March

30, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS XLVI No. 6

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today the Chair welcomes the following members' statements:

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

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

the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the

Member for the District of Cape St. Francis; and, the hon. the Member for the

District of Bonavista North.

The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize and congratulate the Goulds

Elementary Kids Eat Smart Club on a successful breakfast celebration to mark

nutrition month.

On Monday, March 15, I had the pleasure of attending a special breakfast at

the Goulds Elementary, served by the Kids Eat Smart Club. The Kids East Smart

Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Agriculture and the School Milk Foundation of Newfoundland and

Labrador teamed up for this breakfast.

Over 400 students took

part in a healthy breakfast which included locally

produced blueberries, eggs, milk, as well as farmer visits and more. Students

were even given the opportunity to plant seeds in their own individual pots to

try their hand at farming and growing healthy vegetables.

The Kids Eat Smart Club, along with many partners, did a great job in

promoting the value of healthy eating for our youth in natural grown foods

included in their breakfast. This program would not be such a success without

the many volunteers who assist the preparing healthy meals for our youth and we

certainly thank them for their contribution. I would also like to recognize and

thank Principal Agnes Brennan for her efforts.

We know through healthy living, including appropriate nutrition and education

and healthy foods, our youth will grow and learn in the environment that allows

each and every one of them to excel to their full potential.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating the Goulds Elementary Eat

Smart Club on their success to date and wish them well in all future endeavours.

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.

On Sunday, March 28, I had the pleasure to join several of my colleagues in

attending the 2010 Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador Pageant held here in St.

John's at the Arts and Culture Centre.

Thirty-one contestants competed for the title and were scored on interview,

academic skills, fitness test and presentation in casual and evening wear. I

extend congratulations to all thirty-one young ladies and in particular Somaria

Balram of St. John's, Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador 2010.

However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to two constituents from

Ascension Collegiate in Bay Roberts, Latoya Boland, a Grade 12 student placed as

one of the top ten finalists and Jaya Pham, a student in Grade 10 was presented

with the People's Choice Award.

Over 800,000 votes were received on the pageant Web site from friends, family

and fans as they voted for their favourite for their award as well as a result,

Jaya will now be one of the three to represent Newfoundland and Labrador at the

Miss Teen Canada - World Pageant.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in extending continued success

to all contestants, and to wish Jaya Pham all the best as she competes for the

Miss Teen Canada - World Pageant.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 2009 author Bill O'Gorman of

Lourdes released his second book entitled: Lest We Forget: The Life and Times

of Veterans from the Port au Port Peninsula-WWI. In this historical work,

Mr. O'Gorman reclaims the histories and the lives of more than 100 men from the

Port au Port Peninsula who fought in the First World War. It is very important

that as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we never forget that the freedoms and

privileges we enjoy today are ours because of the sacrifices made by men and

women during wartime. Women gave their husbands, sons, and brothers, and men

fought and died so we could enjoy freedom and democracy.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand here today to give recognition to Bill

O'Gorman for his dedication and efforts towards preserving the Port au Port

Peninsula's proud heritage of honour and valour during the First World War. Mr.

O'Gorman is currently researching for his third book which will feature the

lives of men and women on the Port au Port Peninsula who fought in World War II.

I strongly encourage Mr. O'Gorman to continue this worthy endeavour.

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

recognizing and thanking Mr. Bill O'Gorman for preserving the proud history of

our war veterans and wishing him much success in the development of his next

book featuring World War II veterans.

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.

I rise in the House today to congratulate David Yetman, a Red Bay native, on

receiving the MUN President's Award for Exemplary Service.

Mr. Speaker, David received this award while working as the manager of

Knowledge Mobilization at MUN's Leslie Harris Centre of Regional Policy and

Development for his creation of a unique on-line resource and search engine

known as Yaffle.ca. This site links community members to the university's

research and research projects, a matchmaking feature that is truly unique about

Yaffle.ca. It is considered a Google for universities and there is no other

system like it in the world. It took four years to develop this Web site at a

cost of $1.2 million and the Web site enables users to search through the

summaries of more than 1,100 Memorial University projects and profiles of more

than 400 researchers, categorized by expertise and geographic region.

Mr. Speaker, more than fifteen Canadian and Australian universities have

shown interest in piloting Yaffle. This site has placed graduate students in

MUN's Engineering and Biochemistry departments, and has drawn attention from

students as far away as Nigeria, India, China, and even from some of the most

prestigious American universities such as Yale. Mr. Yetman is confident that it

will be moving on to the national and international stage in the near future.

I ask my colleagues in the House of Assembly to join me in extending

congratulations to David Yetman on his brilliant innovation and to congratulate

him on his new position with the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research in

Toronto, Ontario as their Director of Research Programs and Knowledge Transfer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Small Business Award

winner for the Town of Torbay.

Mr. Speaker, there were three businesses up for this award: Curves in Torbay,

which for the past five years have provided excellent customer service while

helping women identify and strengthen health and fitness needs; North-East

Foundations Limited, which provides concrete forum panels for both residential

and commercial building construction. They are leaders in their business with 40

per cent of the local market share.

Mr. Speaker, the winner was District Drugs, a family owned business since

1963. Keith Hogan, current pharmacist, now manages the company, who took over

from his father Jack Hogan.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to community involvement, District Drugs is a name

the people of Torbay can relate to and the people in the area can relate to.

They have been donating and sponsoring different groups and organizations since

1963. They are truly deserving of this award.

I ask all hon. members in this House to join with me in congratulating Keith

Hogan and District Drugs in winning the Small Business Award for the Town of

Torbay.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the tremendous

contribution made to the Bonavista North region by the firemen of Centreville,

Wareham, Trinity, and Indian Bay.

Recently I had the honour of attending their annual Fireman's Ball, where 350

people came together to show their appreciation for the organization. An

additional 100 individuals were on a waiting list for that event. This level of

support is exceptional and it gives a clear indication as to how these

volunteers are respected and how their efforts are valued by the community at

large.

The brigade covers the communities of Centreville, Wareham, Trinity, and

Indian Bay, and this year marked thirty years of service to the region. The

brigade has twenty-three members, four of whom are young men who recently

stepped forward to volunteer their time and service. Bob Parsons and Calvin

Pickett, the elder statesmen of the group, have been serving their fellow

citizens in this capacity for twenty-nine years.

The event had additional significance as the local Firettes, with twenty-six

members, also celebrated a remarkable twenty-five years of service. Two charter

members, Una Parsons and Ann Matthews, are still active with the group.

The Minister of Transportation and Works was guest speaker at the event, and

both the minister and I were incredibly impressed by the level of support shown

to this extremely important volunteer organization. The work they do in fire

prevention, and the protective service they provide, is essential in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, and it was wonderful to see the community come

together to recognize the efforts and dedication of these fine men and women.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would ask all members of this hon. House to join

with me to thank and show appreciation for the continued service provided by the

firemen and firettes of Trinity, Wareham, Centreville and Indian Bay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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, I rise today to inform the House of a recent ruling by the

Public Utilities Board that has resulted in the establishment of a water

management agreement on the Churchill River between Nalcor Energy and the

Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation. The conclusion of this agreement is

another step toward sanction of the Lower Churchill Project.

Mr. Speaker, our government moved to regulate the co-ordination of water

management on provincial rivers in 2007. This was accomplished through

amendments to the Electrical Power Control Act to provide the Public Utilities

Board, commonly referred to as the PUB, with the authority to regulate the

co-ordination of water management agreements.

These amendments provide certainty over the co-ordination of water flow when

two or more operators are on the same river. The Water Management Regulations

that accompanied the amendments provide direction to the PUB for the review or

establishment of water management agreements.

With that action taken, Mr. Speaker, Nalcor and CF(L)Co officials began

discussing a way to reach a water management agreement on the Churchill.

However, the proposed agreement that was subsequently reached was rejected by

the CF(L)Co board of directors. It is our understanding that none of the

Hydro-Quebec directors on the CF(L)Co board supported the agreement, which was a

necessary requirement.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, Nalcor Energy applied to the PUB to establish the

terms of a water management agreement based on the proposed agreement rejected

by the CF(L)Co board of directors. The process provided CF(L)Co with thirty days

to make its submission to the PUB.

It is noteworthy, Mr. Speaker, that both CF(L)Co and Hydro-Quebec, in

separate submissions to the PUB, supported the version of the agreement filed by

Nalcor Energy. Upon review, the PUB established this agreement as the water

management agreement to be binding on Nalcor and CF(L)Co.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to note for the House another important part of the

PUB ruling. Two Quebec Innu groups have filed objections to water management

agreement based on asserted Aboriginal rights. In its ruling, the PUB concluded

that this agreement does not have an adverse impact on Aboriginal rights or

title and that the project operating regime and Aboriginal consultation are

already part of the ongoing environmental review process.

Mr. Speaker, the conclusion of this agreement would not have occurred without

the decisive action by this government to regulate the co-ordination of water

management agreements in this Province. The rivers in this Province, Mr.

Speaker, belong to the people and it is our responsibility to maintain control

over our water resource and ensure it is regulated in a way that optimizes the

benefits for the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement

today.

Mr. Speaker, water management on the Churchill River is a very important

component of any deal that could be negotiated or any development that could

occur on this particular river. We certainly understand the need of government

to press forward to have those particular boundaries more clearly defined.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly see this as another impediment that has been

removed in terms of being able to move forward with a negotiation, and we

certainly hopes that government will do that in very short order.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I have to question what all the hoopla was about

going back a few months ago, because as the minister indicated there was a

strong sense from her government that both Hydro-Quebec and CF(L)Co would be

opposed to certain components of this. We find out today through the PUB process

that they were indeed supportive of the presentation put forward by Nalcor

corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I can only imagine that it was just another media ploy again and

that they did not have a fair understanding of where these particular companies

were coming from.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to hear the ruling regarding the

Quebec Innu

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - that has been outlined in the particular statement, because,

Mr. Speaker, the issues with the Quebec Innu do have to be dealt with and they

have to be dealt with by the government in this Province. Mr. Speaker, we cannot

continue other

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. Opposition leader; I ask

members for their co-operation.

The hon. member.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can understand why you are having trouble hearing.

Mr. Speaker, the issues around the Quebec Innu need to be dealt with. There

is absolutely no doubt about that. We cannot continue to have groups like this

coming into Labrador territory exercising power over the land and being above

the law, I say to the government opposite, nor should they be out there to be an

impediment in any development that occurs in Labrador.

I encourage the government to also move forward to settle that particular

dispute that is ongoing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I think we are

both suffering from the same ailment today from her voice and my voice.

I am pleased to see that this stage of the Lower Churchill project is falling

into place. I have to say that it is good to see that the role of the PUB, as

was put in place in legislation, worked. That is hopeful because, obviously, we

all want to see harmonious relations as we continue, but if we come to an

impasse the PUB will always be there to play that role. I think that really is a

positive step.

As we move forward with the Lower Churchill, of course, I would want to say

that this is something that is important for us but also important for the

country as well. I hope that the government will continue to be able to work

with all parties so that down the road we can work towards an east-west link

that would benefit the rest of Canada as well as people in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate author Jessica

Grant, who this past Thursday was named the winner of the 2009 Winterset Award

for her first novel entitled: Come, Thou Tortoise .

Mr. Speaker, Ms Grant's Winterset win is one of the many honours and awards

bestowed upon this Province's extraordinary literary community within the past

year, and it is testament to the amazing work being produced right here in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Also nominated were Michael Crummey, whose novel Galore was

shortlisted for the 2009 Governor General's Literary Award and the winner of the

2010 Commonwealth Writers' Prize for Best Book in Canada and the Caribbean - a

book that I had the opportunity to read at Christmastime, Mr. Speaker, and

certainly ask all members to enjoy that book. Lisa Moore, author of February ,

was also shortlisted in the same category. I note, as well, that poet Randall

Maggs who won the 2008 Winterset Award, has also been awarded the 2009 E.J.

Pratt Poetry Prize and the 2010 Kobzar Literary Award for his book Night

Work: The Sawchuk Poems .

In addition, Mr. Speaker, six titles locally published by Boulder

Publications, Breakwater Books, Flanker Press and Creative Book Publishing have

been nominated for the 2010 Atlantic Book Awards, which promotes excellence in

Atlantic Canadian writing and book publishing. Mr. Crummy's Galore and

Greg Malone's You Better Watch Out , have also been nominated for those

awards.

Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the recent accolades earned by our

literary community. As you know the provincial government remains committed to

the growth of our literary sector and funding provided through the Newfoundland

and Labrador Arts Council, the Publishers Assistance Program and the Cultural

Economic Development Program. That funding provides support to a variety of

literary events, activities and professional development opportunities which

help our emerging and established writers to continue to live, work and be

inspired right here in our Province.

I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Jessica Grant and all of

the Province's remarkable writers and publishers for their successes this year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

We, too, would like to congratulate Jessica Grant and the other remarkable

writers and publishers that we have in this Province. It was not too long ago

when you could not find young writers and publishers here in Newfoundland and

Labrador, but in the last number of years, of course, there are all kinds of

beautiful books that tell about our families, our culture, our history and our

societies. Hopefully, as time goes on we can find some way to even integrate

some of these great writings into our school system where they could fully be

appreciated.

We would also like to take an opportunity to congratulate at this time,

Andreae Callanan, who last night at the Ship Inn was awarded the Jackson Award,

which is again associated with the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council. We do

note that the Arts Council, I believe it was last year, had a 20 per cent

increase in the number of people requesting grants in 2009 over previous years.

The government puts, I believe, about $250,000 into the Newfoundland and

Labrador Arts Council at the present time, but obviously with the increase in

demand - I believe they were actually asking for $1 million - I guess you do

what you can with what you have; but it is great to see that government is

funding these councils to make sure that these young publishers and writers do,

in fact, get an opportunity.

I notice as well, in conjunction with supporting young people, yesterday the

Budget had $350,000, I believe it was, to support athletics in the Province, and

young athletes who want to be trained for winter games and Olympics and so on.

So, we are out there supporting young people, whether it be in athletics or

in publishing. I think that is a good move and congratulations to all these

participants.

Thank you.

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

Vidi.

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

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

minister in extending congratulations to Jessica Grant, the 2009 Winterset Award

winner. The proven success of authors such as Jessica Grant and Michael Crummey

shows the strength of Newfoundland and Labrador's writers. They create culture

products that bring people to Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as money to

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know that there recently has also been some partnering between government

and book publishing on a library strategy designed to export Newfoundland and

Labrador published books through Canada and the United States. These are very

positive moves and I hope that government will build on this success by

continuing to invest in book publishing, but we must not forget the artists in

Newfoundland and Labrador, many of whom are struggling to earn a living,

artists, actors, visual artists. There is a broad range of whom we mean when we

say artists.

I hope that government will continue to recognize the importance of such

artists and put more funding towards the artists themselves. Now we have not

seen, I do not think, enough money in this year's Budget to the Arts Council to

allow that to happen, but I ask government to continue looking at increasing the

money to the Arts Council so that individual artists can more directly receive

money that is much needed by them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Before the Chair calls Oral Questions, the Chair would like to address a

point of order that was raised by the hon. the Member for the District of Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi on Thursday, March 25, where the hon. Member for the District of

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi accused the hon. the Minister of Health and Community

Services when he pointed in her direction and made a statement. The statement

was that he would rather be disingenuous than dishonest.

The Chair has had an opportunity to review both the video tapes and review

the written transcript and saw no indication that the minister, while using body

language, showed any indication that he was referencing the hon. the Member for

the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi as being dishonest.

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to remind hon. members that

when they ask questions, or when they give answers, or when they take

part in

debate that they not personalize the questions or the answers by referencing the

members, but do it towards the Chair and it takes away from the personal part of

debate, which is the way that all questions and answers and debates should be

conducted here in the House of Assembly.

The Chair would also like to remind the hon. Member for the District of

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that she herself should be sensitive to some of the

language that she would use, in this case, when she accused the government of

being disingenuous and being two-faced. Those are strong, strong words that

bring disorder to the House of Assembly. So while she referenced it to the

government, the member asking the question would feel sensitive in that it was

directed towards them.

So I would ask all members to be cautious of the language that they use in

the House, to be sensitive to other people's feelings, and to talk to and

through the Chair when they ask questions or make remarks in the Chamber.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, there has been an impasse in the crab fishery again this year

and challenges in that industry are being highlighted. As we know, processors

today are not prepared to buy at the price that is there; fishers are not

prepared to fish at the price that is there. However, Mr. Speaker, in the Budget

yesterday government predicted that we will maintain performance levels to last

year's standards, yet there were hundreds of fisherpeople lining the steps of

Confederation Building, Mr. Speaker, who certainly feel that they are not able

to contribute in this industry at the present time with the price that is there.

So I ask the minister: What is your plan for the industry to get it rolling

this season, to meet the performance targets that you set in yesterday's Budget

in light of the situation we currently face?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One thing I am certain of is that the hundred or so people who were on the

steps of the Confederation Building yesterday did not want to be there. All they

want, Mr. Speaker, is a fair price for their fish and likewise, the plant

workers want to be able to work.

We cannot force people to fish nor can we force processors to harvest. One

thing though, Mr. Speaker, that has to happen and that is the people who are

representing those groups have to sit together. Mr. Speaker, I am hoping before

this evening is out that I will sit with the individual, the leader of the

union, and the leader of ASP and that I am going to ask them to consider where

they stand and really come to terms with getting this industry started. That is

all these folks want; they want to get on the water, they want their price. We

want the work in the Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no question what these fishers want. There is a question of how they

are going to achieve it, minister. Because there is no appropriate loans program

for harvesters in this Province, Mr. Speaker, no lines of credit to support

their industry, they feel that they have fallen at the mercy of processors to

bail them out, and because of it, they have lost their sense of independence in

this industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I ask the minister today, if his government will support the

industry with programs and financial services, Mr. Speaker, that will allow them

to be not just independent harvesters, but to be financially independent as well

in this industry?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, there was a process started last July, and

everyone - I would think probably everybody in the Province has heard me say it

and have heard the acronym MOU spoken.

Mr. Speaker, on December 17, I wrote a letter to both the ASP and the union

stating to them that I felt there was not enough action. On December 30 I met

with them and I asked them to present proposals to me by January 22. On January

22, Mr. Speaker, I met with them, those proposals came in. I got on the plane on

February 12, submitted that to Minister Shea on February 15, and expressed to

her that we would be coming forward with a plan of action from the Province. A

unified plan of action, Mr. Speaker, that I hope will result from the MOU.

The issues that the Leader of the Opposition is raising, Mr. Speaker, I

certainly hope that we can resolve many of those issues in that process. Again,

I go back to my previous point, it means that the parties involved have to sit

together. Mr. Speaker, I have to be honest with you, at this point they have not

done that to the serious degree that I think they should, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the minister, we support the process of the MOU but it is a

longer framework for the industry, and right now we have a crisis that needs to

be dealt with in this industry.

I ask the minister today: Does he agree that the processors have really

become the bankers for the harvesters in this industry and therefore they

ultimately control what happens?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think there is so much mistrust in this

industry that it is hard for me to give her an answer on that. I think if we are

going to find a solution and a betterment for this industry and this Province,

that is exactly what has to happen.

I have said on a number of occasions, if the parties involved want to make

this the best industry that it can for this Province, lay themselves openly upon

the table, expose what it is that makes this industry happen and put a lot of

that mistrust to rest, because until that happens, this industry will go on I

mean everybody here knows it. This seems to be a rite of season. We settle

something for a while; people go away, next spring they are back again. It has

not been resolved and it is time that all parties sit down and find a solution

here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am hearing from people in the industry that they

have lost their sense of independence because they have not had the financial

support mechanisms available to them and they have had to rely upon the

processors in this Province to be able to bail them out and continue in the

industry. Back in 2002, the Premier, who was the Leader of the Opposition at

that time, claimed there was collusion in the industry. Seven years have passed

since that point.

I ask the Premier today: Do you still feel there is collusion in this

industry, because fishers are telling me that seven years later the issue has

not been dealt with? In fact, the problems have worsened and they certainly feel

that they have no sense of independence left.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, at the time the allegations of collusion

were made the hon. member opposite was in government. I understand she

subsequently became a Minister of Fisheries. They did not deal with it. Those

allegations of collusion, as I remember, were dealt with, I think at a national

level by the Competition Bureau.

At that time I was concerned because of various power plays that were going

on within the industry, but I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister of

Fisheries. It is about time everybody got together and tried to come up with

solutions. We seem, as a government, every year to face the same problems.

Everybody comes in; there are demonstrations on the steps of the building. We do

not want it, you do not want it; the people of the Province do not want it.

We find there are various factions within the fishing industry that are

working against each other, and that is not good. We are not here to divide and

conquer. We are not here to pit one against the other. I think it is about time,

as the minister has said, that people come in and just lay their cards on the

table and try and find out if they can work and find a solution, but when one is

trying to play one against the other, that is just the opposite of collusion. It

is a lack of co-operation, and co-operation is what is needed here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a serious issue because many rural communities in this Province are

affected. Twenty-five thousand families are impacted by what happens in this

industry. It is all right to say that people have to sit at the table and they

have to talk, but there are some clearly identified problems that exist. Some of

these, government has control over to fix immediately. When a fisher harvester

today has to be beholding to a merchant because no bank will give him a line of

credit, because his industry is falling each and every year, he cannot afford

gear, he cannot afford bait, where does he go?

I ask the minister, this is a problem that you can fix, your government can

fix by investing in this industry and investing in these fishers; I ask that you

do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure what the question was contained in that, but I will say one

thing, Mr. Speaker, since coming into the portfolio, I have held eighty

meetings. I have been in this portfolio for 120 days, Mr. Speaker. Take

Christmas out and see how many meetings have been held.

One thing that I have learned, I have travelled around sixty-one of those

meetings by the way have been with independent, some of these people in the

galleries. One thing that I have discovered is that one plan does not fit all.

What is needed in 3PS is not the same as is needed in 2J or 3L.

I am certainly hoping, Mr. Speaker - and we cannot let this MOU process

linger on forever and a day, there has to be some resolution to it. Individual

planning and, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope that the issues that she is

raising would come out in that process, because we have working groups within

that.

For now, Mr. Speaker, we have a more immediate problem and that is on April

1, this fishery is set to start. I am hoping that after a meeting this evening

with Mr. Butler and Mr. McCurdy that we can find a way to get this fishery

started.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we understand that in New Brunswick today there

are processors that are prepared to come into Newfoundland and Labrador, pay

$1.75 a pound for crab, pay thirteen cents a pound to truck that crab out of the

Province; yet our own processors are indicating that they cannot pay even $1.35

a pound for crab.

I ask you, Minister - we are talking about the same Canadian dollar, the same

markets - I ask you: Has your department investigated this, and can you tell me

why there is such a discrepancy in these prices?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think in the event of this happening every

fall, you would almost have to ask yourself the question: Why haven't parties

come together and answered those questions before? This is not the first time

that this has happened. We have made some inquiries into other jurisdictions,

and I am waiting to get more of that information. There are jurisdictions that

have informed us that they are not paying $1.75. There are things that seem to

come into play, in terms of the way the crab is processed and frozen and so on

and so forth. So there are many, many factors here that come into play.

Mr. Speaker, I think if we are going to find a resolution to this, and I

listened to some of the people that were interviewed yesterday, we have to come

to terms with these issues that are confronting us. It is an awful thing when we

have to fight with other jurisdictions to gain what we rightfully think we

deserve, but it is a terrible thing when we have to fight amongst ourselves and

we cannot find a solution, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We understand from those in the industry that a one cent reduction in the

price of crab to a harvester actually means an extra $1 million in revenue to

processors. So we certainly understand why the price is such a huge factor one

cent or two cents either way.

Minister, for the last couple of years fishers in the Province have been

talking about bringing in outside buyers because they feel that they are no

longer in a competitive environment in Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes

to selling their fish.

I would like to ask your department: Have you looked at what the impact would

be of doing that on the Province versus what the benefit would be to the

industry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the group that I met with

yesterday, of the sixty-one that I met with, I believe the issue was raised on

outside buying about fifty-seven times. I have said to anybody, on anything, I

am willing to sit and discuss anything with anyone.

There is one thing that I made clear on April 23 to the inshore council I

have to get the names right. That was, that I will not enter into discussions

about this unless we consider plant workers as well. I am the Minister of

Fisheries for the Province; that involves making sure that I represent the

harvesters, but also, we have a number of plant workers that have to be

considered here.

So, I have to say that a week ago yesterday, I received a letter from the

union indicating that they were interested in some potential outside buying, and

Mr. McCurdy made it public in an interview on Friday, that being around three

species, plus the crab, if the processors did not buy. It is unfortunate that it

had to come to a bind before we consider even looking at something like that.

I go back to my point, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to meet with both parties

today, and to see if there is a way we can find a way forward in that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. There is currently a strike that

has been taking place on the Burin Peninsula for the last eighteen weeks. It is

having significant impact on fourteen NAPE workers and their fourteen clients

who are disabled whom they assist through the supported employment program.

Mr. Speaker, this strike, they feel, is unnecessary because government is

trying to take clauses out of their collective agreement that the same

government asked be included.

I ask the minister today: Why are you reneging on a past commitment to these

particular workers, and why are you leaving them on the street when the only

thing they really want to do is get an agreement and get back to work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, to clarify, government is not the employer

here. The men and women in Burin and Marystown work for the Burin-Marystown

employment corporation, they are the employer, but by law, government under the

Public Service Collective Bargaining Act is the negotiating agent just as NAPE

negotiates on behalf of the employees. That is different in Bay St. George. It

is different in Port aux Basques where NAPE has been certified there under the

Labour Relations Act and government has no direct involvement.

We have been meeting with NAPE. We have had lots of discussions. We have

taken the advice to sit at the table. We were there for two days last week.

Unfortunately, both sides, we remain apart and we remain far apart on the issue.

Government has, under the circumstances, made a 20 per cent wage offer over

four years. Given these uncertain economic times and given what has happened in

other jurisdictions where people are instituting wage freezes, a 20 per cent

offer over four years is fair and is reasonable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is just an observation; we have two groups of protesters in the gallery

today, and if St. Anthony were not as far removed from this hon. House we would

have a third.

When government announced last week that the air ambulance service would be

taken from St. Anthony and relocated to Happy Valley-Goose Bay and this decision

was based on a flawed consultant's report that did not look at the ramifications

of such a move to the entire provincial air ambulance system.

I ask the minister: Why did government limit the Terms of Reference of this

report to an evaluation of the Northern Peninsula and Labrador instead of

looking at the entire Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, let me say that I understand the implications of this decision. I

recognize the anger and disappointment of the people of St. Anthony, and they

have sent me lots of e-mails. I have not received any e-mails from the member

opposite, although he did write me a letter.

Mr. Speaker, the premise put forward by the member is simply -

MR. DEAN: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: I am sorry, did he say something? I did not hear it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to continue with his answer.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the premise put forward is simply false. Essentially, let me do

this very quickly, in 2009 the 623 other flights that are referred to on page 4

of the consultant's report, of those, 380 were picked up by the St. John's

airplane, or 61 per cent; seventy-nine were picked by a charter or 13 per cent;

and 130, or 21 per cent, were picked up by St. Anthony. Mr. Speaker, 74 per cent

of those 623 flights were picked up by the St. John's airplane. That relates to

Gander, Deer Lake, Burin, Grand Falls-Windsor and Stephenville.

Mr. Speaker, the reason that we looked at the Terms of Reference that we did,

we were having problems in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I met with George Kean, the

President of the Steelworkers Union today, and when he described to me what he

had encountered with that family last week, I felt, Mr. Speaker, that we had to

move quick, that we did move quick and we made the right decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Northern Peninsula and Southern

Labrador rallied over the weekend, and they certainly believe this report is

flawed There were some 1,000 or so signatures collected on Saturday evening in

St. Anthony arena. They include people who work in the medical community and

have first-hand experience with the service. Unfortunately, response times to

emergencies on the Northern Peninsula, Southern Labrador, Central Newfoundland,

and Western Newfoundland will now have a delay.

I ask the minister: Why didn't the report look at the response time delays

that will now be experienced in other regions of the Province as a result of

this move?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the consultant looked at the number of flights that were

travelling from Labrador as opposed to St. Anthony, and it was almost double the

flights. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a population base of

approximately 26,000 people in Labrador to 2,476 people in St. Anthony, for

13,000 people in that rural secretariat region. What we have, Mr. Speaker, is

very significant industrialization in the Labrador area so that was another risk

factor that we had to look at.

Mr. Speaker, also, the airport in St. Anthony is fifty kilometres away from

the community as opposed to Happy Valley-Goose Bay is right therein.

Mr. Speaker, we invested $8 million last week to buy a new airplane. There is

a second medical flight services team, and we feel that the St. John's airplane

can cover the rest of the Province, as it has done, and that this airplane will

now have a quicker response time to Lab West and to Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the minister is indicating that it

had to be one or the other, so one life is more valuable than the other, I would

assume is what he is trying to say.

There are 120,000 people on the West Coast and Central Newfoundland that are

serviced by the air ambulance service in St. Anthony if there is a backup in St.

John's or whatever. They are disenfranchised today because of your decision.

The people who run the air ambulance service, Mr. Speaker, are front line

workers who have knowledge of the system, how it functions, how to improve

health care. However, neither the director nor the dispatch operators nor

paramedics nor pilots were ever considered during this review process.

I ask the minister, again: Why were these front line workers, who know the

most about the system, not consulted to determine where the gaps existed and

where improvements could be made?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just referred to Central Newfoundland .

The statistics for Gander show that out of 100 flights, sixty-nine were picked

up the King Air in St. John's, fourteen were picked up by charter, and thirteen

by a St. Anthony plane. In Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Speaker, there were

seventy-four flights: forty-seven were picked up by the St. John's King Air;

eight were picked up by the St. Anthony King Air; and nineteen by charter. In

Deer Lake, Mr. Speaker, 101 flights were picked up by the King Air in St.

John's, thirty-two by St. Anthony. So I do not know where the member opposite is

getting his statistics. However, Mr. Speaker, this is the same individual the

other day who referred us to gutting rural Newfoundland

and Labrador .

Mr. Speaker, in the last number of years we have invested in roads, alone in

the Northern Peninsula $16.45 million as opposed to $3 million when the Liberals

were in power. We have invested in companies like Canada Ice, which I am sure

that the member opposite is familiar with. We have invested significantly and

perhaps someday he can deal with that in this hon. House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: We can deal with any issue, Mr. Speaker. The St. Anthony

hospital is the most often medical care facility that uses the service of the

northeast fishery fleet. This area has some of the roughest seas and worst

weather, and there are many medical emergencies that require immediate care. Our

hospital has been used to stabilize workers injured at sea before they are air

medevaced to St. John's.

I ask the minister: How will response times for emergencies involving fishing

crews be impacted and why was that not examined in this report as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, shame on the member opposite for

suggesting even that one life is more valuable than another. You tell that, sir,

to the people of Lab West and what they have encountered in the last period of

time. You tell that to Tracey Best in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. You tell it to

these people.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will give you a very simple number. Goose Bay, Lab West,

St. John's; St. Anthony, Lab West, St. John's - thirty-five minutes in the

difference using the King Air, Mr. Speaker. Thirty-five minutes difference can

mean a life when you are talking about a medical emergency.

In the St. Anthony hospital, Mr. Speaker, over the last period of time, we

have invested just in capital equipment and repairs and renovations alone $13.4

million. INTRD, Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, looking at news releases of

August 15, 2006 and May 24, 2007, has invested in a bottling plant in the St.

Anthony area. Mr. Speaker, we have invested in schools. There is a new school

planned for St. Anthony. In Flower's Cove, we announced in the Budget past $5

million to begin the construction of the Flower's Cove (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the air ambulance service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for the District of The Straits &

White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are talking about the air ambulance service and not the schools.

Mr. Speaker, the report commissioned by government is based on a flawed Terms

of Reference. It has insufficient research data for the entire provincial system

and it was limited in scope to one region of our Province.

So, I ask the Premier this afternoon: In light of such an insufficient report

being used to justify the removal of such an important service, will you put it

on hold, reissue a tender to have a proper study that evaluates the needs and

gaps of the entire provincial air ambulance service before making such a

colossal mistake?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: That was what I expected.

Mr. Speaker, the minister came to the Northern Peninsula in October and

pretended to care about health care issues in our region. We know it was just a

show, and after a by-election

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

I ask the hon. members to my left for their co-operation.

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits

& White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Let me say again, Mr. Speaker, that the minister came to the

Northern Peninsula in October and pretended to care about health care issues in

the district. We now know it was a show, and it took a by-election loss to see

just how vindictive and deceitful he is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member used the word deceitful to accuse another hon. member here of

being deceitful. If he did

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

That is what the Chair understood. If he did, I ask the hon. member to

withdraw the remark.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I will apologize to the minister when the minister

agrees to

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

I ask the hon. member, if he used the word deceitful, if he would kindly

withdraw the remark before the Chair has to take more action.

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I ran my campaign

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

The Chair realizes the hon. member is a new member here in the House and the

Chair realizes that he is probably not aware of the way to withdraw remarks or

to pre-qualify them by making a statement, but I ask the hon. member to withdraw

the remark immediately or the Chair will have no other choice but to take other

action. For the final time, I ask the hon. member to withdraw the remark.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Since the hon. member is not willing to withdraw the remark, I name you, Mr.

Marshall Dean, and ask you to leave this House for the remainder of the sitting

day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to leave the Chamber immediately. I ask the hon. member

to leave the Chamber immediately.

[Mr. Dean leaves the Chamber]

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spent some time last night reading Budget documents and was

surprised to read on page 166 of the Estimates that under the Energy Policy

government overspent by $8 million in professional services. That is a lot of

money.

Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery fifteen workers from the Burin Peninsula,

job coaches for persons with intellectual disabilities who are asking for a

total of $75,000 over four years to give them a modest wage increase. Mr.

Speaker, some of these workers will be making less than the minimum wage when it

goes up in July if they still have their jobs. These fifteen workers and their

seventeen clients certainly have had the brakes slammed on them, I say, Mr.

Speaker.

I ask the Minister of Finance: Could he give a clearer answer to this House

why this government is refusing to agree to the modest demands of these fifteen

low-income workers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question in the House

previously and I have answered it again here today. We are negotiating on behalf

of the Burin-Marystown employment corporation. We have met on many occasions. We

are attempting to come to an accommodation. Unfortunately, our positions are

apart. We cannot come to an arrangement, but our government has offered a 20 per

cent wage increase over four years. In these uncertain economic times when other

jurisdictions in the country are in fact instituting wage freezes, a 20 per cent

wage increase is extremely fair and reasonable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I say 20 per cent over a minimum wage allowance

or salary which amounts to $75,000 over four years certainly, honestly, cannot

be too much to be asked for by these people. I cannot believe the answer that I

was just given.

Mr. Speaker, if the government is negotiating and they really want something

to be reached, I want to know why, when the union requested that a mediator be

brought in, the answer was no? I ask that question of the Minister of Human

Resources, Labour and Employment, why there is not an agreement to bring a

mediator in to get this resolved?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with the Labour Relations Agency we have many highly trained

professional mediators who are at the disposal of the striking workers and of

both parties. We have appointed a senior mediator who has been working with the

parties and, in addition to that, the Director of Labour Relations was involved

in the situation herself last week. So we believe that we have some very highly

trained; some very professional people there who are able to work with both

parties and who are ready any time to continue to sit down with those parties.

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.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 26.(5)(

a) of the Financial

Administration Act, I am tabling thirteen Orders in Council relating to funding

precommitments for the 2010-2011, 2014-2015 fiscal year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to move the

following resolution:

Resolution Respecting the Reappointment of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner.

Be It Resolved by the House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS

section 42.1 of the Access To Information and Protection of Privacy

Act provides that the Information and Privacy Commissioner is to be appointed by

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of the House Assembly; and

WHEREAS

section 42.2 of the Act states that a commissioner may be

reappointed; and

WHEREAS the appointment of the current commissioner, Mr. Ed Ring, expires on

April 10, 2010; and

WHEREAS it is proposed that Mr. Ring be reappointed as the commissioner for a

term of two years,

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Ed Ring be reappointed as the

Information and Privacy Commissioner for a term of two years.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words and a few moments with

respect to the Budget.

Just so Joe and Martha understand - my good friends who watch the

parliamentary channel - there is a different process in place, of course, for

virtually everything that goes on in the House of Assembly. With respect to the

first person who responds to the Budget Speech, which was given yesterday by the

hon. Minister of Finance, comes under Standing Order 46.(4), and what is says is

that whatever length of time the Minister of Finance took to deliver his Budget

yesterday, the first person who responds from the Opposition gets twice that

amount of time or three hours, whichever is the greater. So, looking at 2:30 of

the clock right now, I do not know if I can last three hours or not, but that

would take us to closing time today. I have some lower back issues so I might

not be able to sustain it for that period of time, but I will try my best

because, God knows, there is a lot here to talk about. There is some good stuff,

some very good stuff. Some things in terms of overall direction and policy one

might question as to the direction that the government is going in, where they

have come from, where we are today, and where we might be headed, so it will

take some time. I have three hours, as I say, so I do not have to rush what I

intend to say. I apologize in advance if, from time to time, I appear to be a

little bit all over the place; because, when you deal with this budget process,

you can see from just the amount of documents that you have that it is pretty

comprehensive. This was not a little two-page report or whatever that the

minister delivered yesterday. There are oodles and oodles of documents. There

are billions of dollars at stake here, numerous programs and numerous

departments, so the question is - that is the government's financial plan for

the forthcoming year.

Not only would I like to address the financial aspects of this, and the

economic aspects of it, but you will recall that last week, about eight days

ago, the Lieutenant Governor came here and he delivered a Throne Speech. Now,

that is a different kind, a Thorne Speech and a Budget Speech. You might ask:

Well, what is the difference between the two? Normally, a Throne Speech sets out

the government's plan, the government's agenda. You hear all kinds of grandiose

phrases sometimes, like masters in our own house, and stuff like that, and

destiny being fulfilled and so on. That is more or less the generic, overall,

top-of-the-tree plans or agenda that the government has,

whereas a Budget Speech

deals more or less with, okay, how are we going to handle the money that we

have, the resources that we get in, to try to do things in that plan, or

implement it?

Now it is very nice, of course, when a government's Throne Speech connects or

integrates with its Budget plan, but when it doesn't you have a real problem;

because, obviously, if there is a disconnect between what your plan is and how

you are using the money that you have, there is a serious problem. That is

called misdirection; that could even be mismanagement, if you have not equated

what you got your money for with what you are going to use the money for: what

programs, for example.

I get an opportunity here to look at some of the big picture stuff, the

top-of-the-tree stuff, which I would like to do. I would like to first skim the

top of the trees as to what we have here. Then we need to drill down a little

bit; we have to go into some of the branches to see what was not said yesterday

in the minister's speech, or what he did say but how he said it. For example, it

is only when you sit back sometimes with sober second thought and you say: Did

he really mean that, or could he possibly mean that, because that is contrary to

something that they already said last week or last month. Has there been a

change of policy, or is he just messed up on what he said?

That is why, in the course of talking this afternoon as well, I will be

posing a number of questions to the minister; because he gets to respond again.

He just did not say it yesterday. The minister is usually on the ball, I must

say. I think this is his third kick at the can now, being Minister of Finance,

his third Budget.

The last couple of times that I have had the pleasure of responding to his

Budget, I must say, he has been pretty forthcoming in providing the answers, or

trying to provide answers, to the questions that I posed. There were some that

he could not answer because, of course, he does not have all the answers, and

sometimes my questions he did not want to answer. Deflection, sometimes, is

pretty good too, and he is pretty good at that, by the way, sometimes. He can

deflect when he does not want to give a direct answer. Sometimes he will deflect

and sort of wiggle around; gives himself lots of wiggle room. In any case, he is

usually pretty forthright.

First of all, let me deal with some of the overview stuff, we will call it,

the big picture stuff about the Budget. This past year has been one of the

greatest economic batterings that we have seen in this Province, economically.

In fact, I put the word economic tsunami on it last year in questions and I

notice the minister, in his CBC commentaries yesterday, used that phrase, and it

is quite true. We were pretty well slammed in the last year. Now we can talk

about, as the Premier did: we were sort of secular: we were on our own last

year; we were not going to get bashed as bad as the rest of Canada or the rest

of North America, particularly the United States and so on, but when you look at

the raw figures that we now have we took a pretty good smack. We took a pretty

big smack and you cannot sugar-coat it, however much you might want to.

The economic performance for 2009 was nothing but dismal. We can say what we

want, but that is the word that one has to look at and I will give some figures

to show that. For example, the Gross Domestic Product of this Province and

that is usually an indicator of how well you are doing; if your GDP is growing,

you are growing as a people and as a province, and that is good, that bodes well

for everybody in that province - last year, our real GDP declined by 8.9 per

cent. By the way, the figures I am referring to here, I did not come up with

these figures on my own. Any figures that I refer to in the course of the next

little while are all figures from the Budget documents that were tabled here in

the House yesterday. So, don't worry, there is no fudging of figures here, or I

took figures and I tried to spin them or anything. These are the government's

own figures.

Last year, our GDP fell by 8.9 per cent. Now, if you want to go back and

compare to other times in our history when we had a more dismal type of decline,

I dug out a little chart of GDP growth over the years. If you go back, the other

greatest decline we had in GDP in this Province was in 1992 when our GDP

declined by 3.2 per cent.

I realize sometimes these numbers might get confusing, so I will try to keep

it simple just to make the point, but I have to use the numbers to make the

point. For example, 1992 - just recall the history, now. That is the year of the

moratorium. That is the year when certain people were going to batter the doors

down at the Newfoundland Hotel and they went after

Minister Crosbie of the day and they were going to lynch him when he shut down

the fishery.

That year, 1992, we had a 3.2 per cent drop in GDP in this Province. Up to

that point, that was the highest, largest single drop we ever had. This year,

the past year, 2009, 8.9 per cent; virtually three times greater drop in our GDP

than we have ever had. Now, that is cause for concern. That is cause for

concern.

Remember last week, too, because I will keep coming back to this: sometimes

government does not tell the pieces that they do not want you to know, because

they do not want to mix, sometimes, need for concern with the optimism that they

say exists. I am all for optimism, I am all for advance, and I am all for growth

and so on, but we have to be realists as well.

The Premier talked about the glass being half full or the glass half empty.

The fact is - and it does not matter who says it - the fact is we had the

single-greatest decline in our Gross Domestic Product in the last twenty years

in 2009. That is pretty substantial; very substantial.

We also had, in terms of employment in this Province, last year our

employment fell by 2.5 per cent. Now, this is a Province that is on the rise. We

are masters in our own house. We had a 2.5 per cent decline in employment. We

also had an increase in the unemployment rate in this Province to 15.5 per cent.

The last time we were at 15.5 per cent unemployment rate was 1989. We had an

unemployment rate the same as we do today, 15.5 per cent. It has varied up and

down, in the meantime, but that is where we are.

In 2003, when this Administration took over, we had 16.5 per cent. So here we

are, seven years out, and we have had a 1 per cent decline in seven years; that

is in the unemployment rate. If you just want to equate that with some things,

the government has doubled the budget - more than doubled the budget - from

about $3 billion in 2003 when they took over government; we are approaching $7

billion now. So we are spending more than 100 per cent more than what we spent

seven years ago, yet our unemployment rate is only 1 per cent less. So, you have

to look at some of these little cracks in the wall and ask: How concerned should

we be of these? True, retail sales tax grew by 2.6 per cent. That was, by the

way - and that is a good point - the strongest growth in retail sales in the

whole country. I believe there were only two provinces in the country that

recorded growth when it came to retail sales last year.

Now you might ask: How could your retail sales grow when your unemployment is

growing at the same time? The two are usually inconsistent. Usually, when

unemployment goes up, your retail purchasing goes down because people have less

money; therefore, they are not into purchasing. Someone suggested it might have

to do with the fact that the people who came back here, because they are not

working out west any more, they are not working in Ontario any more. We had a

lot more unemployed but because they came back home on the unemployment rolls,

because they could not get employed elsewhere they still were purchasing, of

course, for themselves and their families here which led to the boost in our

retail sales.

We would much prefer, of course, when they are employed, whether it be here

or out west, we prefer for them to be here. When they come home, work out west,

bring their cheques home so they are still employed, they are home here spending

their money in retail sales.

Labour income increased 4.2 per cent; that is the second best performance, I

do believe, amongst the provinces in Canada. You have to wonder where the labour

income came from. Whether it is public sector increase caused by the public

sector or whether it is caused by private industry, it makes a difference,

particularly if the government is driving this up by driving up the debt in the

public sector. For example, we had - the government, by the way, is the largest

employer in the Province as I understand it; the largest single employer in the

Province. The government just gave all the workers 8 per cent last year. Also,

of course, the oil revenues result in pretty high incomes. You start to compare

some of the wages that these workers in the oil field

[Comments from public gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair always welcomes hon. members to the House of Assembly. Members are

welcome to attend and observe the proceedings here on the floor of the House,

but I must remind hon. members in the galleries that they are not to show

pleasure or displeasure for anything that is said or that happens here in the

House of Assembly. So while members are -

[Comments from public gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

While members are always welcome, they are not to show pleasure or

displeasure with anything that happens here on the floor of the House of

Assembly. So I ask the hon. members in the galleries for their co-operation, or

I will have to ask them to leave for today's sitting.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

[Comments from public gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask that the hon. person be escorted from the Assembly.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I surely hope it was not anything that I said that disturbed the gentleman in

the Chamber to cause his removal.

Mr. Speaker, there are some positives, as we say, that you have to look at,

but there are some negatives. You put them all together and I guess caution is

the right word that pops out. Rather than being optimistic, rather than being

pessimistic, maybe a more accurate word would be cautious or realistic.

That leads you to ask because it is not only this member who asked the

question, one need only read the different media sources today to find out what

the general public thought of the Budget. I will get to that and talk about how

some of the different people perceived it differently.

A lot of it, of course, as to how you felt about it comes down to who you

represent and what sector you represent. Some have a very personal interest in

the Budget; it might be a about a tax break, for example. Other people represent

groups and therefore they speak on behalf of the group. They might personally

like or dislike it, but if they represent a certain sector of society, whether

it is nurses or public union workers or fishermen for example, they have to

usually speak for those groups.

The minister tells us - I guess it depends on what program you watch

sometimes. I am getting a mixed message. It seemed to be mixed, maybe it is not,

because I have heard the minister say in the past that we have to be cautious,

we do not know if we can sustain what we are doing. Then we will hear the

Premier on another broadcast saying: Well, we do not know about the stuff about

balanced budgets and not running deficits. Full steam ahead; we have to make

sure that we keep driving her.

You wonder the first time I heard that I thought: My God, is the Premier

and the Minister of Finance offside with each other? One is saying we do not

know if we can sustain things. Meanwhile, the Premier is saying give her, drive

it, we have too much momentum now, we cannot lose steam, let her go. I am just

wondering whether they are offside with each other, or maybe the two of those

comments can somehow be meshed because certainly the message from the Minister

of Finance is you have to be pretty cautious.

Personal income growth, for example, we did have personal income growth in

this Province last year, 3.9 per cent. Disposable income grew by 4.7 per cent.

That is all good stuff, but we have to look at another piece of it. For example,

what is not in the government numbers is the fact that personal bankruptcies in

the last twelve months in this Province increased by 18.8 per cent - increased.

That is in a twelve-month period; that is up to the end of November 2009.

So, again, that optimism versus pessimism depends on what statistics you are

reading. You say personal income has gone up by 3.9 per cent, disposable income

by 4.7 per cent and then you look, you pick up a paper, you check the statistics

and you find out that bankruptcy has gone up almost 19 per cent. So somebody is

suffering. Not everybody was a part of that growth in personal income and

disposable income. Somewhere in amongst this mix, there are people who are still

hurting. Yes, some people had gains.

It comes back to the old comment again - I believe the Leader of the

Opposition used it yesterday in several of the interviews, for example when they

asked: Where do you think all of this is leading? Part of her answer was and I

am sure I paraphrased - is it a case of the rich getting richer and the poor

getting poorer? It is fine to have all of this growth that we talk about, 3 or 4

per cent growth, but if it is only going to a certain sector of our society, a

smaller sector in particular, and if the larger sectors are suffering, for

example, declaring bankruptcy, that does not bode well for us. That does not

bode well. A lot of times, these people who declare bankruptcy, what happens?

Many of them sometimes have to look to government for help. So our social

assistance budgets get impacted if there are bankruptcies. So there are always

consequences; by every action, there is a consequence.

I noticed the government, for example - personally, I think the minister who

I thought in past budgets was a bit conservative I use that small c

conservative

AN HON. MEMBER: Progressive.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Progressive, shall we say. I think this year he maybe

threw caution to the wind a little bit. Maybe threw caution to the wind, and I

will tell you why I think that. He talks about running the deficit of about $195

million this year, and he tells you, of course, where the revenue is going to

come from, but when you look at some of the things that went on last year and

what he is prefacing his predictions on, you wonder.

Another point I would like to make, by the way, is the Budget is not an exact

piece, it is not an exact science. It is actually called Estimates. We have a

book that is part of the Budget process called Estimates. That is exactly what

it is. So the government projects where they think we are going to be for the

next year and why we think we are going to get there.

I would just like to take a moment to look at some of the underlying reasons

why the minister accepted certain advice over other advice. For example, you

talk about rural Newfoundland; the fishery has been a major, major piece of our

economy for years and decades. It is a fact that last year, for example - the

rural economy is very subject to the whims of the fishing industry. Right here

in these documents it shows that last year the volume of all landings in this

Province from the fishing industry were down 8.5 per cent. That impacted

thousands of people. I do not just mean the harvesters and the processors. I

mean the fisherpersons, I mean the families of these fisherpersons, thousands of

people in rural Newfoundland.

Now, that might not have impacted too many people on the Northeast Avalon.

There might not have been a lot of urban people who were impacted by that, but I

can tell you, being a member from rural Newfoundland, I represent the district

on the Southwest Coast, I can tell you they were certainly impacted, that 8.5

per cent. It might not seem like a big number, but when you start to translate

that 8.5 per cent decline in the fishing industry into rural Newfoundland, I am

telling you, you have negative impacts, no question 8.5 per cent decline in

the volume of the landings in the fishing industry last year. The value, because

one thing is volume what you land, another thing is what is the value you get

for what you land. So, the two are different.

You might, for example, in one particular year have a certain volume, but

because the prices are up in the shellfish industry you might do great with the

value that you landed. You might have another year where you have lots of

volume, but the prices are depressed in the U.S. markets, or European markets,

or Asian markets and therefore you do not get very much value. You have to look

at both the volume and the value. As I say, the volume, we know, was down 8.5

per cent. Add to that and this is an even more striking number the value of

all landings in this Province last year from the fishing industry was down 19.2

per cent; 19.2 per cent in the value. Now that is where you get your take home.

That is where people make their money. That is what people pay their taxes on.

That is where government gets their tax revenues. That is where shopkeepers sell

things to people who make the money. In rural Newfoundland

last year, virtually 20 per cent of value landing in the

fishing industry is down.

Now, the government yesterday, and the minister in his speech said: 2010,

this Budget, we look for 2010 to be like 2009 in the fishing industry pretty

well. Well, I would say that is fine. That might look good if you just took that

sentence as you said it: Yes, we are looking pretty good for next year; we are

going to get the same as we had in 2009. When you peel back that piece of banana

or the onion and you look and you say: My God, we do not want it to be like it

was in 2009. The value of our landings in 2009 was down by almost 20 per cent.

That does not seem to be anything to be too optimistic about. I would think

you talk about play on words. I would prefer it if the minister was more

realistic and said: We had a terrible year in the fishing industry last year;

down 20 per cent in value. We hope we have a better year next year; instead of

just glossing it over type of thing, not getting into the real nuts and bolts of

it.

The 2010 forecast and again, it would be nice to see where the forecasts

are coming from that the minister relied on. He says: We expect to see the same

volume and value if the resources are harvested. Now, that is pretty telling. I

do believe we had a protest on the steps of this building yesterday from the

independent harvesters. I do believe we had questions in Question Period today

directed at the Minister of Fisheries and he stood up and said: It is supposed

to start on April 1; I hope I can sit down tonight with Mr. McCurdy and Mr.

Butler who heads up the processors. I hope and pray for the sake of people in

rural Newfoundland who depend on it that they do have

that meeting tonight and that they do get something done, because this industry

is supposed to start again on April 1. I do believe that is Thursday of this

week.

So we can talk about volumes of landings, we can talk about value of

landings, but we are going to have a pretty short talk if it does not get

started. God forbid, if we are here next year saying that 20 per cent down was a

joke. We never had a fishing industry in 2010. I do not know, given what has

been going on about the MOU in the fishing industry and given what we are

hearing everyday coming from the FFAW and from the harvesters and the

processors, I do not know what would cause this minister to be so optimistic

that 2010 is going to be the same as it was in 2009. Hopefully, it will get off

the ground, but I think I did read in one media source this morning that there

are even talks that there might be a strike. The FFAW are talking about a

strike. By the way, if the fishing industry does not take off this year and that

does not happen, I talked about that urban rural divide, who gets impacted most

when something does or does not happen in certain sectors. Guess who gets hit?

Not only is it the people in rural Newfoundland, they are typically the people

who earn the lowest. They are on the lowest end of the economic spectrum in

these isolated rural parts, many times isolated. So, again, I do not know if the

minister might have been a little bit too optimistic. He saw more water in the

glass than was actually there, by relying upon the fishing industry. Overly

optimistic, I guess was the words.

Also, for example, in the mining industry; the Minister of Finance talks

about mineral values. You have to realize in this Province we make our money,

the Province makes money; it puts money into its coffers or its bank account

from a number of sources. It takes money from the offshore. It takes money from

mining. It takes money from fisheries, money from forestry, money from

agriculture, money from taxes, money from VLTs, lottery machines, puts it into

the pot and then they have to sit down and decide where we are going to spend it

and what are we going to spend it on; health care, education, CONA, Memorial

University. Where are we going to spend it to? Policing? Where? The

part I am

dealing with right now is the getting of the money into the coffers. The

minister is saying: well, I think we are going to do all right. We are going to

have a deficit of 195 but one of the reasons I think we might be okay is the

fishing industry is going to do as well as it did last year, but whoop-de-do, as

Snook would say. I don't put too many kudos on that piece.

The mineral values; now let's look at the mineral values. For example, we

have a number of major, major mining incidents. Labrador, for example, the Big

Land is famous for what it contributes to this Province from a mining

perspective. Labrador City, Wabush, of course Inco, now called Vale Inco with

the new ownership, putting up a big processing facility out in Long Harbour; are

going to be major contributors if they operate at their full potential in terms

of production and if they get the prices that you would like for them to get.

The Minister of Finance says we are going to see 60 per cent, he is

predicting, 60 per cent increase in mining. I have to ask, I do not know what

crystal ball he is looking into again. I do not know who he is talking to in

terms of forecasters, where he is getting his information, because that is

pretty optimistic, a 60 per cent increase in mining revenues. I will just tell

you why I think it is overly optimistic, and I am sure he is going to tell me

that I am a pessimist when all this is over. I just ask the questions because

the few things that I see going on in the Province, you have to ask yourself:

How could he possibly conclude what he did?

For example, the IOC that operates in Lab City has always been a great

contributor to this Province from the iron ore. From what I recall, in the last

media piece I saw there was a major, major expansion up in Lab City planned and

that got put on the drawing board. It was taken from the design go-ahead phase

because of that economic tsunami, and IOC said we are going to take that off the

drawing board right now. We are going to shelve that for a while. The Member for

Labrador West, I am sure he can comment and confirm that that is the case. It

was in the media that they are going to shelve it because of the economic

circumstances. One wonders, how is he going to gain back the 60 per cent? I hope

he is not relying upon that expansion going ahead this year because that is not

even there. We are into April month now, pretty well. So he is not going to get

it from any increased activity that is going to come about as a result of the

IOC mining project.

I do believe there was a Wabush expansion planned as well, which got put on

the drawing board. So I guess he is not going to see much growth, much

productivity, or much money in the coffers from the Wabush expansion in the

mining industry this year. I also do believe that Inco, the last time I heard,

was on strike. I believe that strike has been on for quite some time. I do not

know if there is any possibility or suggestion that they are going back to work

any time soon. Now, if they did, great!

If you have the two major expansions that are not on, if you have Inco, the

other big one that is on strike, I would think I would have tempered my

suggestions that we are going to get 60 per cent growth. Of course, when I talk

about Inco I would be remiss if I did not mention, of course, how we have come

full circle from condemning Inco to now it is one of the poster boys of this

government; poster boys of the government now, a great project.

I remember back in 2002, on June 20, I sat over there as Minister of Justice

and Attorney General, the Premier of today sat over here as the Leader of the

Opposition, and we had a special session. For days and days the Opposition were

out railing against this Inco, giveaways, not a good project. You could find off

ramps in that this person, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, slammed

the government of the day and said: No way, bad deal, not going to make a penny

off this. We will give it all away. So I stood up as the Minister of Justice of

the day and I said to the Leader of the Opposition: Well, why don't you show me?

Show me where the holes are? Because I wanted to be shown; I certainly did not

want to be a party to any agreement that had holes in it. I do not think anybody

comes in here and sits in this House of Assembly and would agree to do something

that you know wilfully and deliberately is going to hurt your Province. That is

just inconceivable. That is not why you offer yourself as a public servant and

offer yourself as an MHA.

In all seriousness, I said to the Leader of the Opposition who was well-known

in business and in legal circles, I said: Please, tell me where are the off

ramps that you talk about? Where are the holes that you can drive a Mack truck

through? Guess what, folks? I was never told. I was not told in June of 2002,

and I asked the question years and years and years successively. Was I ever

told? No, never told, but finally, guess what? I believe the Premier took a trip

to Labrador about a year, eighteen months ago, and I was so shocked when I heard

him say to one of the media sources: We got a great deal up there in that Inco

thing, a great deal. Of course, he could not just leave it at that, he had to

say: Well, we are going to tweak that a little bit and make it better. For the

first time, the revelation came, the revelation came that it was a good deal.

So I am very pleased to see that at least something that a former

Administration did might have been beneficial. Something might have been

beneficial, and today, yesterday, last year, the year before, and for the years

to come, are going to put millions and billions into our economy.

Back to my comments here about the mining industry, now where is the minister

going to get 60 per cent increase in the mining industry? By the way, I never

even mentioned, I just talked about the expansions that were not going to go

ahead. I talked about the strike in IOC, but guess what? A lot of those things

only talk about expansions, infrastructure construction. When you talk about the

raw product itself, the iron ore for example, check the prices of what were

being offered in the iron ore industry last year. This minister is going to

expect, and he does expect, based on the figures he has put into his budget, he

is going to expect one whopping global increase in the price of iron ore in

order to meet his 60 per cent increases that he is talking about. Now, I am sure

if the people in the iron ore business were as optimistic as he is, there would

be a lot of people out buying shares in IOC and iron ore companies, yesterday

and today, based upon the minister's optimism, I am sure.

I wonder where that is coming from. Is it coming from increased production?

Is it optimism because of increased prices that he expects, for example? Does he

know something about the resolution of the Inco strike that we do not know

about, and that caused him, for example, to say that in his Budget Speech? Maybe

he knows that Inco is on the broach of settling their strike. So those are the

kind of questions I would ask.

The other thing, of course, I talked about the fishing industry, the

contributors to the coffers. Well, like I say, they are pretty flat last year,

20 per cent decline in value in fishing. Iron ore, you have to bring it back 60

per cent to get to where he wants to go there.

Let's look at another one, oil prices. That is always a big contributor. In

fact, the money now from the oil industry is the biggest single contributor to

the economy of this Province, bar none - single biggest contributor. Now, of

course, how much you get depends upon what money you get for a barrel of oil.

Last year, the current Minister of Health and Community Services was the

Minister of Finance last I do believe - it is hard to tell because sometimes the

revolving door thing takes over the government side and there are people in a

government department, out of a government department. I made a comment last

week, for example, on the Department of Health that there have been so many

ministers in and out of the Department of Health in the last two years that they

took the hinges off the door and put in a revolving door. That is how many they

have in the Department of Health.

Anyway, that continues, but the former minister of last year's Budget said we

are going to have I believe the figure was a $750 million deficit roughly,

somewhere around $750 million deficit. That was based upon a barrel of oil being

$50. If we can get $50 a barrel he said, we are going to have a deficit of $750

million. Well, fortunately they got better than $50 a barrel. The oil prices

crept up. It did not go up to the historic high. We had highs of, what, $149

$140 a barrel at one point there last year when it hit the stratosphere. Great

if it stayed up there for us. The minister would be swimming in cash if that

were the case. He had that benefit for a couple of years, but of course the oil

industry, like everything else, is subject to global whims, global economic

circumstances. Anyway, he was fortunate. He did not get $50 a barrel; he got

more, thank God.

Again, by the way, they do not control this. He cannot say I am going to get

$50 or I am going to get $70. It is all subject to international pricing. The

minister has no control over that, as to what the barrel of oil gets sold for

just because it comes out of the water out here off Newfoundland

and Labrador . That is determined by

bigger players in the industry than this government. I think we average

somewhere in the seventies, the high seventies - $68 or so last year. So that

made the benefit better.

What is the minister saying this year? This year the minister is saying we

are going to have $195 million deficit last year it was $750 million. This

year they are saying we are going to have a $195 million deficit. Last year, he

thought he was going to get $50 a barrel; this year he is saying he is going to

get roughly $83 a barrel. Now, folks, I think if anybody went back and checked,

I do not think the barrel of oil has averaged $83 in the last year at all. It

might have been up over a couple of times, it might have been down, but in order

for this government to meet the expectations of this Budget, they have to get

I believe the actual figure was $83.48 a barrel in order to meet the

projections.

Now, I am just wondering because last year the minister of the day said:

Well, we hope we are going to get $50. At that time, the barrel of oil was at

$60 and he hoped to get $50; we will make it be okay. This year we know we are

not up at the $83.48 mark and he is saying that is the mark we are going to use.

So I do not understand how the different ministers pick and choose their numbers

as to what they are going to base their budget on. I realize it is not an exact

science but that seems to be a total one person has a low number when the prices

are fairly high and another one picks a high number and the prices are not

there. So it is hard to say.

The reason I ask that - and I am sure the minister will tell us when he gets

a chance to respond as to, hopefully he will tell us anyway who he is getting

his information from. I mean I am sure they just do not sit around the Cabinet

table and decide well let's pick a price. They have people in the Department of

Finance that have contacts in the oil industry and get their projections and so

on and estimates. The reason I ask is the Government of Alberta, which is pretty

on the ball too when it comes to oil, they have a little bit more history than

we have in terms of extracting and selling oil. The Government of Alberta this

year in its budget is only assuming $78.75, and they are hoping the next year

out it might go up to about $83.50. So I am wondering what makes the minister

think that the Alberta people who obviously did their due diligence, what makes

him think that they are off the wall here. They are the other, as I understand

it, big oil producer in the country. I would think you would be fairly well

close, but no, Newfoundland is thinking, Newfoundland and Labrador, that we

might be okay in going with that figure.

So, the bottom line is I think the government and the minister are a little

bit optimistic when you talk about what is coming from our fisheries. Well, if

what was on the steps of Confederation Building was any indication yesterday, I

would not take that to be good.

If you look at what is happening in the mining industry, which I just alluded

to in detail, I would not count on that. If you look at the oil industry, let's

hope we get it. I hope the prices go to $140 in that regard in terms of what

money it puts in. Now it causes some problems too, because obviously when prices

go we end up gaining on the revenue side, but there are all kinds of problems

that cause for people too, gas prices go up and everything else. You have people

impacted by that. Heating fuels and so on, people trying to heat their homes and

whatever. So you have issues there as well.

Let's look at another piece that puts money in the pie; that is the forest

industry. I would not think the Minister of Finance put too many high hopes on

what is going to come into this Province from the forest industry. The forest

industry, to put it quite bluntly in this Province in the last couple of years,

has been devastated absolutely devastated. We used to have a paper mill in

Stephenville; we are not banking on that one. I do believe that most of that has

been dismantled and recycled under this government's watch. We are not looking

at any big income from them.

We used to be able to look to Central Newfoundland at one time. I do not

think we are going to expect anything from the forest industry in Central

Newfoundland in the fiscal year 2010 because it does not exist anymore either.

Two out of the three they say three strikes and you are out, by the way. We

had three industries: we had one in Stephenville; we had one in Central,

Abitibi; and we have one in Corner Brook, Kruger.

If the minister is expecting good things from the forest industry, it can

only possibly come from Corner Brook, Kruger, because that is all we have now in

terms of the mills. I gather from a little

section that I saw in the Budget

yesterday that Kruger is not on good times. In fact, I do believe I saw a figure

of 50 per cent down. In fact, this government, in order to keep Kruger alive

and by the way, I absolutely agree with this investment; I think it is a good

investment. The government has agreed in this Budget to put $30 million into

Kruger in Corner Brook. I think we have to do it; the industry worldwide is on

bad times.

We have already lost two: Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor. We cannot

risk the possibility of losing our one and only surviving paper mill in Corner

Brook. The spokesperson - I read a clip in one of the media sources this morning

- for Kruger said: Thank God. If this is possibly going to salvage it - if we

never had this, we were done, we were history.

The government - it was not just a straight pump the money in thing. It is

very pleasing to see the Premier and the Minister of Finance both represent the

Corner Brook area where Kruger is set up. If I am a business functioning in

Corner Brook and I need help, I would feel pretty solid when I went looking if I

have the Premier and the Minister of Finance in my corner. That is one good

thing they had going for them. More importantly, it is because it could be

justified and it was needed. We cannot risk losing the third one.

The government is going to get back some timber rights. It was not just a

straight here is your $30 million. Now, I do not know how it equates, whether

they are getting back $30 million worth of timber rights. Quite frankly, I do

not think that is the name of the game. I do not think you need to. Somebody

asked me this morning, however, they said: I wonder though why government never

got an equity stake in Kruger for $30 million? I mean, go figure. If we can

invest hundreds of millions of dollars into Nalcor to go buy stakes in Hebron

and so on and the White Rose expansion and the Hibernia South, I wonder why

government or did they think about saying to Kruger: we are going to give you

$30 million, but rather than just getting back some timber rights, we want an

equity stake in you too? Why wouldn't we? In fact, that is a renewable resource

as opposed to the oil industry. So where does this: we want to be equities when

it comes to our resources I wonder where that begins and ends with this

Administration?

We would have seen the I met the gentleman. I think it was Joe Kruger, was

his name. I met him years ago in Montreal. I wonder what Mr. Kruger would have

thought about that if the government had said: Yes, if you want our money, here

it is, give us an equity stake. If you want us to play with you and be partners

and supportive of you, give us 10 per cent of your industry. Give us 10 per cent

of your company, at least in the Newfoundland portion

of it, so that when the industry rebounds we can see some bucks for our return.

We can get some return on our dollars rather than just a straight giveaway.

Because this government, by the way, you will recall that this is the government

that does not give things away.

So I am just wondering if the thought process on equity investments was

applied to the Kruger deal, and if not, why not? It cannot be any more

complicated than getting involved in the oil industry; it cannot be. I do not

see the downside really. If you invest your $30 million, which you have done

anyway, and it shuts down, well, fine that is going to be the same result right

now. If you put your $30 million in, it cannot be any more risky than drilling

holes out in Parsons Pond looking for oil. It cannot be any more risky. So just

applying some of the logic I do not know if government is short-sighted in its

way of looking at its investments, or is it because some people in this

government have an inkling and an interest in a certain industry, i.e. the oil

industry, so that is where we can go, but we cannot go in the forest industry. I

look forward to the minister giving me some information in that regard.

That is the overview piece where I think that the government - and I pray

that the predictions that this Minister of Finance and this government has based

this Budget upon, that they all come true, plus. I would love to see the mining

industry recover by 60 per cent. I would love to see the fishing industry

recover and have a bountiful year. I would love to see the forest industry

rebound. I do not know, by the way, if there is any payback on the $30 million

other than before I forget that, the minister can probably answer that. Is

there any payback associated with the $30 million or did the timber rights cover

it off?

Then, of course, in the mining industry, hopefully the strike ends, the

expansions go ahead, the price of iron ore goes through the roof, and everybody

is happy and the minister can sit here and say we never had $195 million

deficit, we ended up with a surplus. We would all be very happy, but anyway, we

will see next year. We will see next year where that goes.

Now, just looking at some of the departments within government, I will get a

little bit more specific now. I said we would do the treetops but we need to get

down into the branches. Let's look at some of the departments and what is in

this Budget about them. From what I have checked here, the figures again, the

minister - either minister, the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister of

Finance can correct me if I am wrong on any of this, but from what I see here

over one-half of the department budget for the Department of Natural Resources

is in payment for ownership in energy stakes.

In other words, we have a Department of Natural Resources that governs all of

this stuff, oil, gas, mining, forestry, agrifoods, you name it. I understand

from my read of this Budget that one-half of the budget of that department has

nothing to do with program administration, nothing to do with silviculture, but

it is all about - $164 million, I believe is the figure, of the $294 million

that is in that department is payment for ownership in energy stakes. Which, by

the way, that whole issue of whether we should ever buy equity stakes I guess

it is not up in the air because the government has started down the road. So we

know where the government is going with it, but not everybody agrees with that.

Yes, there are jurisdictions in the world where the political entities have

bought into equities, into the oil industry, some do not.

Alberta, for example, they do not buy into the equities in these companies,

the ExxonMobils, or the Chevrons, or the Petro-Canadas. They just say: Look, it

is our oil. You go out, if you want to extract it, fine, here is what you are

going to pay us as a royalty. We do not have any downside on that. For every

barrel you take out of the ground, or in our case out of the ocean, give us a

cut. It is clean, tidy, whether it be 2 per cent, 5 per cent, whatever you

negotiate, but this government did not say that. This government said we want to

buy in, and they have given their reasons as to why they want to buy in but not

everybody agrees that it is good.

I know the Leader of the Opposition, for example, vehemently disagrees with

equity purchasing. She is of the opinion that we do not need to do it; there is

a risk side to it, because not only do you have to buy in, you have issues of

what the construction costs are going to be and you have to contribute to them.

You have possible environmental issues. What if we have another Exxon Valdez,

for example, out in Placentia Bay? This government is on the hook. You cannot

say then: well, my 5 per cent or my 4.9 per cent, that just bought me into the

profits when you share them up at the end of the year. The players in that

company are going to be saying thank you very much, but give us your 4.9 per

cent toward the environmental catastrophe we just had as well. So, there are

upsides and downsides to that.

In terms of the Department of Natural Resources, it is a big budget, but most

of it is a straight flow through. At least half of it is a straight flow

through. The minister picks it up in the Budget process, off it goes to Nalcor.

That is a small one this year, by the way, $164 million. I do believe it was

double that before. In the last number of years they have doubled what they put

into Nalcor.

Then you look at the Department of Business. The former Minister of Health

now fills that role. I call it the department that continues to hope it can give

money away but does not. Yes, that is about the size of it. I said at the

Estimates Committee another member was the minister at the time; he is retired

now, but he was the minister of the Department of Business - I said: Could you

tell me where you spent your money last year?

He could not tell me. This was in Estimates Committee. Now, that is the

place, by the way, where you would like to have televised cameras. That is the

place where they should have the TV. That is a process, by the way, we take this

Budget - just so that my friends Joe and Martha can understand this one, too, we

take a process here called Estimates whereby we get each minister and all of his

officials, they sit over across the House, and we in the Opposition and the

government members, if they want, but I have never, ever heard a question asked

can question the minister: What does this mean? What do you do with that? What

about this project? Where did you spend that money? It is a give and take. It is

not like Question Period where you are limited to thirty minutes. You ask a

question in Question Period and that is why it is called Question Period, by

the way, not answer period, because ministers rarely give answers.

In the Estimates process you can actually drill a minister and his officials

as to what is going on in his department. But, guess what? They will not

televise that. I have asked several times: How come we cannot televise

Estimates? Surely, if you are the minister and you have all these officials

around you, if you did not have the answer surely somebody in your department

has the answer. No, they will not televise that.

Now - you want to talk about open and accountable - that is a process that

would make governments truly open and accountable. We would not be just getting

the treetops then. We would be able to grill the ministers and find out exactly

what is going on. If they said: well, I don't have the answer. Well, why don't

you have the answer? If they gave you an answer that you knew was not correct or

was incorrect or not complete, why isn't it? That is when you get into the real

cut and thrust of it, but we do not have that in our system, of course; but

hopefully we will, from this open and accountable government as they claim to

be, see that some time in the future. I doubt it, given some of the concerns

that Mr. Ring is currently having in the Supreme Court and so on. I doubt it.

Anyway, back to the Department of Business. Last year they had a Business

Attraction Fund. They were budgeted to give away $35 million. Now, by the way,

that is not to say you just give money away for the sake of giving money away,

Mr. Speaker. Obviously, there has to be due diligence done. Obviously, you have

to have people who apply for the money. You can have all the money in the world

in your department, if nobody applies for it how can you give it away? So, it is

called a Business Attraction Fund. Last year they were budgeted $35 million.

They gave away - I say gave away, I use that term in terms of lending and so on.

They put out $10.3 million, less than one-third of what they had budgeted. Now,

we will find out when we get in Estimates who they gave it to. Well, we know

that because this government is very good on announcing, too, who they gave it

to. I believe there was a Rolls-Royce crowd out in Mount Pearl who was a part of

this. Everybody has heard that name before, Rolls-Royce. It sounds like a pretty

rich name to me. Well, anyway, they got some of the money. This effective

government has only gotten one-third of its money out the door. Why? Is the

program not working? Are we not having enough applicants? Are the criteria too

strict? What is going on when only one-third of what you budgeted is getting out

there?

This year I noticed in the Budget they have $34.5 million. Hopefully, we will

have better success rates. By the way, some people ask me the difference between

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

Development. My understanding of it is that the Department of Innovation, Trade

and Rural Development deals with businesses within the Province,

whereas the

Department of Business deals with attracting businesses from outside the

Province. We have not been very successful in attracting those businesses from

outside. Hopefully the Department of Business will have better luck this year.

This is a good one. This is really, really, one of the good ones I call it:

the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. Sometimes we have it, sometimes we

do not. Certain Premiers like it, certain Premiers do not, so we do or do not

sometimes have an IGA they call it an Intergovernmental Affairs Department.

The best thing they are known for in the last seven years is an office in

Ottawa. That is the famous Dr. Feelgood. Of course, you all know about Dr.

Feelgood. I stuck that name on him because Dr. John FitzGerald of Memorial

University, the Premier appointed him because that was the Premier's pet peeve.

He was going to put this rep in Ottawa who was going to open all the doors and

smooth the pathways in the halls of power, behind the scenes sort of guy, when

we needed to talk to the people in Ottawa on a project, and keep the lines of

communication open and so on.

Guess what, folks? We have not seen a report from either of the two people

who ever filled that position. You will remember it was Mr. Bill Rowe, who is an

Open Line host, who took it. Mr. Rowe left it after a certain period of time and

came back to the Province. We have had it filled since by Dr. FitzGerald. He has

left as of a few months ago; he is out of it. There is nobody there now.

The question is - and I was looking in the Budget yesterday but we did not

see that; we will find that out as we go through Estimates - is there any money

built in the Estimates this year for that office, or are they going to give up

on that now? Are they going to shut the doors on that? Because some people

question whether there ever should have been a door open in the first place.

We asked the former Ministers of IGA here in the House: Well, what does that

person do? Can you give us a report? No, no, he reports to the Premier. Does

anybody see it? No, no, you cannot see it. What does it cost? Hundreds of

thousands of dollars; paid the person, rented a place.

The most we ever got out of him - and we had to go through the freedom of

information to get that, by the way - the most we ever got out of him was that

he picks up people at the airports when they arrive; he calls over and arranges

their meetings with ministers of the federal Crown, and he makes sure that they

get there. I would call that a limousine service. That is why I called it Dr.

Feelgood's limousine service, because nobody else knew what he did. Anyway, he

is gone now, shuffled off into the bowels of the public service. We don't know

where he is going to end up, don't know what he does now either, but he is gone;

but we do not know where the office is going to go.

By the way, the overall reason for that person's existence was to improve

federal-provincial relations. Imagine, now, the Premier of today, when he came

in, in 2003, created that position for that representative in Ottawa to improve

federal-provincial relations. I do not know about anybody else who has been in

this Province in the last six or seven years, but I have not seen much

improvement in federal relations. I have seen a lot of downgrading of

federal-provincial relations. I mean the relationship between our Premier and

the Prime Minister, for example, the current Prime Minister Harper, is nothing

short of toxic. We had the famous ABC campaign, Anybody but Conservative, where

the Premier of this Province went out and campaigned against anybody who was

running as a Conservative for Prime Minister Harper, blocked them out. I do not

think a lot of them needed their help. I am sure MP Jerry Byrne on the West

Coast, and MP Russell from up in Labrador did not need his help. I am sure Mr.

Harris, the NDP who ran in St. John's East did not need the Premier's help. I am

sure MP Foote, who ran in my district, did not need the Premier's help. They

would have gotten elected anyway, but there were a couple of districts, for

example, that were tricky, that I am sure he played a

part in. I do not know

what Dr. Feelgood was doing while the ABC campaign was going on, because there

were not many doors being opened to him them. The Premier was saying don't elect

any Conservatives, so I doubt if the Conservatives up in Ottawa were saying:

Well, come on over, John; we will gear up a meeting for you. I do not think that

was on.

Of course, the whole issue of federal-provincial relations tied in, and a

part of all of this, we have seen two persons who had acrimonious, I guess would

be the word, relationships with the Premier and the party disappear from this

House only to seek their rewards in the big Red Chamber in Ottawa, the Senate.

We had the case of Mr. Manning, for example, kicked out of the local caucus, the

provincial caucus here - kicked out. What does Mr. Harper do? We will look after

you, he said; we will put you in the Senate.

Now I am sure that caused a little bit of gall on the Premier. I mean, here

was his nemesis, the former Member for Ferryland, who had been kicked out of the

caucus, now gone off to the Senate. I am sure the good Senator Manning now

laughs every day he gets out of bed and puts his socks on.

By the way, he is the mailman for us now; he is the cash drop. Any money that

comes from the federal government, you only need look on TV or look in the local

R&B papers or The Telegram , and what do you see? Senator Manning passing

out the cheques on all of these big infrastructure projects. That must really

gall - that has to gall you - when the person who you thought, now I am going to

fix you, and here he is every day in your face passing out cheques and getting

credit for him and for Mr. Harper for so doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Good stuff.

Of course, the other person I am referring to, who left most recently, is the

former Member for Topsail, former Auditor General, former Minister of Health and

Community Services, who left that position, that ministerial post, of course, in

a tiff with the Premier. She sat up in the back benches in this House for the

next five years. She got re-elected, of course. There was no such thing as

Anybody but Beth or whatever, because he could not dethrone her out in Topsail,

no question about that. Anyway, she sat and languished in the back rows, one of

the best minds we have ever had in the Province - fiscal minds, financial

responsibility and so on - languished in the back rows of the House. I do not

know if she got to speak very often. I don't think she did.

Anyway, Mr. Harper, as recently as just before Christmas you talk about the

relationship now continuing to be toxic, Mr. Manning went off a couple of years

ago. You wonder, well, are these gentlemen going to patch this up? You figure

maybe they are going patch it up. Then I heard, oh, yes, they are patching it up

because the Premier is having a meeting tomorrow in St. John's with Prime

Minister Harper at three o'clock. I said, well, that is it; they are on the road

to re-establishing their relationship, no question; we are going to be better

off for this.

Usually, you get more from someone if you are friends than if you are

enemies. That is usually the way the world works. If you are enemies with

someone, you do not normally get as much as you would expect if you were

friendly with them. So, I said, we have it made. The Premier has agreed; they

are going to meet in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Friday at three

o'clock. I said this is great for us.

Lo and behold, what happens? First thing Friday morning we hear on the news

that Ms Marshall, the second nemesis, I will call her, of the Premier, who he

had the disagreement with and booted out of Cabinet, she is gone off to the Red

Chamber. Now, you mean to say that is not the Prime Minister of Canada rubbing

the Premier's nose in it? He knew he had a meeting geared up for 3:00 p.m., knew

about the history between the Member for Topsail and the Premier, and what does

he do? He says, I am going to put her in the Senate the same as I did with Mr.

Manning. So off she goes.

Now what that means, of course, is that Mr. Manning has to split his

postman's duties now because he is not going to get to carry all the cheques any

more. Obviously, as soon as Ms Marshall Senator Marshall - gets settled away,

she will be bringing down some of the cheques as well. Just imagine if we had a

good relationship what we would do, instead of two people trying to be spiteful

towards each other.

The other department I will move on to now: ITRD, Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development. This is all tied into the Budget, of course, money wise, because

all of that money, the IGA, the office expenses for the representatives and so

on, it is all about money. The relationship between the feds and the Province,

that is all about money. The better the relationship, the more the money, I

would submit. ITRD now, you might ask yourself: What has been the biggest

single project of this government in ITRD since they got elected in 2003? Well,

I do not know if there is one single biggest project. I can think of two major

projects.

You hear about a lot of little stuff that they do, but the two single biggest

things that stand out in ITRD were the fibre optics piece and the closure of the

mill. For example, that department, headed by the minister, has been

spearheading the committee when Abitibi shut down in Central, put over 700

people out of work, about 169 of whom have been lucky enough to find work since.

That department, one of the biggest things they did, they put $40 mi