only earlier in March we had a meeting with Chief Lalo,

before she went to the hunt, telling her about the status of these caribou.

As I have said, we have membership on the recovery team, the caribou recovery

team in Labrador. We have contacted the Quebec government. We constantly preach

conservation. It has been a regular subject of this government in all kinds of

discussions, both through my department and the Department of Environment and

Conservation, about the importance of these threatened animals.

It is a very volatile situation, Mr. Speaker. It is a wonder that an Innu

hunter, or one who has participated in this hunt, has not been harmed. I am

certainly not going to put human life at risk to protect the caribou.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I suggest, Minister, if you had done your homework

and done the job we would not be in this situation today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, last April we requested information on

the Province's inland fish and wildlife program. After information was

refused, we appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who recently

chastised government for refusing, saying that they should have released the

information.

I ask the Premier: Why did government refuse to follow its own legislation

and, instead, blocked access to information that should have been released with

respect to the Inland Fish and Wildlife program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that all information that has

certainly been requested from my department and from the Department of Justice,

where the inland fisheries officers operate under, all of the information that

we have has been provided. I cannot provide what I do not have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, government commissioned retired Justice

William Marshall to conduct a report of the Inland Fish and Wildlife program

back in 2006. In April of 2006, Mr. Marshall wrote the Premier to advise him

that his report was over 100 pages long and contained many recommendations to

improve the program. He called it a preliminary report, the 100 pages. He stated

that the final report would follow.

I ask the Premier: What is the status of these reports and why were they

never released to the public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I have not received a report from Mr.

Marshall. The Premier has not received such a report. The Department of Justice

has not received such a report. If we had it, we would have released it. We do

not have it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

At least we have it confirmed now, that there was no follow-up final report

from Justice Marshall, and we are three years out now.

Mr. Speaker, in a letter to the Premier Mr. Marshall states that his final

report will outline in detail the problems with the program. However, he

suggests in his preliminary report immediately implementing certain

recommendations, or the entire Inland Fish and Wildlife program would be eroded

and eventually collapse. Now, this was in 2006 he said that.

I ask the Premier: Can you outline what actions government has taken since

2006 to remedy the problems that Mr. Marshall identified in 2006?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Most people are not aware that from the conservation officer core that

resides within the Department of Natural Resources, a significant number of

those officers go over to the Department Justice in the spring of the year where

they participate in the inland fishery program.

Mr. Speaker, like any other ministry that I have been involved in, I am very

aware of the structure of the department, of relationships within the

department, the importance of having a respectful workplace. From time to time,

issues occur in various branches of the department and from time to time they

have occurred with our conservation officers and with inland fishery.

I am happy to say that the program is doing very, very well and there are no

significant issues that, certainly, have risen to my attention in the past year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

This is the same program that supposedly is looking after our caribou herd up

in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, much of the information contained under our access to

information request remains blacked out. We have been forced to file a second

request. In fact, it was recommended to us by the Privacy Commissioner that we

go back with a second request, because of what government had done, to ask for

the censored information.

From what we have seen, there appears to be a reason why government is

withholding this information. One of the statements made by Mr. Marshall is that

the program is being mismanaged his word, not ours and this has led to

significant tension and anger amongst officers.

I ask the Premier: What is being done in the face of Mr. Marshall's

comments, to address these concerns?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I can only repeat my answer from the previous question. There are

always human resource issues that arise from time to time within departments. We

spend a great deal of time in the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency addressing human

resource issues, doing everything we can to ensure that there is good

communication amongst our workers and with management and that we always,

always, all of us, do everything we can to ensure that we have a respectful

workplace. I can only report that the program is working very well and I am very

pleased with the way that the two departments are working together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister is not tuned in to

what Mr. Marshall did say back then.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Marshall stated in correspondence to the Premier, that 2006

correspondence that he had and I quote: troubling image of an area of the public

service with the potential of imploding on itself. He cited 2005 as a year of

failure for the program because now, this is the Premier's pet project,

which was to take over enforcements, which the feds were not doing.

I ask the Premier again: Is the inland fisheries program because we have

not heard anything we have heard today from Mr. Marshall since. We have not

heard anything having been done from the minister since 2006. Is the program

still intact, or is it on the verge of destruction?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, in 2006 I was not minister of this

department. I have only been minister in the past three years. I will have my

anniversary this summer.

The inland fishery program and my conservation program are certainly two

areas that I am particularly interested in. I cannot speak to the particular

circumstance in 2006, but I can tell you that I am very happy with where the

program is, I am very happy with the way that the Department of Natural

Resources and the Department of Justice interact and co-operate with one another

and how we work really well together in the delivery of this program. I think

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can be very happy with the service that

is being provided by these officers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Marshall also ignites the debate about whether the Province should

co-operate with the federal government in a combined effort of Inland Fisheries

Enforcement. As a matter of fact, he seems fixated that that co-operation with

the federal government on enforcement issues, and I quote from him again:

Undermines your policy initiative - referring to the Premier - and should be

stopped because they tried it, co-operation.

I ask the Premier: Has this co-operation between the federal and the

provincial enforcement officers in fact ceased, and if so, was this decision

taken simply because working with the federal government personnel would have

undermined your policy, as Mr. Marshall indicated?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In 2006 the Inland Fish Enforcement aspect of inland wildlife was transferred

to the Department of Justice. As the Minister of Natural Resources indicated,

every year in the spring conservation officers come over to Justice, a part of

the Inland Fish Enforcement Program. The program has been extremely successful

and has operated successively for the past number of years.

I can also tell the hon. member that there is co-operation between our

conservation officers and the federal officers. In fact, our conservation

officers have been designated to conduct prosecutions under the federal

legislation as well as our own. So there is co-operation. The program is running

very well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The minister of non-answers again. It seems like we have shifted from Natural

Resources to the Minister of Justice, neither one chose to address any of the

six questions that have been asked. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my questioning

in that area.

From the officers that we have spoken with, and we have, Mr. Speaker, there

is certainly anger and frustration with the programs. It is not all rosy as the

minister says. We have the phone calls to prove it.

In an e-mail sent from the former Clerk of the Executive Council to the

Premier's Chief of Staff in 2006, it stated, and I quote: It is understood

that the final Marshall Report may recommend a more far-reaching reorganization

of the wildlife enforcement and Inland Fisheries Enforcement programs.

I ask the Premier: We know that there remains major morale problems within

this program, what is being done to help the staff?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say what will be in Mr. Marshall's

final report or when we are going to receive the final report, but I am charged

with a responsibility, as is the Minister of Justice, in the delivery of our

programs, both with conservation officers and inland fisheries, to provide a

specific service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are doing that,

the program is working really well. We often have human resource issues. We are

paying attention to what our employees are saying, and we are doing our very

best to resolve any issues that may exist in the workplace.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for Questions and Answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

Order, please!

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for the District of Port de Grave. I

ask other members to take their conversation outside.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say, happy sixtieth anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present another petition on behalf of the

residents of Long Island with regard to the causeway. I have a number of those

petitions, and I agreed that I would do it as the critic for Transportation.

As I stated yesterday, Mr. Speaker, back in 2003 the department, under this

government, announced that they would build this causeway. In 2004, the then

minister, Mr. Rideout, said that it would only be deferred, and it would be done

after the financial position of this Province became a little bit brighter. I

don't know; maybe that is why he got the boot as well, because he agreed to

build this causeway. I don't know, Mr. Speaker, but those people had a service

for twenty-five years and they need a replacement of a ferry service.

They have been told by the minister that a causeway will not be built, and

they have major concerns with regard to the safety of the individuals, if

something should happen in the evenings when there is no vessel on their side.

Their children have to travel back and forth, Mr. Speaker, and they are also

concerned about the products from the fish plant being transported over. I

understand that the ferry that is in place now, I have been told that the

transport trucks, it is going to be difficult to travel on that particular ferry

that will be there from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents I present this petition and hopefully

government will have a second look at this causeway. They are saying that they

will not; but, who knows? They may change their mind. Then again, at least they

should be provided a service so that their children and the services that they

need, medical services, will be provided to them, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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 call from the Order Paper the motion put

forward by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to move that

this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, the

Budget Speech, and continue the debate we started yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Picking up where we left off yesterday, I still have a head cold and

fortunately I still cannot hear the members opposite, which is very helpful when

you are giving a presentation here because sometimes the heckling tends to try

to distract you, so it is very helpful. I don't have to listen to them,

actually.

Anyway, we had a pretty good discourse yesterday. It lasted about three

hours, pointing out some of the things that we thought were positive in the

Budget, and some of the not so positives, or missing things, I would think, that

were in the Budget.

In fact, I never had as many e-mails for anything that I have said here in

the House. I was surprised, actually. I was surprised, and I am going to refer

to some of the e-mails today in the course of my speaking because I actually

printed some of them. It was interesting, some of the questions that came

forward. Some of them, by the way, were very good questions. I had one from one

gentleman who was talking about the Voisey's Bay deal. It was the first he

ever heard of some of the details that were discussed yesterday, so he had some

questions and he wondered if we could elaborate on them, and I took the

opportunity to go back and elaborate upon them with him. Of course, I still have

not had a chance to answer all of them. There are still some more there, people

who want some information, and as time permits I will certainly be getting back

to them as well.

It was a very, I thought, learning experience for myself as well because you

hear about all of these things when you are sitting in the House, or when you

are getting ready for Question Period or you are debating a certain piece of

legislation, but you do not often get the opportunity to sit down and try to

bring it all together, whether you are talking about a Voisey's or a Lower

Churchill or an Upper Churchill or a fishing industry. To do it all in the

context of a government budget, and not only where we are going in that snapshot

in time, based upon the Budget for 2009, but where we might be going on a

long-term basis. Because the Budget it an estimate document; it is projections.

The government uses the best information that it has available and makes certain

projections as to what they are going to spend on certain programs and

servicing, debt financing and so on, and come up with figures, and at the end of

the year we get the actuals. So, we have the actuals in this Budget for last

year, we have the projections for next year, and on it goes and we will see what

actually works out.

One of the most important, of course, figures in the Budget is the fact that

the government has relied in its projection upon the price of a barrel of oil

being $50 a barrel. Last year, I do believe, it was $87 a barrel. Of course, it

is so volatile in the oil industry. Last year the government used the figure of

$87 and, as we all saw, it went, I believe, close to pretty near $150 a barrel.

MR. T. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, on a point of order.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I have to do this, Mr. Speaker.

The estimates of the oil last year were $86.87. Although the price did go to

$150, I have to say that, as the Minister of Finance announced in the Budget,

the actual for the year averaged $86.44. Not too bad.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

It was a good point. I would agree it was a good point, because it is nice to

have the information. There is so much detail here you have to drill down. I

pointed out yesterday, there are six volumes of information we were given on

Thursday. It is very helpful when the former Minister of Finance stands up and

says what the actuals turned out to be. It just goes to substantiate the point

that I was making, that government estimated $87 a barrel, and it worked out as

high $150 a barrel. Of course, the minister didn't come up with that average

without taking into where it went for the latter part of the year. We hit down

as low as $30 a barrel. I said yesterday, when we were speaking, actually that

we were in the range of $52 or $53 a barrel, only to find out when I watched the

evening news that it was actually $48 a barrel yesterday. It is very, very

volatile. It can jump $2, $3, $4, $5 in any given day.

I tried to tie that in with showing just how difficult it is for any

government to base a document, to base its spending for any given year, on a

certain figure when you see how volatile that figure can be. Even over the

course of six months we can go from $150 a barrel to $30 a barrel. That is

pretty volatile. That makes it very difficult for forecasting purposes, when the

government tries to say, this is where we are, this what we want to do, this is

where we hope to be next year, and this is what we are estimating.

We are all subject to the whims of the world when it comes to things like

volatile pricing. That is just in the oil industry. We had similar type pricing

declines when it came to the mining industry. We make a lot of revenues in this

Province from our mining industries in Labrador, for example, in Lab West and

Wabush. As anyone knows, who follows it, the prices hit the bottom in that

industry as well last year, and all of it impacted our Budget. I do believe we

did have a substantial surplus at the end of it all, because it did well on the

front end of the year and didn't do so good on the back end of the year. The

Province still managed, because of the good prices we had overall, to do pretty

good in terms of a surplus. Can you imagine what we would have done if the

economy had kept chugging along the way it was back in April of last year, or

June of last year even, with the price of oil well over $100 and the mining

industry on very solid footing, and we hadn't been hit yet by the economic

meltdown.

It is exactly those whims that we live with in the world economy that

governments have to contend with. One of the points I was trying to make

yesterday is, you can't be so cocky as to think that what we have today it

going to be there tomorrow. That is where planning comes in, and that is why the

Auditor General, for example I pointed out and read his comments yesterday,

from his 2009 report says, be a bit cautious here. We are relying upon very

volatile revenue streams. That was pointed out by him.

The government this year, of course, scaled back. They said, okay, given the

circumstances of this year, we are going to go with $50 a barrel. I hope it goes

back, for the purposes of the provincial Treasury, to $150; but, of course, that

has some negative impacts for people as well because that, in turn, drives up

the price of oil and that affects everybody negatively as well. So you have to

be careful, sometimes, what you wish for. We would all like to have that good

balance whereby we get what we need to provide for the services and programs,

and hopefully it does not have too many negative impacts upon the rest of

consumers as it goes.

I did get one e-mail from a gentleman yesterday. He congratulated me on the

comments that I made, and particularly he was not aware - because he has heard

so much in the media the last five or six years about all the revenues, he said:

I completely forgot where the revenues who put it there in the first place.

He said: It is only once you started to relive the thing and re-describe it that

I realized in fact that it was not Progressive Conservative government creations

that put that there.

I am referring, of course, to Voisey's Bay, which this government had

nothing to do with whatsoever. I am referring, of course, to White Rose, which

the government never created. This government never created that. Terra Nova,

this government had nothing to do with the creation of that project. Hibernia,

this government certainly had nothing to do with the creation of that project.

That is what our surpluses have come from in the last three or four years,

folks. It did not come from any magic wand that this Administration waved and

all of a sudden the money pot filled up. They had nothing to do with the price

of a barrel of oil. They did not influence it one iota. Now, they might make you

believe that they had something to do with it, but they did not have anything to

do with the price of a barrel of oil. They did not have anything to do with the

price of the mining, the mining industry.

MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I hear the Minister of Finance shouting.

I am glad he is here today, and he will get his opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: He will get his opportunity, Mr. Speaker. I put out a

few challenges yesterday, and he can certainly read Hansard. He was unable to be

with us, for valid reasons. Anyway, he has answers. He can get his comments in

due time.

That is the one great thing about this House: there is a place to always get

on your feet and explain yourself and say what you want to do. You can always do

that.

Now, it is not like a courtroom. Some people think they are still in

courtrooms.

MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognized the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Maybe you should remind the Minister of Finance of that, Mr. Speaker. I think

he thinks he was the only lawyer who ever practiced law in Newfoundland, but

what he does not understand in this forum here is that these witnesses talk

back. They do not shut up because he says shut up. These witnesses talk back,

Mr. Speaker. He has learned that over the last couple of months that he has been

here, and he will learn it as time goes on.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we can have some talk here on something that really

matters. When I was speaking yesterday, I went through the comparisons and I had

my little chart done up showing about the increases in government expenditures

in the last number of years, and the whopping number that we had was that

government programming has increased by 76 per cent in the last six years. Now,

the only way that figure is going to roll back is if stuff starts to get cut.

That is there; that is fixed. Every year, year after year, the government uses a

fancy word called annualized. That is in the figures to stay, and the only way

they are going to go back is if the government says we are not going to have

some programs now, whether it be the programs that get cut or the personnel

involved with the programs get cut, and so on. That is the only way we are going

to lessen those expenditures on a go-forward basis, and nobody wants to go there

folks.

We saw that back in the 1990s. We had contracts that were overwritten by the

Wells' Administration. Nobody wants to go there when you see program cuts.

When this government came into power first in 2003-2004 we saw program cuts,

services being reduced. Nobody likes to be there, but it happens if you do not

have the money.

All we were trying to make the point yesterday was to saw it is great when

you have the money, but when you do not have the money what are you going to do

then? That is the problem; or, do you have some alternatives in mind to put more

money in the pot if the current money dries up? For example, what if you do not

get your money from your oil? What if you do not get your money from your

minerals? What are going to do to make up for any shortfalls that you might

have?

That is when you look at the government and say: What are they doing to see

where they might make up any such shortfalls in revenue? That is the bottom

line. You are left with two choices. That is not rocket science. You have

revenue stream coming in; you have expenditures going out. If your revenues go

down, you are either going to cut the expenditures - which is nasty to people,

people do not like that, nobody likes to get their services and programs cut -

or else we have to find some way to put the extra money in.

The history in six years has proven and shown that this government has become

totally, absolutely, single-mindedly relying upon the monies from the oil and

the gas - or, not the gas, we do not even have that yet, but the oil and the

mining industry. The question is: What are they doing to prepare the people of

this Province for when that does not happen any more?

We gave some credit yesterday, too, because a few things have happened in a

couple of these major projects that have happened on the watch of this

government. I referred, of course, to the Hibernia South piece that is going to

go ahead. That is going to give us a bigger reserve in Hibernia and stretch that

out a bit. We are also going to have an expansion in White Rose. That is going

to stretch that out a bit. We are also supposed to have Hebron; but Hebron,

folks, is not going to put one red copper back into the Treasury of this

Province until at least 2017 on a royalty basis, not a penny. We are eight years

out from any money coming out of Hebron. Obviously, we are going to get some

work in the economy if it gets ramped up and it goes from a production point of

view, but not from the royalties itself, and this government is pegging our

well-being on the royalty revenues. Basically, primarily, that is where it is

being pegged.

You talk about the good Minister of Finance here. I have a little clip. He

talks about reading Hansard and stuff. Well, I have a little clip from his

presentation yesterday. He was in Corner Brook and spoke to the. Excuse me; I

will go back to this one first. This is the one where he spoke to the Board of

Trade here in St. John's on Friday past, the day after the Budget. He told his

crowd, his audience at the time - and I am sure the former Minister of Finance

might be interested in this remark - and I quote, "Kennedy told the crowd

his background as a lawyer gives him a different perspective to budget-making

than other finance ministers."

I am assuming he did not take into consideration the Member for Humber East,

who is also a lawyer. I am assuming he did not take that into consideration.

This is why he said that he was in a better state - I take it to be - to be a

Finance Minister than some other professions. He said he was a lawyer and it

would probably give him a different perspective - no doubt he thinks a better

perspective - to budget-making than others. This is what he said, and I quote,

"I still believe strongly in all of these social programs. I still believe

we have to protect the vulnerable of our society, but as a finance minister now,

I have to bring objectivity to this task. An objectivity that requires making

tough decisions. Those tough decisions will not please everyone."

Now I do not know, for the life of me, what being a lawyer has to do with

being objective. Whether you are a doctor, whether you are an economist, whether

you are a mechanic, whether you are a barber, whether you are a school teacher,

whether you are a chiropractor, whether you are a dentist, I do believe that any

and all of those professions - and you do not even have to have a profession -

is capable of being objective. I think objectivity does not rest in one form or

another; it rests in the person. It rests in the person. Just because you are a

lawyer, you are able to make an objective decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Now, we also had a clip from the good minister's

conversations with the people on the West Coast yesterday. He had a meeting out

there yesterday.

This came from reporter, Cory Hurley, Transcontinental Media, Corner Brook,

where the minister spoke yesterday. It struck me that after the meeting the

minister was asked - he talked about the $2.5 million being allocated by

government this year to assist the college with its transition to greater

autonomy. Meanwhile, we are all aware that transition, that decision to give Sir

Wilfred Grenfell College university status, was decided upon by government some

years ago. I do believe it was at least three years ago that decision was made.

Now we get $2.5 million being put in this year's Budget to assist the college

with its transition to greater autonomy.

The reporter had a good question, a fairly straightforward question. He said:

What is the $2.5 million going to be used for? That is what his question was.

Mr. Kennedy, the Minister of Finance, said

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For the second time in the hon. the Opposition House Leader's delivery he

is referring to members of the House by their Christian names. I ask the hon.

Opposition House Leader to refer to members by the district or by the executive

position that they hold, whether he is reading something from a transcript or

just referring in using his own words.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will.

I am referring, of course, to the Minister of Finance, the individual who

gave the Budget Speech last Thursday. The comment, when he was asked by the

media, what are they going to spend the $2.5 million on? He was asked this

following the speech. The Finance Minister said: I could not provide much detail

on what the $2.5 million will be used for. It is my understanding that there are

discussions ongoing to examine the process of creating autonomy and what time

frames will be involved and what monies are required. I refer you to the

Minister of Education and the minister for Humber East, the MHA for Humber East.

Now, here is the Minister of Finance, who is in charge of the Budget, who is

spending the money, who already stood up here last week and talked about the

$2.5 million and could not give any details as to what the $2.5 million is going

to be used for. Now, that is the man who is in charge of this Budget. He did not

know.

I also noticed he said he was asked a question and even the old context

he was telling the people on the west coast: you have to sell yourself.

Things are okay in St. John's, he said. Things are okay inside the overpass.

You have to sell yourself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: He said you have to sell yourself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We did not hear anything about the fact that the

Stephenville Port-au-Port area has been pretty well smacked over the head as a

result of the closure of their mill. He did not comment on that. He told them

that, you have to go out and market yourself because, he said, St. John's is

doing it. They are bringing in the tourists, and if you people do not do it out

here, basically you are going to miss the boat, too. That is the only way you

are going to maintain and sustain yourselves.

Now, that is the message coming from a positive government. That is a

government! That is a government!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: No such thing from the Minister of Finance as to what

we are going to do for you, what we can do for you or what we are prepared to do

for you other than to say, go do it yourself. Now that is the message; that is

the message from the government. You go do it yourself and when you get it done,

you come back and you tell us that you have it done. So that is a great message

that the Minister of Finance took to the west coast yesterday.

Now, a few other things that cropped up as you are going along in the Budget

of course. I had to comment on this because I could not resist it. As a graduate

of MUN of course, we all get MUN literature from time to time sent to us and so

on. I had a copy of the Gazette , and the same day the Budget was read Dr.

Campbell, of course, was a guest in the Speaker's gallery and so on. I had

this copy of the Gazette which came out from Memorial University. I came

across it again and I thought about talking about things that this government

does or does not do. Of course, anybody who has watched the media in the last

year, the issue of the MUN selection process and in their very own statement

they talked here about Dr. Campbell had applied to UNB.

As we all know now, he was a successful candidate. Our own acting president,

Dr. Eddy Campbell, is now the confirmed President of the University of New

Brunswick. I took one quote. I see one quote that was in the Gazette and

it says. The UNB statement, they were talking about a statement that the

University of New Brunswick had issued. The UNB statement said: Dr. Campbell was

the top candidate from a list of over fifty individuals. Now, can you imagine

that our Dr. Eddy Campbell, who was the acting president, he was deemed to be

the best of over fifty candidates to apply for the UNB president's job and he

was top choice. He was selected, but guess what folks? Mr. Speaker, guess what?

He was not good enough for us. He was not good enough for us. Guess who said he

was not good enough? None other than our own Minister of Education.

Now, I tell you, I do not know what it says. Maybe it says the crowd at UNB

do not know what they are talking about. I do not know, but they interviewed.

They had applications from fifty people and he was the top person and got the

job. Now that is the kind of decisions - the government would have you believe

they always make the right choices. They always make the right choices. I mean

anybody with common sense sitting out in the Province listening to this and

watching this unfold in the news media, they all talked about it. They are all

talking about it. I mean it is shameful!

The government would say: Oh, it has nothing to do with the academics. We are

only concerned about the accountability. We just want the university to be

accountable. Well, I pose the question: Why do you need to have your fingers in

the selection process of the president in order to get your accountability? I

have not heard any answers to that question. We keep hearing about

accountability. There are lots of people who are accountable in different

professions and different jobs. Surely the government doesn't have to be the

be-all and the end-all to decide the accountability. I mean, I thought the

principle concern of our university was, in fact, academic excellence and

academic freedom. That is what I thought. Whether you paid $10 into their pot or

you paid $100 million into the pot, you are contributing to one of our

institutions of higher learning. That is your role as a government. That is your

goal as a government.

Not this government! They are saying, we will put the money in the pot but we

want to pick who is the boss over there. Forget all about the academic

excellence. Forget all about the academic independence. That is secondary. Yet,

when you ask the question, accountable for what and isn't there some other

way that you can ensure accountability without deciding who the president is.

Are you saying, by accountability we want somebody whose strings we can pull? Is

that what you mean by accountability, that if you don't agree with us today we

give you the flick? Is that what it is all about? Because, I don't think that

is what Memorial University is meant to be. That is not the spirit of how that

institution was created and intended to run.

It was here long before this government; for years and years. The selection

process was made and the government saw no reason to interfere as happened here.

Well, this government chose to interfere. Unfortunately, at the end of the day,

the only people who are going to suffer for this is our institution, because the

issue becomes: will we attract anyone, and regardless of who we attract, once

the government puts the stamp of approval on that individual, what kind of

reputation, rapport and respect will that individual necessary have with the

rest of the staff at Memorial?

I just pose the question: Will the rest of the staff at Memorial University,

once the government puts the red seal on the new president, say, whoa, that is

not our choice? How do we ever know that we have academic independence if the

government decides who it is going to be? Now, that is a pretty fair question.

Government didn't go back and say, well, look, is there any way we can

achieve some reasonable process here that we can do this, so that we can ensure

our accountability but at the same time not be seen as interfering in the

process. I wasn't aware of anything whereby government said, here is an

alternative solution maybe. The answer was, bring him in the Minister of

Education said, let us do the interviews. Chop, chop! You are not qualified, and

out the door you go.

So that is another decision, because some people would have you believe that

this government does not make any bad decisions. Some people would have you

believe and if you read the press clippings that they put out, it is a

wonder that we do not still have the paper mills in Stephenville and Grand

Falls-Windsor because, God knows, this government puts out enough news releases.

They put out enough news releases that they need their own pulp and paper mill.

I do not know why we lost either one, actually. I do not know why we lost the

paper mill. I really do not know.

I would like to clarify another little comment that was made here earlier

today. A couple of the members opposite were talking about I talked about a

positive thing the government did yesterday, and sometimes, you know, the

government just cannot accept credit. No matter how good you try to be, how fair

you try to be, the government assumes, they just assume, that this cannot be

right. There is an Opposition member who is saying something positive about the

government. There has got to be some ulterior motive for this, because why would

that person stand up and say the government did something positive? That cannot

be good. That cannot be good.

I did say something, for example, yesterday, but the explanations always get

lost when you want to be critical. The explanations and the background are never

referred to when it comes to explanations. I am referring, of course, to the

youth addictions centre for Grand Falls, Central. I made a comment yesterday

that I thought it was a great move by this government to create a youth

addictions centre for this Province, absolutely. I made that statement

yesterday, and I repeat it again today, because there is no misunderstanding.

There is no misunderstanding what I said. I made a statement yesterday, and I

will repeat exactly what I said today. I said yesterday that the move by this

government to invest in the building, the construction, creation, whatever you

want to call it, of a youth addictions centre is a good thing. In fact, I got a

cheer yesterday when I said it. It is a good thing.

I did not question the doing of it. All I questioned, and it is a valid

question, was: Have we thought about the support staff necessary to sustain and

make this centre workable in Central Newfoundland?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Now, folks, the reason I asked that question is

because anybody maybe a lot of the members shouting over there live inside

the overpass and you do not have an appreciation of what we go through outside,

sometimes, for certain specialties.

For example, if you live in Western Newfoundland, which I do, there are a lot

of services that I would like my constituents to avail of that we cannot get. We

cannot get, for example, in Port aux Basques - we realize you cannot have heart

surgeons all over the place. We fully realize that. You cannot have urologists

and so on, there is no question, and the question still remains: Was it the

right thing to do, to put it in Grand Falls-Windsor?

What this government did - they have an economic problem in Central

Newfoundland. They have a problem in Central Newfoundland. Not all the doing of

Abitibi, by the way, but the bottom line is now we have a problem, and where the

rubber hits the road, as they say, is to see how this government deals with it

and how they work with and help the people of Central. That is what is going to

tell.

Folks, the cake is only in the oven yet. Is has not had time to rise. It has

not had time to cook. It is only early in the game, as they say. It is very

early in the game, and it is far too early for anyone - not that anyone should

ever crow over the loss of a major industry. God forbid that we should ever crow

over the loss of a major industry never - but it is far too early for

anyone, on any side of this House or in this Province, to crow over what they

have done so far for Central Newfoundland.

Deciding that you are going to build a facility is one thing. Where you put

it and why you put it there is something else. The question was posed, and I

look forward to the response of the Minister of Health, for example, who I

notice in recent months has been very forthcoming in his answers. He used to be

wishy-washy before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will agree to give him back the time, if that is okay with my colleagues.

Just to demonstrate the accurate point of the member opposite, that I am

forthcoming, let me answer the question that he has posed. Have we thought about

the program and the delivery?

Absolutely, yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: With respect to the other question that he posed: Do we

anticipate having the necessary resources to deliver the programs in Grand

Falls-Windsor?

Absolutely, yes, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I cannot be any more definitive than that. That is as

straightforward as you are ever going to get an answer out of me in this House.

I would also say, Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite is going to stand and

reflect on his comment yesterday, he should read directly from Hansard because

his spoken comment a moment ago about what he actually attempted to say

yesterday may have reflected what was in his head but, clearly, Hansard records

what came out of his mouth. What he just shared with us then did not come out of

his mouth because Hansard records exactly what he said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: There is absolutely no question that he would question -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services if

he is raising a point of order?

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no question, in Hansard yesterday he was making a comment that

brings into question an ability of any government, this Administration or

others, to do anything outside the overpass in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we

are committed to rural Newfoundland and Labrador I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I recognize the hon. Opposition House Leader.

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

It is quite obvious, that both times the members opposite have spoken today

in points of order there were no points of order. That is quite obvious.

Anyway, I will repeat again what I said. No problem with the institution, the

facility, but I have serious doubts whether this government put any thought

whatsoever into where it went. I think my view is, and I will stand by this,

they only put the youth addictions treatment centre in Central Newfoundland

because they are using it as a crutch to try to handle the poor economic

situation we currently have. Not because you put any thought into the support

staff that was needed. The government of this day put that facility in central

only as a knee-jerk reaction because you wanted to be seen as doing something.

That is not good enough, folks. That is not good enough! I am not backing off

one iota what I said because what I said is you did not do it for the right

reasons and you have not thought it through. You have not thought it through.

History will be my -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: History will prove me right. Do not crow, history

will prove me right. History will prove me right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: O h, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You are using a much needed health facility as a

crutch to try to get you through your own economic do nothing; that is what you

are doing.

I hope you put the thought into it now, now that you have announced it. I

hope you put the resources into it to make sure that you do staff it. Don't go

creating a pig in a poke for the people of Central. They have enough hard times

as it is. Don't go giving them a facility that you have not put the thought

into and you are not going to put the resources in to see that it is a fully

functioning, viable facility. This is not about using health needs to solve

economic problems. This is about creating health facilities because we want to

work on health problems. The priority on health facilities is making sure that

they work as health facilities, not to use them as economic crutches.

MS DUNDERDALE: What kind of malarkey are you getting on with at all? You

should be ashamed of yourself!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I say to the Minister of Natural Resources, she will

get her chance to get up, no problem, don't worry about it. I am looking

forward anxiously. I hope she is more productive and does more in her speech

than she is doing for the caribou herd up in Labrador, because by the time she

gets around we will not have one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask all members of the House to keep in mind the level of discussion on

both sides of the House. The Speaker is having some difficulty in hearing the

member that is recognized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will ask all members of the House to respect the House and to keep a level

of decorum here.

I recognize the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate your protection. I am one lone voice in the wilderness here with

forty-four shouting people at me and cannot be heard above the din of calls

coming from the government side.

I guess it goes to show, Mr. Speaker, it always happens, if you stand up in

this House and you tippytoe around the subject and you give the government all

kinds of platitudes, they are over there I even get a clap once in a while, I

do, when I say something positive. But, guess what? If you say something that

questions what they did, or ask about, do you have a solution for this maybe? Do

you think maybe you could have done this a bit differently, or have you thought

about doing something else? What do you get? They get very, very angry.

It is like the Minister of Finance again. I mean, he cannot contain himself.

I cannot believe it. The Minister of Finance is literally jumping out of his

chair. My, is the truth so hurtful that you people have to get so vocal?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I call for your protection again.

Anyway, let me go back to talking about some of the stuff they did. Now, I

broke it out into a couple of headings. We will get into some of these of

course. We have Estimates committees as well. Talking about corrections and

in the course of talking about these things I have always said whether I thought

it was a good move, bad move, and I always ask, usually, if there is some

rationale behind it. I have done that in the case of the Youth Addictions

Centre. I have done it in the case of the home care yesterday, when we posed

some questions. I have done it in the context of the Lower Churchill piece and I

posed some questions yesterday, challenged government to some of their

assertions, figures and facts and look forward to getting some responses, and

the same thing here.

I noticed, under Justice, for example, there was we had, under the former

minister, we had a fairly substantial review of the prisons done in the Province

and the minister responded to that last fall. Some money was put into it, some

committees were formed and so on, but an ongoing major, major, major problem

that we have in our justice system - and anyone who can look and who has ever

been there can see that, and that is Her Majesty's Penitentiary. It is

antiquated, it is old. I think it came from the eighteenth century. There were a

couple of additions put on to it later on, but anybody who has seen HMP knows

that it is not a fit place to be keeping prisoners.

We also know that there has been an ongoing discussion, battle, whatever you

want to call it, between the Province and the federal government to see if we

can get the money to have a new one. The figures that I heard being tossed

around in the public media last year were to the tune of $100 million roughly to

do it and they were looking for $70 million from the federal government and $30

million from the Province was my understanding. That has gone off the rails now.

I heard the Minister of Finance, who was then the Minister of Justice, again,

he was out lambasting Mr. Manning. Mr. Manning was the MP of the day and the

minister was out tearing strips off him, saying: where is the money for the pen?

You federal crowd are not considerate at all, we need the money. Well anyway, it

is not MP Manning any more now. It is Senator Manning. We do not have an MP

Manning who is a part of the government. We do not have a PC member who is part

of the government. He is in the Senate. The question becomes: Where are we on

the penitentiary piece?

In the Budget, for example, there is $6 million I do believe, roughly, going

into investments in corrections. That is $300,000 for remediation of cells at

Her Majesty's Penitentiary. That is what I read, anyway. If I am incorrect

again, I invite the minister to correct me. There is about $200,000 for new

programming space that is going to go in HMP and about $100,000 for the

Correctional Centre for Women at Clarenville, I take it, for medical and

programming matters.

Now, on the whole of what it takes to build a major penitentiary and what we

have down here, that is not a lot of money. So I am just wondering, again, you

see something that looks positive, it is positive, but with that amount of

money, does that mean that we are not going anywhere with the federal pen in the

short term? What is the status of the negotiations, because, albeit, it is not a

lot? It is $6 million worth of improvements, and that is a chunk of money to put

into a place if there were imminent discussions ongoing that we are going to

have a penitentiary. That is a fairly big chunk of money.

So I am just wondering if the Minister of Justice, when he gets an

opportunity, can tell us where are we on the negotiations with the federal

government. Are we going to get a penitentiary or not? In fact, I had this

conversation with Mr. Manning when he was the MP, this was back last summer

before the federal election, because I wanted his take on it. I was hearing

things in the media from the minister as to what the feds were not doing. So I

said I will call Mr. Manning and see if I can get a I heard him in the media

as well. I said I will call him and see if I can find out what his side of the

story is.

Now, from what he told me at the time and I went back and we had our

staff do some checking as well. It is my understanding that the bulk of the

prisoners at HMP, in any event, are not federal prisoners. My understanding is

the bulk of HMP prisoners are provincially sentenced individuals. They are not

individuals who have been sentenced to federal time. I think that was of

what was down there at the time, the numbers on that given day, if the place

houses 180 approximately, I understood that about sixty at the time were federal

prisoners and the balance of 120 would have been provincial prisoners.

In the course of the discussion, Mr. Manning had indicated to me: Well, why

should we pay $70 million of a $100 million facility if the bulk of the

prisoners that are down there are provincial prisoners, not federal prisoners?

So he was indicating to me that the figures were not right. Why would you be

wanting the federal government to put in 70 per cent of the project when we do

not have 70 per cent of the prisoners?

I would appreciate, again, if the minister might give us some indication of

those figures, the nature of those discussions about percentages and whether it

ever got to discussing an amount. Because I know, I believe it was Minister Day

at the time, who spoke with the previous minister and had some discussions.

Again, just so the public can have some idea of where the talks are at this

time. If they are off the rails, is there anything contemplated that we might go

it alone, for example? Might we build a smaller facility to house the provincial

prisoners, and say to the federal government: Look, you are on your own. Thank

you very much. We are going to look after our share, this is what it cost to do

it, and you find some way of looking after your own prisoners. I would just like

to have some detail, if we could, to flesh it out a bit as to where that thing

is going.

The other thing, of course, mentioned in the announcements, it has nothing to

do with the physical plant of the place, but it had to do with the services

being provided there. That is there is going to be, as I understand it, some new

psychological services being provided, psychiatric services and medical

services. That is a positive. We all know for years and years, listening to the

media reports, that we have had ongoing concerns about the programming and

counselling that inmates had been receiving. So that is very positive. Whether

they do it in the current HMP or whether we do it in a new facility. That is

good to see, and you have to give credit for that stuff because it is good. It

is overdue, it is needed. We got the money, we should do it. There is no

question about that.

Also, for example, we are going to have a new pre-trial detention centre for

women and youth in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. That is needed. We had some horror

stories that came out of some of the facilities up there last year in Labrador

involving women, for example. It was just unacceptable. I do believe Mr.

Fleming, the Citizens' Rep went up, came back and filed a lengthy report as

well and made some recommendations. Now I do not think we are going to get the

type of facility that he recommended exactly. I think he recommended a more

upscale, bigger, shall we say, top-end type of facility, but we are going to get

a facility, and it is a start. It is a good start. It certainly gets rid of the

type of problems that we had in some of these facilities.

I do not mind commending government for that. That is good stuff, because it

is things that impact people's lives. It does not matter whether you are Joe

working on a snowplow or you are an inmate, there are certain basic human rights

that you are entitled to and we, as a Province, have a responsibility to see

that we get them.

It is like the Minister of Transportation and Works did here today in his

ministerial statement, a great move, a fantastic move. That shows that you have

compassion and you are human. That was good to see. That is why you were roundly

and soundly applauded from the Opposition as well when the minister gave his

statement today.

Talking about Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and we are going to get into

this a bit later today, the minister and I. We have our Estimates meeting, but

again, anybody - and I would concur with the Premier by the way, talk about good

stuff again. I have seen the ads that were done for this Province for tourism

and they are second to none, second to none folks. In fact, I was at a friend of

mine's, who is not here in this Province, outside of this Province, they saw

the ad and they could not believe it. There was a bride coming up the street in

a very colourful part of downtown St. John's here, coming up over the hill, it

was very touching. It showed this Province in all its splendour and St. John's,

and the whole St. John's. That is good stuff because a lot of our industry

depends upon tourism.

Now we both know that tourism has been declining in the last couple of years,

is my understanding. It has dipped down a little bit, but that does not take

away. That is all the more reason why you should market, I think. It is usually

what they tell you in the advertising business. If your business is not doing so

well you advertise and hopefully you will bring in business. So, I can see that

as being a good expenditure, and the government, give them credit. Give

yourselves a pat on the back, you put money into it in the last four or five

years. I do believe $1 million a year, on average, going up over the last five

or six years. That is good stuff. You have the money and I believe that is one

case where you are spending it wisely. No question about it.

Again, and it was raised somewhere I do believe in one of the statements

today. We have a couple of events happening this year as well, like the Bob

Bartlett thing and the anniversary at Cupids, the four-hundredth anniversary. It

is good to see that coming back again because back in the late 1990s we had a

lot of these major, major celebrations. Now these are not - I believe Bob

Bartlett is going to quite a few places but I do not know if it has the same

stature as they used to have back in the soire days or the Mathew visit and

stuff like that, but it is certainly a very good effort. It is good to see the

Department of Tourism turning back to that type of celebration because it gives

an opportunity for everybody in the Province to get onboard, and of course it

puts money in people's coffers. That is the bottom line. That is what it is

all about as a government putting money into these things, bring people in and

let them spend their money.

Now a few comments on Forestry and Agrifoods, mostly on Agrifoods; I

mentioned yesterday Mr. Wiseman, Merv Wiseman I think his name is, he was a past

President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Agricultural Association. He raised a

very good question. He said we had $6 million in our pot, we only got to spend

two of it but the government did not leave it there for us to use this year. He

was amazed, because he says as far - there are lots of projects out there. There

are lots of programs. There are lots of development initiatives that he could

have used the money for. It is just that it never got ramped up time enough to

use it all in that year. He is saying, why would you take it and let it slip,

never to be seen again? Why did it get lost? He was very upset, very perturbed.

Now that is not the Opposition saying that. That is somebody who I take had some

knowledge of the agrifoods industry. The gentleman was, regardless of what his

politics is, the gentleman was the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Agricultural Association. He spoke on behalf of the farming industry in this

Province, as I understand it. So, you can't just say, anything he says doesn't

count and it doesn't carry any weight, because he happens to be of a different

political stripe or he happens to live in a different part of the Province. He

made his opinion.

My question, of course, to the Minister Responsible for Agrifoods, would be:

Is he right? Was the gentleman making any sense when he said that, or is he

being unfair? Because, if he is being unfair and what he is saying is not right,

he deserves to be corrected.

Now, there is a way to correct people too, when they don't do things right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, there are lots of ways.

This government, the Premier himself, has been known to call certain

individuals in Central, traders, because they didn't agree with him. I don't

believe that is acceptable practice. I don't agree with that. You can disagree

with someone without trying to lob their head off, but that is not the practice

of this government. It is like his comments about Mr. Weaver, the former

President of Abitibi, of whom we used to have two pulp mills in this Province,

one in Stephenville and one in Central. The Premier made a comment some years

ago: Mr. Weaver needed a fast ball up the side of the head. Well, I guess we got

our fast ball. I don't know about the fast ball, but he certainly sent us to

the dugout and left us without two pulp and paper operations in the Province.

I believe sometimes you get more with sugar than you do with vinegar, and

more than you get with caustic remarks. Maybe somebody likes to put on the

boxing gloves all the time and thinks that by being Joe Louis you can get more.

I personally don't believe that. I believe the first initiative always should

be diplomacy, communication, and talk to each other. That didn't happen in a

lot of these cases. The government can try to justify it all they want, but the

horse is gone now. The barn door you have shut, the horse is gone, and now we

have to live and see how it unfolds on a go-forward basis.

That raises another interesting question from the Budget. Back when

Stephenville went through its traumatic time with the pulp and paper mill three

or four years ago and I stand to be corrected, and I challenge government to

correct me - I do believe that the provincial government, as part of the tools

to help the Stephenville-Port au Port area recover, you agreed to put into the

Stephenville municipal coffers, the Town of Stephenville, an operating grant to

the tune of about $800,000. That is what I understand. Correct me if I am wrong.

Because they were no longer going to be getting the grant in lieu of taxes from

Abitibi which had pulled out, so therefore they needed to sustain the services

they had. So, government said, as part of the package we will give you a hand.

My question is: If that was done in the case of Stephenville when they lost

their mill, are we using the same template for Central Newfoundland. I cannot

find anything in the budget documents. I have heard some commentary in the media

from some of the mayors querying: how are we going to replace that money? Grand

Falls-Windsor, for example: what are we going to do with our grant in lieu of

taxes? Buchans has even questioned it; Bishops Falls, Botwood. They are all

saying the same thing: are we going to be treated like Stephenville? Are we

going to get our $800,000?

AN HON. MEMBER: The mayor's statement is there.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, I am aware of what the mayor said today, I read

his press clipping. Positive over the budget overall. Positive to see what the

government is doing, no doubt. That does not take away from the fact of, what

are we going to do, because despite the commentary you hear from the mayors in

the media, we know that behind the scenes there is still this very thorny issue

of what is going to happen on the contributions to these communities in terms of

a grant in lieu.

No mention in the budget! Government does not want to talk about it, but it

has got to be talked about, because the mayors of these communities are not

going to sit on this for very much longer. They are going to say: government,

are you going to treat us like you did Stephenville? I noticed government

apparently decided, a few months ago, that we are not going to give it to

Stephenville this year, we have to cut it off. We have to stop that. We have

been at it now for three years, giving them the $800,000. We are not going to do

it anymore. I wonder: was that just coincidental because government knew that

down the road we were going to get the same request from the Central

communities? They said: before we get into that bailiwick again, let us get out

of the one we are already in, and then we can say that we do not do that

anymore.

Was that the reason? Is that how you are trying to legitimize the issue, by

saying, we do not do it in Stephenville anymore, we have stopped that, so

therefore we do not have to do it in Central? I do not think that is going to

wash, and we will see where the fox crosses the brook when these communities

say, your regional committee of ministers that you have is not working. We will

see that.

I wish you all the best of luck with your committees, what you are going to

put in, and the $41 million that you are putting in there now into Central. I

wish it replaces the hundreds and hundreds of high-paying jobs that were at that

mill. I do sincerely wish it, because I have already seen what it has done out

in Stephenville. I have seen the impacts of losing these high-paying jobs out in

my area, on the West Coast. Let us see if you can reproduce that.

The $41 million that you are putting in, $5 million of it comes from the

federal community trust fund, not your money. The feds got it there. You carried

it out and you are going to put it there. The other $36 million, how much of it

is standard usual infrastructure spending that government would have had anyway?

Go figure. Do the math and see how much actually is being put into Central

Newfoundland to stimulate. Anyway, time will tell that. Only time will tell.

As I go back to saying again: you can take all the much needed health care

facilities you want, such as the youth addictions centre, and say you are going

to put it in Central, but you cannot use a need in the health care system just

as a tool to try to crutch yourself through an economic situation.

I still raise the question, a very legitimate question: you made a decision

to put the facility out there, but I question, did you put any thought into the

support services, the analysts, the specialists, the psychologists, and the

psychiatrists that are needed to make it function properly? Your knee-jerk

reaction will come back to haunt you, I say, because you did not put the thought

into it. You will react to that situation like you constantly find yourselves

reacting to a lot of situations. It is not a planning exercise, it is a reaction

exercise. Anyway, only time will tell.

Mr. Speaker, I only have one minute and twenty-two seconds left. I had the

privilege of speaking yesterday in this Chamber for three hours, I had another

hour today. Regardless of what the forty-four individuals in the government

might feel about my comments in the last two days, my good friends Martha and

Joe who watch this on TV, they have been watching and they have heard some

probing questions being asked. I am looking forward now, in the few weeks we

have left in debate, to see if the good members can stand up and give some of

the answers.

We just were not critics. We gave credit where credit was due. We raised some

questions. The question is going to be now, to see if you people can respond.

Instead of just being a group of cheerleaders for your leader, can you honestly

get up in the next couple of weeks and give some substantive answers and

opinions on where you stand as individuals, and not just speak the party line?

Can you actually say what you feel is right and what you think is going on, and

if that is right? I look forward to that.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. When time permits in the future, I will, of

course, have my opportunity again to respond to the Budget.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am now speaking to the non-confidence motion.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget was one that had to be crafted carefully. It was a

recognition of a significant deficit, but there was also an acceptance by our

government that we would not cut jobs, cut social programs or reduce services.

What we decided to do, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: - as a government, was to continue on the path that we have

been on.

I want to highlight, as I begin, Mr. Speaker, a couple of what I consider to

be very significant announcements in this Budget. First, Mr. Speaker, there was

the investment of $5 million to eliminate the interest on Newfoundland and

Labrador Student Loans, a move that will benefit 49,000 people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Second, Mr. Speaker, there was the low income tax reduction

which will put more money in the hands of families and parents by increasing the

tax threshold. What we have, Mr. Speaker, is, those who need the help being

helped by this government.

My third point, Mr. Speaker, is that this year, again, we will invest $132

million in the Poverty Reduction Strategy which spreads itself across our

Province.

Fourthly, Mr. Speaker: one of the things we are very proud of is the way that

we have addressed the situation in Central Newfoundland and Labrador. What we

have done, Mr. Speaker, is said to the people of that region that we stand with

you side by side, that what we did in Stephenville worked and we will do the

same in Central Newfoundland and Labrador.

I cannot, Mr. Speaker, begin to express my disappointment today in the

comments made by the Opposition House Leader; also, as referred to by the

Premier, the comments made by the Opposition Leader. To decry the steps that we

have taken to assist people in need in that region is not becoming of the people

of this Province, Mr. Speaker. We expect better from politicians, especially

those who were elected to represent the interests of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I read from an

article yesterday, by Sue Hickey of the Advertiser ,

where it quotes Grand Falls-Windsor Mayor Rex Barnes saying that he and his

council are pleased with the amount announced for the Central Region. There are

some good things in the Budget which is going to mean jobs for people in

general, he said. It may not mean jobs for people in the mill but it will mean

jobs for the citizens in the whole Central Region.

One item he was particularly pleased with was the announcement for the youth

drug addictions centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: He called that enormous, especially since many working in

the field of drug addictions in relation to youth have been calling for a centre

for many years.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I will look at what was said in Hansard. It is not a

question of me paraphrasing what the Opposition House Leader said. He stood up

there, Mr. Speaker, boldfaced, and questioned why, as a government, we would do

something to help Central Newfoundland and Labrador. I find it astounding, Mr.

Speaker. I find the comments to be callous, a total disregard for the people in

that area, and demeaning.

Mr. Speaker, page 34 excuse me, it is page 34 of what I am looking at

this is what the Opposition House Leader said. These are his remarks, Mr.

Speaker: Are we going to be able to get the child psychologist? No, we do not

have psychologists in Central Newfoundland. I mean, how stupid to make those

comments. Are we going to be able to get the psychiatrists, the analysts and the

support staff? Minister, what is the population of the surrounding area

ministers between Grand Falls

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

So 100,000 people and we are not going to find a child psychologist,

according to the Opposition House Leader. Quite frankly, folks, I do not think

that was thought about.

Mr. Speaker, who does this guy think he is, to make such comments? When we

have a Cabinet sitting around a room, we have the advice given to us, and we

have a people in need. We have the mayor of the community saying this is great;

thank you.

We are trying to do what we can to stimulate the economy, recognizing the

difficulty that the people of that region are encountering, saying to them, we

are with you, standing hand in hand.

Then he goes on to say, the Opposition House Leader, when he is normally

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, and I said to him: Well, do you think about what you

say or are you saying things because you think that your Joe and Martha

Chesterfield want to hear it?

Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that there are three of them over there.

It is the kind of foolishness that comes out of the mouth of the Opposition

House Leader. 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 with our building - but scarcely

any thought has gone into it?

Mr. Speaker, there is a Department of Health who has expertise. We have a

Minister of Health who is very experienced. We have a situation, Mr. Speaker,

where a determination was made that this can work in Central Newfoundland. The

people wanted it and needed it.

Mr. Speaker, we have the Humberwood addiction facility which is located in

Corner Brook. It works very well. I have not heard any complaints about how that

facility works out there. Do the Liberals want us to take the view that

everything should be in the Avalon Region? Is that what they want? Because that

is what I am hearing over there, Mr. Speaker. What we are trying to do is to

spread it around this Province and to try to ensure that there is economic

viability and sustainability in all areas of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, then the Opposition House Leader quotes from a speech I gave

yesterday in Corner Brook. He takes a quote. What I was saying, Mr. Speaker, is

that this Province is the greatest place in the world to live and we have to

learn to market ourselves better as a Province. It is not just about money. As

we recruit nurses and doctors and other professionals, not only in the health

profession, we have to outline the quality of life that we have here, Mr.

Speaker, a quality of life that is second to none in this country and perhaps in

the world. Where else, Mr. Speaker - and I was particularly talking about the

West Coast of this Province could you, in April, ski in the morning,

probably play golf in the afternoon, and then hike in the mountains later that

day? You can go, Mr. Speaker, from what is it, Minister, from Corner Brook

to Gros Morne National Park? How far is it to drive, an hour or an

hour-and-a-half?

What you have, Mr. Speaker, is a beautiful part of the Province. We have a

university out there. Well, it is not a university but a college that we want to

make a university and we have not heard much support from the Liberals there,

Mr. Speaker. What we have is an area that has all of the amenities. Then, an

hour away we have Stephenville and the beautiful Port au Port Peninsula.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even better again.

MR. KENNEDY: I won't get into that, Mr. Speaker.

This brings me to my point: How do you maintain an area? How do you ensure

economic viability? By doing the kind of things that we are doing in this

Budget; by saying to the people of Grand Falls-Windsor: We can build this centre

here and we want to build this centre here. You have the expertise. Of all the

things I have heard in the last year or so, or fifteen months I have been here,

I have to say the Opposition House Leader's comments on Central Newfoundland

are among the most shocking. I feel like apologizing for him, the comments are

so bad, but we have expressed our confidence by doing what we are doing, Mr.

Speaker, which then brings me to the whole issue that the Opposition House

Leader talked about.

He talked about the university, and how we do not respect the university. We

are the ones who want to create Sir Wilfred Grenfell College as a university. We

are the ones who want to make sure that the West Coast of this Province has its

own institution; that the people of Labrador have a place to go that is closer

than St. John's. So, we are criticized for wan