April 3, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 6

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the

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

District of Trinity-Bay de Verde; the hon. the Member for the District of Port

de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Trinity North; and, the hon.

the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Juliette Dupr

of St. Lawrence who was crowned the first ever Miss Teen Achievement

Newfoundland and Labrador 2006. Juliette was one of seventeen young women who

competed for the title.

The Miss Teen Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador Pageant was founded on

the principle that the future of our Province is dependent upon the leadership

qualities of today's youth and that the involvement in volunteer work and

community service should be both encouraged and rewarded.

The young women are judged on their interviews, academics, fitness, on-stage

introductions, poise, confidence, personality, public speaking and their

responses to impromptu questioning.

As the winner, Juliette will be a role model and voice for young people as

she travels throughout the Province attending various events.

Juliette is the daughter of Ghislain and Rosalie Dupr

of St. Lawrence.

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

Juliette and wishing her well in all future endeavors.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Trinity-Bay de

Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Rebecca Green of Green's Harbour,

a Grade 7 French Immersion student at Crescent Collegiate, for winning the

provincial gold medal in her division in the 2006 Newfoundland and Labrador

Winter Provincial Gymnastics Championships. As well, Rebecca will go on to

compete in the Atlantic Gymnastic Championships at Mount Pearl this month, and

in May will compete in the Eastern Gymnastic Championships in Hamilton, Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, Rebecca is truly an inspiration. For the past six years she has

travelled to Mount Pearl three times a week to train with Coach Dana Malone,

whom Rebecca credits with much of her success.

Rebecca has many athletic skills. She has won medals in cross-country

running, including gold at the Harvest Run in Carbonear, and gold at St. John's

in a cross-country meet. She was also chosen for the St. John's girls under

twelve Provincial Soccer Team, and will be playing in the Rocky Mountain Cup in

Edmonton this summer.

Mr. Speaker, Rebecca is a shining example that, with hard work, determination

and perseverance, we all can achieve great things. I would ask that you join

with me in extending heartfelt congratulations to Rebecca in recognition of her

many accomplishments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the achievements of Calvin Butt, a local educator

and volunteer who has won the 2005 J.D. Eaton Award for outstanding volunteer

service at Memorial University's Alumni Awards.

The Baccalieu Trail

Chapter of Memorial University's Alumni Association

sponsored a special reception and dinner in honour of Mr. Butt, who received the

award at the Bay Roberts Lions Club on March 3.

Mr. Butt has developed the program, Nourishing Foundations for Literacy

Development, and has, over the years, promoted the importance of early literacy

through his work as chair of the Early Literacy/Early Childhood Committee. He

was president of the Port aux Basques branch of the provincial Teachers'

Association, chair of the Educational Finance Committee of the Provincial

Integrated Education Council. He was also chair of the Avalon West School Board,

Secretary-Treasurer of the Provincial School Boards Association, vice-chair of

the former Avalon Strategic Social Plan, and served three years as vice-chair of

the Board of Regents of Memorial University. He also served nine years as

vice-president of the Alumni Association, and in 1998 was president of the

Baccalieu Trail Chapter.

Calvin Butt is a Bay Roberts resident and has taught primary, elementary and

secondary levels. He has been a school principal, a district school supervisor

and the district Superintendent of Education.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to rise with me in acknowledging

the achievements and volunteer service of Mr. Calvin Butt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in this House to congratulate Catherine Hogarth of Port

Rexton for her very inspirational Peace Poster.

Mr. Speaker, the Lions organization sponsors an annual Peace Poster contest.

The competition is open to students ages eleven, twelve and thirteen, where

students are encouraged to visually depict their

interpretation of the contest

theme for that year. This year, the theme has been: Peace Without Borders.

Mr. Speaker, Catherine is a Grade 9 student at Port Rexton All Grade School

and she placed first at the local level, went on to compete in the district,

which is all of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador, and then became eligible to

compete in the multi-district level, which includes all of Atlantic Canada and

the State of Maine. There were some 350 entries, Mr. Speaker, and Catherine

placed third in that competition.

Catherine's poster has been on display at the Veteran's Centre in Ottawa

and recently, together with several others, were selected to begin a tour across

Canada.

Mr. Speaker, Catherine's poster depicts the work of a very creative,

insightful and imaginary mind, with a keen understanding of the message conveyed

in this year's theme of Peace Without Borders.

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

congratulating Catherine, on not only her tremendous poster that she developed,

insightful poster, but also being able to recognize her contribution and her

participation in this national competition and representing this Province very

well in that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to

extend congratulations to our hometown boy, Jamie Korab, a Harbour Grace native,

and the Brad Gushue Men's Canadian Curling Olympic Gold Medalists.

Jamie, you've done us proud! Together the journey from Halifax to Turin has

been an experience that many of us will soon not forget. The pride and

rejuvenation that has been bestowed upon us from your hard work and success will

be our history. The first Olympic Gold Medal for Canada's Mens Curling and

Newfoundland and Labrador's first Olympic Gold Medal will be cherished

forever.

Mr. Speaker, at a recent rally held in Harbour Grace, Jamie's former high

school, St. Francis, named their auditorium the Jamie Korab Auditorium.

When they were in Harbour Grace for a pre-Olympic rally January 12, Gushue

and his team promised to bring home gold. Well, on February 24, they delivered

on that promise. For a town already steeped in historic milestones, Harbour

Grace now has another reason to wear its historic town mantle. In the annals of

sports history this moment is unmatched.

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

congratulating Jamie Korab, and the Brad Gushue Men's Canadian Curling Olympic

Gold Medalists.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to inform hon.

members of recent meetings I have held with two ministers of the federal

government concerning the Stephenville flood.

As you know, on March 3 Minister Joan Burke and I announced our government's

plan to respond to the September 27 flooding that occurred in Stephenville; a

terrible event that devastated the area and put hundreds of residents out of

their homes. The cost of reacting to that event is estimated at $21 million. Mr.

Speaker, this is a substantial amount of taxpayers money, but this Province has

decided to make the investment because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the assistance of the federal government through

its Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangement for cost-sharing repair and

restoration costs. Discussions between provincial and federal governments

continue in an effort to secure an agreement to cost-share the relocating of

flood victims whose homes reside in what the Minister of Environment has

designated as a flood control area. Our discussions with federal officials flow

from a commitment the Right Honourable Stephen Harper made to Premier Williams

in a letter dated January 4, 2006.

Mr. Speaker, on March 15 my deputy and I travelled to Ottawa where I had a

lengthy meeting with the Province's federal Cabinet Minister, Loyola Hearn.

The minister was briefed fully on the situation and this government's firm

belief that the DFAA rules should be amended to allow cost-sharing the necessary

relocation of those flood victims most seriously impacted by the flooding.

Minister Hearn assured me he will pursue the matter further with his cabinet

colleagues on our behalf.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 31, I, and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister

John Ottenheimer, met with the hon. Michael Chong, federal Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council. The

meeting was productive. Minister Chong assures me he understands well our

concerns with cost-sharing the relocation of the flood victims in the

Stephenville area. The minister plans to have a follow-up discussion with

Minister Hearn in the very near future.

Mr. Speaker, while discussions with the federal government continue my

officials continue to work on the ground in Stephenville; getting on with the

job of securing the flood area against future events while working to relocate

the people with homes in the flood control area and restoring other homes

outside the area that have sustained damages.

In closing, I commend the victims of the September 27 flooding in

Stephenville and surrounding area for their patience and perseverance under

trying circumstances.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of the statement.

In paragraph 2 of that statement, Mr. Speaker, the minister says that the

event is estimated to cost $21 million. The Province has decided to make the

investment because it is the right thing to do. All things being equal, Mr.

Speaker, the first $500,000 the Province pays 100 per cent of it; from $500,000

up to $1 million it is 50-50; from $1.5 million to $2.5 million it is 75-25, and

after the $2.5 million up, it is 90-10. I am not sure here what particular part

of that $21 million is not covered under that agreement. It might be, for

example, as the minister said in paragraph 3, the cost of securing an

arrangement to share the relocation of flood victims. I guess what the extra

cost would be, probably for the provincial government, would be a new

subdivision which would not probably be covered under it. Of the $21 million,

the Province is paying $8 million and the federal government $13 million. So, I

guess what the minister is looking at and meeting with his federal colleagues is

to change the formula -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. LANGDON: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. LANGDON: - so that the federal government can take up an additional

amount of the $8 million which the provincial government is on the hook for. So,

I guess then that particular amount probably also says why a number of the

people in the Stephenville region are probably still somewhat dissatisfied with

the process and not being able to achieve what they thought they would. But, I

encourage the minister to work to change the formula if it would mean that the

people of Stephenville in the end would be better served by changing the formula

from what it is in its present condition.

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. I think the key

words in this statement is to commend the people of Stephenville for their

patience and perseverance during this terrible tragedy and terrible time.

I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, and say to the minister and government

that the process that is used to offer assistance seems to be very flawed

because of the time that it takes from something happening until something being

resolved. I think it is important that this government look into ways, along

with the federal government, to find ways of dealing with things in a more

expedient manner so that people's lives are not put on hold for a year or two

after but can be dealt with in a fairly timely manner to the (inaudible)

parties.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. R. COLLINS: Just when I finished, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Premier, you have been conducting secret negotiations with Chevron and its

partners for the Hebron-Ben Nevis project for over a year now. This morning a

press release was sent out by Chevron announcing that the project has been

shelved indefinitely. I ask the Premier if he might elaborate in this House on

the reasons why this impasse has suddenly taken place, or is it possible this

just might be a negotiating tactic?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all if I can clarify: I mean, the negotiations haven't

been a secret. We have negotiated in a normal negotiating manner with the other

side, but the public have been generally informed as to what has been proceeding

and how we have been proceedings, and also we have laid out for them what the

basic tenets of our agreement were going to be if we reached it with the

partners in Hebron-Ben Nevis. What we were trying to achieve was obviously to

improve on previous agreements. That is not to say that there is anything

negative about previous agreement, that we are trying to enhance the benefits

for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We wanted to get more work done here. We wanted to make sure that our

facilities during this project and concurrent with other projects were at 100

per cent capacity. We also said that we would like to see more secondary

processing in the Province with respect to possibly an oil refinery, possible

petrochemical; wanted to get a super royalty so that we could, in fact, benefit

in and share in the windfall profits that oil companies are now receiving from

Hibernia, of course, and from the Terra Nova project.

As well, we felt we should get equity, we felt that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians deserved and wanted a stake in this particular project. The

precedent was there because the federal government had 8.5 per cent, of course,

in the Hibernia project. This was a precedent that had been accepted by the

industry during difficult times, but they still accepted it, and if Ottawa can

own 8.5 per cent then Newfoundland and Labrador can certainly own 8 per cent of

the project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, does the House Leader want me to keep

going? Do you want me to shorten the answer just so we can explain it. Okay.

We went into the negotiation and it became apparent that these partners did

not want to participate in an oil refinery in the Province. Now, the benefit of

putting out the oil refinery request was that we now have at least two parties -

the Minister of Natural Resources can obviously verify that - that are actually

interested in doing an oil refinery. We said: Okay, if the partners don't want

to do that, we will pull back on that one, but we want two out of three, two out

of these three major premises, assuming we are at full capacity.

We then went to the equity position, and as recently as Thursday night we

felt we had an agreement with them on equity. We reduced our equity ask, we

established a value for that particular equity, and as well then we also asked

for a Tier III super royalty. In fact, as the price of oil got over $50 a barrel

we would get an enhanced profit from that particular development.

When they came back to us late Thursday night, about 11:15, when it appeared

that we had agreement on equity and royalties - over the last two months the

senior officer at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Mr. Ed Martin, has been

involved in negotiations at another level with officials of Chevron who are the

negotiating partner - they had basically moved along on a lot of issues. When

they sent us a memorandum on Thursday night, they basically reverted back on the

other issues to a January 26 th position. Basically, everything that

had been negotiated over the last two months, all of the sudden they said, fine,

we will agree on equity, we will agree on royalties, but we are going back to

the January 26 th position. At that point in time we said: No deal!

I want to just point out to you: A very, very important aspect of that was

they were asking for investment tax credits and also an exemption on all fuel

that was to be provided by the project. The investment tax credits, which is

something no government in this Province has ever done before, was tantamount to

about an ask of about $400 million to $500 million. That would have completely

negated the benefit that we are getting on super royalty and the benefit that we

are getting on equity. That was probably the straw that broke the camel's

back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure in the days ahead, Premier, we will get an opportunity to get

further explanations and details.

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the Premier's comments, and not to be negative

here again, but, Premier, when you and your government have gotten all over some

files in this Province recently, such as the Abitibi Stephenville file, the FPI

Harbour Breton file, and the FPI Burin file, which we are currently dealing

with, the results have not always been pretty.

We have failing economies in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We have empty

fabrication yards, and now, if you were to take the Chevron announcement this

morning at face value, we may well be close to jeopardizing the future of many

skilled and professional people, as well as many businesses in this Province

that rely upon the offshore oil industry.

I ask the Premier: How can we be certain that the Province's strong

bargaining tactics - which I don't think anyone disagrees with - will not be

so strong that we may, indeed, jeopardize the project itself?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have just said it all. We campaigned on this. We

went to the people on this. We have a mandate from the people on this. We have

the support of the people on this. This government will not stand for any more

giveaways in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: And we will not sign a deal that happens to be a bad

deal, just for the sake of doing a deal.

Now, I am not going to go back and start to talk about the possible Lower

Churchill deal that you were going to do, or Voisey's Bay, and the

implications of that, and where that has gone for the people of Placentia and

Argentia, and where that is all at. Let's just leave that. You did forget to

mention, of course, that just as recently as last week 300 jobs were saved on

the Northern Peninsula because the minister went up and negotiated an agreement

that worked for the loggers on the Northern Peninsula, so this government is

doing a lot of good things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The other thing you failed to mentioned as well, when

we were dealing with Stephenville, this government was prepared to put up $10

million a year in order to save those jobs in Stephenville, and we were actually

prepared to do that. So, this government is doing everything it can do, but it

is not going to be held hostage or it is not going to be held to ransom by big

corporations.

I made the point of saying to Exxon Mobil today: Use it or lose it. If they

do not want to develop these assets, these resources, in this Province, then go

to Russia, where they want to go. Leave those resources. This government will

buy their share of that particular project and we will develop it in partnership

with people who want to do it for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are not into comparing, either, the 300 jobs that the minister saved on

the Northern Peninsula versus the 300 jobs that walked out of Stephenville as a

result of the government. I do not want to get negative on that issue either,

but I say to the Premier, forgetting about dwelling in the past - and we

certainly do not want you to dwell in the past - I do not believe anybody in

this Province wants to see the benefits of our resources not be maximized.

The concern I am asking, and I am raising again, is: Have we put the bar so

high, maybe, that there might never be a deal? How do we strike that balance?

How can the people be assured - it has nothing to do with the fact that they do

not trust you to do the negotiations, and they did not elect you to give you the

mandate to do that - what assurance can the people have that the balance that we

need to meet between the need to develop the resources and the fact that we get

the best deal, how do we accomplish that? What assurance do the people have,

where we are headed in that direction?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the assurance that the people have is what

we have already accomplished. We were told by a federal Liberal minister, and we

were told by hon. gentlemen opposite, that we should take $1.4 billion for the

Atlantic Accord. We said, absolutely not! We did not take that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We finally negotiated a deal on the Atlantic Accord

that, as a result, in two years' time, has taken us from a projected deficit

on an annual basis of $1 billion a year to a surplus last year, to a surplus

again this year, to a Budget that has enabled us to spend money in health care,

in education, in tourism, $300 million on infrastructure so we can rebuild our

roads, our hospitals and our schools in this Province, and build new long-term

care facilities.

We stand on the record of what we have accomplished. We have turned this

Province around fiscally on the basis of a good negotiation in two-and-a-half

years. That is a significant accomplishment, and I think the people will stand

behind us on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, when he talks about no more resource giveaways, I think

it must only apply to oil because, as we speak, we hear about our fish being

processed in China.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Fisheries stated here that he, the

Premier, and a group of Cabinet ministers, met on Thursday to discuss FPI. At

that meeting, the minister stated that you were considering amendments to the

FPI Act. He mentioned a couple, Premier, in your absence.

As we speak today, there are 1,000 people on the Burin Peninsula who are

still without work. I might add, that is the longest period of time that these

people have been without work in the last forty years.

I ask the Premier: When will you bring the amendments to the House of

Assembly that your minister talked about on Thursday? How much longer are you

going to continue to pussyfoot around FPI?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I doubt if anybody in FPI is looking at this

government as pussyfooting around with them. We have been firm - we try to be

fair, but we have been firm with FPI.

As I said to this Assembly on Thursday and outside the Assembly following

that, we will bring legislation to this Legislature if the government deems that

it is appropriate and necessary to do so. We are not going to react just for the

sake of reacting. We are having our officials draft legislation. We have given

them direction as to what we would like to see in that legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the House is open until May or June, we will bring legislation,

if necessary, to this House when we are ready.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about being firm with FPI, but

yet we continue to have 1,000 people unemployed on the Burin Peninsula. I guess

he will continue to be firm while FPI dismantles the company and leaves no one

with employment on the Burin Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about adding amendments or changing the act,

I ask the Premier: When he brings forth these amendments - and I hope that they

are sooner rather than later - will he include in that act a provision that

states that all quotas held by FPI must be processed in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, everybody out there in the whole Province sees

that for the silly, ludicrous statement that it is. Mr. Speaker, we cannot

dictate. We do not have the constitutional authority to dictate to any company

who holds offshore quotas that they must be landed in this Province. What we do

have the constitutional authority to do is that once they are landed here, then

we put conditions on the processing licence. That is what we control.

The hon. member knows that because he was a minister. To ask those ludicrous,

foolish questions is just a waste of time of Question Period and a waste of time

of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, the question was not

ludicrous. I understand that the federal government gives the quota to FPI, but

we control FPI and its board of directors in this House of Assembly. Once those

quotas are given to FPI, I say to the minister, we can control where they are

going to be processed under the act that sits on that table.

Mr. Speaker, as we speak the Newfoundland Lynx , a vessel that is owned

and operated by FPI is about to return to port with between 1.4 million and 1.8

million pounds of fish on board. With no plants belonging to FPI open in this

Province, can the minister tell me where this fish will be landed and, more

importantly, whether it will be processed in this Province or sent to China for

processing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if the Newfoundland Lynx returns and

lands fish in this Province then the Province's processing licence capacity

under the Fish Inspection Act kicks in. Now, if it does not land in the Province

and lands in St. Pierre or lands in Massachusetts or it lands in Nova Scotia,

there is nothing I can do about it. But, if it lands in this Province then we

are in control of what happens to the fish and how it gets processed. And, no,

Mr. Speaker, they do not have authority to send one fish to China today and they

will not have authority tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It still begs the question: Where will it be processed if FPI does not have a

plant open in this Province today? He still did not answer the question.

Mr. Speaker, the redfish fishery in 3NO is open and some plants in this

Province, including FPI, will ask for amendments to send that fish out of the

Province for processing. Last week I heard Mr. Fred Woodman Jr., who owns a

plant in Trinity Bay, state that he would be willing to purchase that fish and

process it in his facility in Trinity Bay.

I ask the minister: Will there be any exemptions given to any company for

redfish this year to take redfish out of the Province for processing while there

is an operator in this Province who is not only willing to purchase it but also

process it in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that FPI have made any request

for an exemption to ship 3O redfish out of the Province. They may, but I am not

aware that they have at this point in time.

There are requests before me to ship 3O redfish in certain processed states,

some round and some degree of processing to it out of the Province. Mr. Speaker,

Gaultois would probably die if we did not give that exemption. Yes, we are

considering exemptions but we are considering it on an even playing field. We

are considering it such that everybody would be treated equally and, for the

record, exemptions were granted by that hon. gentleman for certain species,

including redfish, when he was minister. Also, Mr. Speaker, we are going to

consider doing the same thing under very stringent and enforceable conditions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, when I gave exemptions there was no plant in this

Province who was prepared to buy it and process it. There is a plant in the

Province, and I guess he has been in touch with you as well. Mr. Fred Woodman's

plant in Trinity Bay is prepared to purchase that redfish and process it in this

Province. So, again, you are going to allow them to break the rules and ship

that fish out while there is a processor who is willing to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on another topic. Mr. Speaker, as of late there

has been a lot of discussion about Mr. Bill Barry moving into Harbour Breton -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: - and operating the plant that was owned by FPI in that

community.

Mr. Speaker, can I have some protection from the cracky down there?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Leader of the Opposition. I ask members for

their co-operation.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say that the Minister of Transportation does a lot of yapping but he does

not say very much.

Mr. Speaker, recently Bill Barry stated that he could not move into the plant

in Harbour Breton because of environmental concerns that were not addressed by

FPI.

I ask the Minister of Environment today: - and I have to scream to be heard

over his colleague - Can he give us an explanation of the environmental issue

that is stopping Bill Barry from moving into Harbour Breton?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the only screaming that I heard in the House

was the political rhetoric coming from the hon. gentleman. I suppose there was a

question in it.

The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that this government, through IT and

RD I believe, and my department, made it well known to FPI that under certain

conditions we would agree to relaxing some of the environmental concerns that we

had regarding Harbour Breton if they were prepared to immediately do certain

things, including transferring the plant without any further delay to the Barry

Group. So, Mr. Speaker, we have been dealing with that matter. FPI has not yet

concluded the matter with Barrys but my understanding is that the legal

agreements are getting pretty close to being concluded, and environment is not

part of an issue that is hanging up anything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, under the cloak of darkness, I think it was last Wednesday

night, your federal Fisheries Minister, Mr. Loyola Hearn, announced this year's

crab plant which sees reduced quotas and a shortened season for many who are

going to participate in that fishery. So that plan, Mr. Speaker, will mean

devastation for a number of harvesters and plant workers in this Province,

especially those in 3K, where the minister's district is, as well as those in

3PS on the south coast.

I ask the minister: Have you had any discussions with the federal minister

about this plan, especially the early closing date in 3K?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, let me make it abundantly clear, if it is not

already clear, that this government will support a position that is based on

conservation and based on science. We will not support a position that is based

on political expediency for today and the hell with tomorrow. We are not going

to do that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I have harvesters and crab fishermen in my district and I

talked to them over the weekend. We are concerned about the plan in 3K. We are

concerned, obviously we are, but I am not going to take a position to call on

the federal government or the federal minister to implement a decision that is

not based on sound conservation practices and is not based on science.

In terms of the closing date, Mr. Speaker: Historically, for the last two or

three or four years, it has been around the 15 th or the 17 th

of June that the season has closed because of the emergence of soft shell. We

will talk to, and we have in fact talked to the federal department about that.

If things are good come the 31 st of May, if there is no sign of soft

shell, quota left to be caught, why in God's name couldn't we catch it. We

appreciate that and we support it, but we will never, Mr. Speaker, fly in the

face of science and conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final question is for the Premier.

On Saturday those people in the Province who use the provincial ferries saw

their rates again increase by 5 per cent, just like they have seen in the past

two years. Now they are faced with a total increase, in the past three years, of

26.5 per cent.

I ask the Premier: When are you going to live up to the commitment that you

made, prior to and during the election, when you were out there trying to get

yourself elected? When are you going to honour that commitment and reduce the

ferry rates that you are responsible for in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the commitment that this government made, and this party made,

when we were campaigning in the last election was that we would bring ferry

rates in line with road equivalency travel. We have done an assessment of the

road equivalency compared to the ferry rates in Newfoundland and Labrador on

passenger rates, on vehicle rates and on freight rates. We had that completed, I

guess, about a week or so ago, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell the House the same

thing today as I told them last week, there are huge discrepancies in the rates

that were implemented by the previous administration. There are leftovers in

some cases from when Marine Atlantic ran these services. We have committed to

dealing with this and we are in the process of dealing with fees across

government.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member: If he wants us to live up

to the letter, the commitment that we made in the provincial election of two and

a half years ago, then we, as a government, will collect $8.5 million more in

revenues from vehicle, passenger and freight rates in this Province this year.

Those, Mr. Speaker, are the facts. The fact of the matter is, the vast

majority of passengers, vehicles and freight moved in this Province is less than

the road equivalency rates, based on private interests like DRL and so on. Mr.

Speaker, if we applied those rates across the board at road equivalency, we

would collect $8.5 million (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Health.

For the past two years, ourselves, as the Opposition, along with the

Alzheimer Society, has been calling on the government to add Alzheimer drugs to

the formula. In the last Budget the government decided to do that, but I have to

ask, Mr. Speaker, why the minister, after having these patients and their

families wait for over two years while you made a decision, now you are asking

them to wait another six months before they can access this drug through special

authorization?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We are asking that people wait until September 1, and there is a reason for

that. Physicians throughout the Province have to undergo some training. There

are some logistical measures that have to be taken before we can allow the drugs

to be available, including the training for physicians. September 1, these drugs

will be available to anybody in the Province who qualify under the drug program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the drugs are available now, if you pay for them,

so I do not know why the physicians have to be trained, but I will take the

minister's response.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the wait for proper drug coverage for patients of

multiple sclerosis and arthritis will be even longer. In fact, there is no end

in sight at this point. I have to ask the minister: How is it that you can

justify covering one category of expensive medication but not other categories

for other patients, like those of multiple sclerosis and arthritis? I would like

to have a response to that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: First of all, to answer your

preamble on the last

question, physicians need training because these drugs are for - not everybody

with Alzheimer's will quality for these drugs. These drugs are not of benefit

to everybody with Alzheimer's, so physicians require some training prior to

these drugs becoming available under the Prescription Drug Program.

Under multiple sclerosis, those drugs were approved eight years ago. You put

out a news release on Friday saying that these drugs, as well as drugs for

arthritis, should be approved. The arthritis drugs were approved under last year's

Budget.

One of the things that I learned when I was in Opposition was, to learn my

facts before I asked the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I will let the minister know that there are some

forms of the drug that are not available. I can tell him and I can give him

names of people who are calling my office who are not able to afford the drugs

and have to go through an extensive process just to get them, and then only get

them on a week-by-week basis. I can give the minister the names and the

situations if he wishes to have them.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, 60,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians live in

poverty, and this does not even include the working poor. Government says that

they are concerned about this issue, and actually committed to expand the

eligibility of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program to assist

low-income families.

I have to ask the minister - because I am a little bit bewildered by this,

but I have to ask the minister - if he is serious about alleviating the hardship

of low-income families, why is this program not going to be available to these

individuals until 2007, even though your government has a surplus Budget this

year and can well afford this program for these low-income families?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Again, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's

preamble,

Enbrel, which the member for the Burin Peninsula had asked on Thursday of last

week, was announced in last year's Budget, in 2005.

To answer your question as to why the people of the Province will gain access

in January of 2001 under the Prescription Drug Program, we have increased

eligibility under the Prescription Drug Program for the first time in decades.

Twenty per cent of the people in the Province are now eligible for prescription

drugs under the Prescription Drug Program. January 1, we are increasing that; we

are doubling it. So, another 20 per cent of the people in this Province will

have access (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I want to note that

we are at 2:12 p.m. and we will extend Question Period to permit him to have his

full four minutes for Question Period today.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance.

Last Thursday's Budget announced the Prescription Drug Program to start

next January, which will pay part of the cost of drugs to people with family

incomes under $30,000. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this does nothing for my constituent

whose family income is $36,000 and has a need for very expensive cancer drugs,

or multiple sclerosis patients or diabetes patients or those with other diseases

facing catastrophic drug costs. Why doesn't the minister's plan do something

for these people?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Province's plan will increase by 99,000 people. We looked at trying to

assist people with low income. We would like to be able to provide everybody,

regardless of income, but a $62 million commitment dealing with poverty, $32.8

million new dollars annualized. The reason it is starting in September is

because it will take a period, a number of months, to bring it on line with our

computer system and IT. To be able to administer this appropriately, you need

time to get it up, get the data, the qualifying criteria, and all those aspects.

You cannot do it overnight. You cannot snap your fingers now and have a system

up and running. You have to understand that.

The next thing you will be asking, if you give it for $36,000, he will be up

asking for $60,000 and $100,000 and $150,000. We would love to have a plan that

covers everybody, but we have to deal with the 200,000 people in our Province

who are dependent most on this particular one. It is an incredible start, I

might add, in extending it (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Medicare, I guess, would be an incredible statement, too, if someone were

asking for that twenty-five or thirty or forty years ago.

Mr. Speaker, doctors tell me that the first question they ask newly diagnosed

diabetics is whether you have an insurance plan or a drug card, because this

determines the type of treatment that the patient can afford.

Mr. Speaker, why doesn't the minister agree to redesign his program to make

some changes that would include people who do not have access to any kind of a

plan? People have workplace plans, or drug cards, and there are still many, many

people who have no access to any kind of drug and prescription drug insurance.

Will the minister not work with his plan, redesign it - he has six months to do

it - and make it better?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is living in the dark if he thinks 100

per cent of Medicare in this country - even the province that formed Medicare.

Almost one-third of health in this Province, and costs, are borne by private

insurance and private individuals. Only two-thirds is medically covered, and

there are ten different plans in every province in this country, so we have to

stay realizing - we put $62 million into poverty and he is still not satisfied.

You cannot satisfy that individual, no matter what you do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

We are moving to Motion 1 - just one second, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Could we revert back to Tabling Documents?

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues just asked, through the

debate across the House, if I could ask leave just to revert back to Tabling of

Document for a moment, and then we will get to introducing the motion which will

begin the Budget debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance is recognized to table a

document.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to

Section 26 (5)(

a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am

tabling one Order-in-Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the

2006-2007 to the 2007-2008 fiscal year.

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

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

I want to move Motion 1. This was moved by my colleague, the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board, on last Wednesday, to move that this

House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had this discussion this morning with

the Government House Leader and we were well aware that this motion was going to

be called this afternoon. In fact, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans is

prepared, as the Finance Critic for the Opposition, to address the matter. In

fact, she is entering the Chamber now. I believe she gets to speak, under the

rules, for about three hours and thirty-eight minutes. I guess she was just

getting prepared.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes that under the Standing Orders - I do believe the

Minister of Finance spoke for one hour and thirty-eight minutes, so they would

have twice that time.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Well thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am now embarking on a speaking journey that will break the euphoria bubble

that was created on Thursday past. I hope today, Mr. Speaker, will be a little

bit different from other times in the past when I have responded to the Budget.

I do hope the Minister of Natural Resources will take his leave and have a

coffee of two because he was always in the habit of rising on unnecessary points

of order and trying to disrupt me when I was speaking. I hope that alone will be

different today.

MR. SULLIVAN: Anna, how much time do you have left?

MS THISTLE: To the Minister of Finance, I think I have three hours and

twenty-six minutes. How is that?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Well, you know, the first time I critiqued or responded to

the Budget of this new government I managed to have almost fourteen hours, but

that grew to be too much for this government. In the past two Budgets they have

cut me back to three hours.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to, I guess, bring forward a side that has not been

spoken of since Thursday. That is important in my role as being critic of

Finance and I think it is important to set the stage before I talk about this

year's Budget so people will have an idea of where we have come from since

I think 2003 is a year that will go down in history as a most unusual year.

The reason why that is is because that was the year that this government, not

this government but the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador changed from

simple accounting to accrual accounting. It was in a year that was most

beneficial to the new government taking over, because what they did would

frighten everybody in 2003. They left the impression that this Province was

bankrupt. We were embarking on debt so much that we were going to sink. Even

though bond rating agencies had given us our best rating since we joined

Confederation, they left the impression - and they got a chartered accountant

firm by the name of PricewaterhouseCoopers to endorse what they were saying.

Most people are not in tune with accounting measures. The new government left an

impression that the previous government left a mess of $1 billion in debt. That

was entirely incorrect, because just two-and-a-half years later into the mandate

they now have a surplus. So that was totally incorrect.

What accrual accounting does, it lays everything on the books for everyone to

see. In other words, if there were school boards or hospital boards, or any

government agency owing money - even Newfoundland Hydro, which government will

never be called upon to pay off their debt. In fact, we have been able to use

their dividends to put in our general account over the years. Government had

everybody frightened out of their shoes and listed out all the debts that the

government was responsible for throughout the Province. So it left an impression

that we were $1 billion in the red, which was totally incorrect. As a result,

union people themselves were frightened into submission.

When the Premier came on provincial TV - I remember it well because I was

being interviewed by CBC myself. I think the date was January 5, 2004, when the

Premier gave that speech that he will always remember and probably always

regret. On public television he told the staff who worked for the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador they were getting no raise. That is something you do

at the negotiating table, not at the interview table on public TV. Anyway, he

frightened the union people into submission. He frightened the town councils and

he frightened everybody who would normally come to government for money. So, as

a result, people's expectations were very low at that point and they did not

expect anything from government.

In fact, Leo Puddister was one of the casualties at that time. He thought he

had a friend in Danny Williams - or the Premier, I should say. I am not supposed

to mention anybody's name when I am up here speaking. He thought he had a

friend in the Premier, but he soon found out that the arrangements that were

made previous to the election were not the ones that came to pass after the

election. So, as a result, Mr. Puddister looked pretty weak in the eyes of his

membership because everybody went out on the street for no reason. They got

nothing and they were legislated back to work. That was something that this

Premier, this government, was never going to do, was legislate people back to

work. So, as a result, union had a very low morale.

Now, we are into two-and-a-half years later. Things have changed around. Now,

have they changed around by the actions of this Premier and this government? I

do not think so. There were a couple of breaks, particularly one was the

Atlantic Accord, which I did publicly give the Premier credit for, and I think

the Province did as well; most people around the Province, I think all, 100 per

cent. But the biggest single factor that accounted for a surplus this year was

high oil prices and the adjustment to the Atlantic Accord. It was not something

that this Premier or this government generated in the way of economic activity.

I will show you what really happened here. I think it is important, for most

people who are interested in the Budget, to pick up the government's own

literature called The ECONOMY06 because that will show you how things are going

in this Province on a financial basis and what might happen in the following

year. There are some stats here that I found a bit alarming, I have to say. What

is happening now is that there has been - you can generally tell the condition

of the economy by two factors, and they are new housing starts and car sales.

Now, what we have noticed over the past two years is that housing starts are

going to decline, and this year, 2006, will be no different. There were bumper

years in this Province where we had enormous housing starts right throughout the

Province but housing starts in this Province are going to decline by 8.5 per

cent and that is roughly 2,300 units. So that is a lot of less units this year.

What that means is there will be a lot less building materials bought, a lot

less carpenters and tradespeople working when you are talking about 2,300 units

less being built in this Province.

So, the big factor in all of this, of course, is high oil prices. The Finance

Minister budgeted for $38 a barrel U.S. when he was making up the Budget and the

average price on crude oil came to roughly $58 U.S. a barrel. So, as you can

see, that is simple mathematics that you would end up with a surplus. You know,

this government tried hard to make sure that there was no surplus at the end of

this year. They forecasted a deficit last year and that is a cash deficit. In

other words, your general day-to-day expenses. They forecast a cash deficit of

about $495 million but, when everything was done and tallied up, they had $600

million extra to play around with. Now, $600 million is a lot of money when you

compare to - when we were the former Administration, we never, ever, had a

surplus. We had a couple of balanced budgets, but they were temporary in nature.

It was a matter of former premiers finding one-time cash in Ottawa and balancing

the Budget, but we never did have the luxury of having our oil industry on

stream as it is today and such a high demand in the marketplace for oil, which

demands a high return.

When I was looking at the Economy book, and I am going to get down through

other things as we go along, there is a statement. There are writers for this

book employed by government, and it is interesting how officials - that is what

they are called, bureaucrats who work for government - how they write to report

on the situation of a particular department or government.

As we all know, there has been a lot of job loss in this Province that

government does not like to talk about. Most recently it has been Harbour Breton

and Stephenville, and now there is a huge concern in Burin and probably

Bonavista before FPI matters are concluded. When I looked at the statement that

was in this Economy book for 2006, and I am sure it was written by a bureaucrat

but it must have been approved by the Minister of Finance, it says,"Losses

in major project construction and newsprint jobs are expected to be offset by

increased service sector employment." I have to read that again. It

says,"Losses in major project construction and newsprint jobs are expected

to be offset by increased service sector employment."

Now, everybody knows that if you are working for a pulp and paper mill, you

are a tradesperson. Everybody knows that if you are working on project

construction like White Rose or Hibernia, Voisey's Bay, all these are

tradespeople who are working, and they are not service sector wages that they

are being paid, so that statement is entirely incorrect.

If the Premier and government expect service industries, which could be

tourism, could be call centres, or something along that line, if the Premier and

government expect these two areas to take the place of major projects such as

White Rose, the Stephenville mill, the FPI plants on the Burin Peninsula, the

plant in Harbour Breton, that is entirely incorrect information.

They go on the say in the same paragraph, "Population decline is

expected to continue (-0.5%) as strong labour markets in Western Canada continue

to result in net out-migration."

This is all a play on words. It depends on how you say things, what kind a

reaction you would get. Really, the truth of the matter is, when the Province

forecast a decline in employment, the simple reason is that there are no jobs in

this Province. If there were, people who not be going to Alberta, Fort McMurray

and Yellowknife.

Instead of that, the bureaucrats will sit in their office and they will say:

Population decline is expected because there is a strong labour demand in

Western Canada. Now, can you imagine anyone saying that? They are not going to

own up to the fact that there are no jobs for these tradespeople and skilled

workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are going out to Western Canada for

that very reason.

Can you tell me - unless it is a young person looking for adventure - what

married person or person who has been in a job situation down here for twenty

years, has a home and is established in their community, would actually leave

all of that and go out to Western Canada, or any place, whether it be

Yellowknife or Fort McMurray? Who would want to do that, and leave their

community? Not too many. This is the tripe that government puts in their glossy

folders so people will think that everything is rosy.

Employment growth, "Between 1997 and 2005, employment increased by 13.7%

or 25,800." Now, 25,000, that was from 1997, almost ten years that

employment increased by 25,000. That was simply because of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks members for their co-operation. We have a lot of conversations

going on in the Chamber, and the Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon.

member. I ask members for their co-operation so we can hear the Member for Grand

Falls-Buchans giving her response to the Budget Speech.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That peak in employment was centred around the big projects like Hibernia,

like White Rose, like Voisey's Bay, the fishing industry in this Province, and

the newsprint.

There has been a change now in stats. Full-time employment now is considered

to be thirty hours or more per week. That is pretty interesting, isn't it?

When I started work, I think it might have been forty-four hours a week was

full-time employment, and then it branched down to thirty-seven-and-a-half hours

per week, and now thirty hours or more per week is considered to be full-time

employment. What they are saying here is that part-time employment has remained

virtually flat since 1997. That is not a good thing. The government is also

saying, "Public administration was the only industry that recorded a

notable employment decline."

What government is actually confirming, I think, for the first time, is that

public administration was the only industry that recorded a notable employment

decline, and that is easy to tell. All you have to do is open the Estimates

book, a recording of all the money spent by the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador. It was frightening to see how much money was paid out in early

retirement and severance pay.

At one time, there was an average of about $7 million paid out in severance

pay. Since this government has come into power, there has been an average of $13

million to $17 million a year paid out in severance pay. That says a lot of

things, that they are sending career civil servants out the door and bringing

their political hacks in, and there are a lot of people being fired for no

reason and they are having to pay out extra money because they are being sued.

Another interesting statistic is that, on the Avalon Peninsula - a lot of the

population of our Province has gravitated to the Avalon Peninsula. It is

interesting to note that the employment in the Avalon Peninsula accounts for 42

per cent of all the employment in our Province. Forty-two per cent of all the

people who work in our Province live here on this Avalon Peninsula. Now, that

does not leave too many other people working, does it?

When you take out the big industries like the Iron Ore Company of Canada, you

take out the paper mills both in Grand Falls-Windsor and in Corner Brook, the

fishing, and then the hospitals and so on, there are not too many people working

in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a frightening prospect, but when you

actually look at this economy book it certainly puts things in perspective.

Another disappointment is when this government says that they are committed

to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I remember John Efford being here in this

House as the Minister of Fisheries and at one time in his career, as the

Minister of Fisheries, this Province boasted that they had over $1 billion -

that is billion with a B - in sales from fish landed in this Province. Do you

know what the fish landings in this Province came to last year? Four hundred and

sixty-one million dollars. That is what that industry was worth to this

Province. Less than half of what it was when John Efford was the Minister of

Fisheries.

So, you have $500 million taken out of the economy of rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. That is a frightening prospect when you look at that. Now we know one

of the reasons for the decrease in fish landings last year was the raw material

sharing and how that fiasco had gone on for months and fisherpeople were late

starting. That was one of the reasons, and of course it is not all connected to

that. A huge factor was also the price.

When you think about rural Newfoundland and Labrador and you think about the

backbone of our industry for our Province and you think what it was worth

probably five or six years ago and what it is worth today, and you look at what

government this year in their Budget of 2006 has committed to the fishery in

this Province, well, it is mere pittance. The only bright spot is money that has

gone to aquaculture. Now, we have had a struggling aquaculture industry for over

twenty years in this Province. Sometimes it has been up and more times it has

been down. Government's only answer right now to the fishery woes in this

Province is an investment in aquaculture. That does not leave much hope for the

people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Another matter that has been a bright spot in the past couple of years is

Voisey's Bay. I have not heard any negativity. I do remember when this

government were in the Opposition they were going to drive a Mack truck through

the Voisey's Bay deal, but I have not seen any Mack trucks coming in through

that deal since they have taken over the government. In fact, I am sure they are

very pleased to have the revenue from that project in the Province's coffers.

I do have one troubling aspect of mining in this Province. In my district,

the District of Grand Falls-Buchans, we have a mine just about ready to go into

production in the fall of this year. The mine is Ore Resources, and it is

located next to Millertown. When it is in full production it will have close to

200 full-time jobs. Right now, they are in the construction stage. They are

going to spend $60 million this year. The whole project is $100 million.

I wrote the Minister of Transportation and Works. He is new in the job but

that does not make any excuse for that minister. I wrote him when he was getting

ready to prepare his new budget. I said: Minister, you have to realize what is

going on in Millertown. For 200 permanent jobs paying income tax to this

Province and all the service products that are sold - trucks coming and going,

heavy equipment, materials that are brought to and from the site and the

indirect jobs. The 200 full-time jobs they are creating - every full-time job

creates about two-and-a-half indirect jobs, and businesses and communities

survive because of it.

All of this was laid out in a letter to the Minister of Transportation and

Works. Do you know that two days before the Budget came down he sat in his

office and he drafted a letter to me, the member. Even though there was going to

be a $60 million roads program for provincial roads, he said no to upgrading the

Buchans highway where there are millions of dollars coming out of that area in

the way of taxes on services provided to the mine, personal income tax and the

business other businesses are doing. There is heavy equipment going over that

road everyday of the week bringing things to and from the mine. People are

driving on that road to get to their jobs and there is heavy equipment going

there.

There is also a barite mine in Buchans that has twenty-five people employed

and it looks like they may escalate to about forty-five people this year. Now,

forty-five jobs in a community like Buchans that has been shut down since 1984

make a big difference, and 200 jobs in Millertown make a big difference, because

they are permanent jobs.

I sent over pictures of the Buchans highway. I am not allowed to use props

when I am up here speaking, but there were cracks in the road, in the edges of

the pavement, which is a real danger to heavy equipment and ambulances. I have

heard from the hospital in Buchans and they are afraid to send their ambulances

over the road. The edges are torn off the sides of the pavement and there are

potholes galore.

I have heard from the Community of Millertown, I have heard from individual

citizens, and this is the one bright light in Cental Newfoundland where

government are filling their coffers with money from income taxes and other

things. The Minister of Transportation and Works has no idea what is going to

government from this project, or else he has no clout around the Cabinet Table.

I wonder do the other ministers who are sitting around the Cabinet Table say:

Well, you are not going to put that money up there in Anna Thistle's District.

You know, she is a Liberal. I hope that is not what he is saying. I wonder does

he have any clout around the Table at all. With $60 million going into a

provincial roads program and so much money going back to the government coffers

- and the Premier, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, ane

the Minister of Natural Resources, all of them are in unison in saying that they

want to put money into rural Newfoundland where people can go and live and work

and contribute to the provincial finances.

Now, here is a wonderful opportunity, that they should be out blowing their

horns saying they did something for rural Newfoundland. You have an industry up

there that wasn't up there a year ago. The Minister of Industry, Trade and

Rural Development didn't have to go out and develop it, somebody else did. A

private company developed this industry. They are going to be there for at least

ten years. They have a mill on site that other mines in the general area, that

might be too small to have their own mill, can go to ore resources and have

their refining done there.

This government has been shortsighted. This is not the kind of thing that

people will give you any brownie points for; none whatsoever. If you are

expecting to have brownie points and to be congratulated for your work, you have

to recognize that this is a money-maker in rural Newfoundland - and you are

going to turn a blind eye to it? You do not care what the road is like leading

to that mine in Millertown. You do not care what the road is like leading to

Buchans, where there are going to be roughly 250 permanent jobs paying the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador income tax, and businesses are going to

get money every day of the week from that.

This is short-sighted or - actually, it is incompetent. It is incompetent on

the government's part to not include Buchans, the Buchans Highway. I do not

even know how they can sit in their seats. I do not know how they can sit in

their seats. I know that the Minister of Natural Resources has brought in a

silviculture program. He has been busy with agriculture, trying to foster a new

interest in agriculture. If he was managing that Department of Transportation

and Works, I expect that he would come along and he would have the money to

upgrade the Buchans Highway, but we know what kind of mess the Minister of

Transportation and Works left in Fisheries, so I am not surprised at what he is

trying to do with Transportation and Works; but, I tell you, you have not heard

the last of me on this matter, and you will not until you do what is right and

upgrade that Buchans Highway.

Last year it got so bad that I sent over pictures to the former minister and

he tossed $300,000 at it. Well, that was like a fly spit on the wall. That is

all that was like because, go up there now and the edges are broken off the

pavement. There are potholes everywhere. I think it is disgusting when the

Minister of Finance, after all was said and done, running around with special

warrants the last minute, still ended up with $76 million in surplus and he will

not tend to the day-to-day needs of economic development and safety. Anyway,

very good for today but I am not finished with you yet, and I won't be until

you get that Buchans Highway done.

The next thing I want to talk about is tourism. Now, for those who might be

viewing this program, tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador is made up of

generally our own selves. Sixty percent of the traffic that goes from A to B in

this Province is Newfoundlanders and Labradorians like you and I. What did the

Province discover last year? What did they discover after the year was over?

That automobile travel to and from our Province, and within our Province, the

results were virtually flat. Virtually flat. Now, if I was the Minister of

Tourism and I had to report to the Premier and say, well, you know, the problem

with tourism in our Province is that nobody used their car to go from Rocky

Harbour, or Bonavista, or, in Labrador, never went up to the lighthouse in Isle

aux Morts, they never did any of that. They did not even go to the bakeapple

festival this year because there was one problem with all of that, and that was

the high price of gas.

Now, this Finance Minister had an opportunity in this Budget. He had an

opportunity, just like Bernard Lord did in New Brunswick. He had an opportunity

to give an equivalent of the 8 per cent HST. He could have taken that off. He

decided not to do that and, you know, that is penny-wise and pound foolish,

because everybody knows that if a consumer has extra money in their pocket they

are going to spend it.

Sixty per cent of the visitors to our Province are our own people. I think

the government should realize that, 60 per cent. Some of the urban communities

did very well, and one of them would have been this particular area, St. John's,

because most people fly into St. John's. Convention traffic was good last

year, and also cruise business was good last year. The cruise business was good

in Corner Brook and it was good in St. John's. Also, convention traffic was

good in St. John's, but what happened to all of these little B & B's

scattered around rural Newfoundland and Labrador? People could not afford to put

gas in their car. You take a family of four, say, a mother and a father and two

children. Normally, what they would probably do is get in their car and spend a

week or so travelling around Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, when gas is over $1

a litre and you haven't had a raise for three years, and your furnace oil has

gone up, you electricity has gone up, taxes have gone up, you do not have much

of an appetite. Even if you wanted to renew your driver's licence, it went

from $140 to $180. With all of those fees, you would not have much of an

appetite to get in your car and drive to the Northern Peninsula and spend a week

and spend a bit of money. So, government are penny-wise and pound foolish,

because if they were to reduce the tax on gasoline, reduce the tax on home

heating fuels, people would have more discretionary money to spend and they

would spend it. It is a proven fact.

What is going to happen to tourism in our Province if prices remain high for

fuel? I expect you are going to get a repeat. It does not matter how much money

government decides to put into advertising for tourism because, unless people

can actually afford to put gas in their car, they are not going to go and drive.

It is as simple as that.

You look at the capital projects that are taking place this year. Most of the

commercial projects that are taking place this year are all on the Avalon. They

are not huge projects. We do not have any one particular project on the go this

summer that is a big project that is going to take a lot of skilled workers and

is going to amount to a lot of money for the coffers of government. There is no

project at all.

We heard today that the possible project of Ben Nevis is shelved temporarily

until government is satisfied that there is a deal that they can live with.

Anyone who was hoping for that project to take off, that is not going to happen

this year.

Let's get into the Budget. The buzz word last year of the Budget was

government was going to unleash the fiscal tiger. Government was going to

unleash the fiscal tiger. Now, I have been looking for that tiger. I have been

looking for that fiscal tiger. I think he has escaped somewhere, but I have not

seen him in this year's Budget. That fiscal tiger from last year is gone. The

buzz word for this year, for this Budget, is, they are going to unleash

innovation strategies. This is the buzz word for this year; they are going to

unleash innovation strategies.

You know, bureaucrats get paid big bucks for coming up with a theme for this

Budget. It is all words. It is all meant to sugar-coat every issue and make it

sound like it is the best thing since sliced bread. The buzz word for this

Budget is, they are going to unleash the innovation strategy. My goodness, I am

waiting to see that one. They have a strategy for everything. They have a

strategy for economic development, they have a strategy for immigration, there

is a strategy for sports and recreation, there is a strategy for education, and

there is a strategy, I think, for transportation. There is one for

infrastructure, there is one for poverty reduction, and there is one for

innovation, but I can tell you, you cannot eat strategies. Whoever can cook up a

meal of strategies and be satisfied after, let me know where they are. There are

a good many today around rural Newfoundland and Labrador saying: Gee, I think I

will have a bowl of strategies now for supper. All I want is that recipe from

government because they have eight new strategies now. If you can put that in a

recipe I will try and boil that up tonight for supper. According to the members

across the way, they want to know if you are going to use sea salt or regular

salt on those strategies. You cannot eat strategies, my friend. As much as you

might try to gloss over those wonderful words, you cannot eat strategies. It is

not much good in the month of March to be hauling out a can of strategies and

hope to heat them up on the stove and make everyone happy.

I laughed when I sat here the other day on a Thursday. The Finance Minister

was reading his speech and he started off by saying: Our change of circumstances

is not the product of fate or chance. Well, Blessed Redeemer! Our change of

circumstance is not the product of fate or chance. Now, whoever thought that oil

would go up to $58 a barrel? I say, thank God we are surrounded by oil. Thank

God we are surrounded by oil because that was your only salvation, is that oil

went up and you ended up having more money than you thought you would ever have.

If we were lucky enough three years ago to have that money coming in when the

Opposition over here were crying out day after day for more money for cardiac

surgeries, more money for cancer treatment, more money for drugs.

The Member for Bonavista South, I remember him standing in his place with a

petition, day after day after day. I almost knew his petition off by heart. He

wanted money for roads in his district. That was only the least of the requests,

because most of the requests came from the now current Finance Minister. He

wanted money for emergency surgeries, for the long lineups, for the health care

needs, take the people off the gurneys and we had no money and we went into

debt. We built those operating rooms in the Health Sciences complex for cardiac

surgeries - I remember it well. There were so many cardiac surgeries needed so

badly that the Opposition were after us to send people out to other provinces to

get surgeries and, by golly, we did that because we did not want anyone to die

on our watch. Even though we did not have the money, we did not want anyone to

die on our watch. So we went in the hole trying to provide health care. Health

care is the biggest consumer of our budget; health care and social services,

anything that falls under the umbrella of social welfare.

Then there was money for oncologists. There was not enough treatment around

the Province. We were paying people - the ones studying to be oncologists, and

trying to get them here after by committing to hire them. We never, ever had

enough and there were lineups for everything. I remember that the current

Minister of Finance was famous for more money everyday. It was because of him

that we ended up in debt in our health care budget because he made so many

demands. I have not heard - that is the strangest part about this - of a lineup

for cardiac surgery, especially since this government got elected. I have not

heard tell of it.

The most recent thing I have heard of is the wait for cancer treatment and

the fact that this government are now, this year only, going to look at building

two bunkers to house the radiation cancer treatment units. Now, I do not know

why there was a delay in that. That should not be, because when you think about

it, the government knew well in advance that there was an increase in cancer. I

read in the government's own literature last week during the Budget time that

there are going to be 2,200 new cases of cancer diagnosed this year in our

Province; 2,200. Now we only have a population of 513,000 in our Province.

Even though the government talks about in-migration, the truth of the matter

is, there were 3,000 people who left this Province last year to seek employment.

They are not listed as being residents of this Province today. So this is not a

good record for this government to be able to stand up and say they are flush

with cash when 3,000 people left this Province last year.

Now, 2,200 people in this Province are going to be diagnosed with cancer this

year. That is a frightening prospect. This government signed a health accord

months ago. That health accord grows every year. It started out to be $38

million, and every year it is going to grow. I think the past year it was around

$46 million. If they have any kind of close consultation with the physicians in

this Province, they well knew two years ago, and they knew they had the money,

that there was going to be an upsurge in the needs for cancer treatment. Those

bunkers should have been built two years ago and ordered, and the equipment

ordered, too. That was the reason the health care accord was signed, so that

there would be no waiting lists; they would be decreased significantly and it

would be an opportunity for new equipment to be purchased and replaced - all old

existing equipment.

I do not know why it is going to take two to three years to have two new

pieces of equipment. I know it is a big job to install that equipment and build

the bunkers but there is no reason why this government were not onto this

before. They settled their issues with doctors. Doctors had an issue regarding

their contract with government. That issue was settled several months ago. If

they are meeting on a regular basis, the Minister of Health with his people, he

should have been well aware that new equipment was needed and it should have

been ordered at least two years ago.

Last week there was a bit of a scurry in this House of Assembly. The Minister

of Finance wanted to settle up pay equity with the women of this Province who

had their cases before the Supreme Court. They lost, only due to the fact that

the Province was not in a financial position to pay them. Now, I agree with pay

equity. I am glad to have been part of a government that tried to correct that

wrong. It was corrected for a lot of people in the former Administration, but

that particular case was before the Supreme Court during my term. I agree with

pay equity but I would like to know, in the scurrying around - because the

Minister of Finance actually had a surplus of over $100 million when - he could

not find anywhere else to stuff the money at the end of it. March 31 was coming

and he was frightened to death he was going to have to report the big surplus.

He tried, he ran out - the Premier was out every morning, noon and night making

announcements before the Budget came down, trying to spend the money before the

end of March so they would not have to record a big surplus. What they did at

the last minute - the Minister of Finance, who was totally dead set against

special warrants when I was the President of Treasury Board, brought in a

special warrant for pay equity so that could be taken care of before the end of

March, although the unions had no plan in place as to how they were going to

divvy up that money or who would be included. They had all those details to work

out. They didn't know what they were going to do, they were going to have to

cut a cheque before the end of March because they couldn't show over a $100

million surplus on their Budget at the end of the year. That would have been

just too much for people to comprehend when they told everybody that the

Province was bankrupt two years ago. So, there is no way.

The Minister of Finance decided, well okay then, I will bring in a special

warrant now and I will try to get that money spent before the end of March. He

scurried around, he went to the Lieutenant-Governor and got the

Lieutenant-Governor to sign the special warrant and he brought it here to the

House so he could get it approved, so he could take that out of the extra $100

million, so he could stand up in the House and say that everything was taken

care of, the cash deficit was erased, the supposedly $1 billion debt that the

Province was in, in 2003, that was all eliminated. Guess what? We had $76.5

million to the good after all was said and done. Now, that is amazing, isn't

it? After everything was said and done, there was still $76 million that could

have been paid out. It could have been paid out to those patients suffering from

MS, Multiple Sclerosis, and the people who are suffering with arthritis and they

cannot afford these new drugs that are out on the market. That could have been

given to those individuals.

We have pensioners out there now talking to government. They have been

forgotten about. There is no indexing for retired pensioners. I am sure that

prior to the election, this Finance Minister and others were shoulder to

shoulder talking to pensioners and saying: You vote for us now and when we get

elected we will look after you. You can put that in your pipe and smoke it. What

happened? They got elected and they forgot the pensioners. That is simply the

matter, they got elected and they forgot the pensioners. They forgot the

pensioners! Those are not all the people they forgot.

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I can hear the Member for Mount Pearl over there. I am glad

that there is money in education. Probably the Member for Mount Pearl can enroll

in a geography course, because last week he was there standing up in the House

and he thought the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde was on this side of the

House, not his side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is really prevalent (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

MS THISTLE: That is what he thought.

AN HON. MEMBER: And pertinent (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes, and very pertinent.

If you don't know where Trinity-Bay de Verde is, or any of those places in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador, sure we can give you a map, I suppose. When you

are not speaking or anything, you can take your time and go over the map.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we were talking about the people who were left out of

this Budget, and there are lots of people left out of this Budget. We know that

the extended drug plan, that was announced this year, but, I can tell you, don't

anybody knock on government's door tomorrow morning expecting to get drug

card. Anyone watching this program now, don't knock on the government's door

tomorrow morning to get a drug card, because it is not going to happen. It is

not going to happen until this time next year, or later. It was just like the

income tax they announced in 2004. They were going to eliminate income tax for

low income earners. That was 2004 they announced that; and, by the way, it was

going to happen in 2006. That is getting pretty good milage out of an

announcement. That is what you might call recycling.

Now, talking about recycling, I remember the Minister of - well, he is the

Minister of Health now, I think. When he was the Minister of Environment, and

the critic over on this side, he had an answer for the rubber tires. He had an

answer for the rubber tires and the cardboard boxes, that critic, when he was

over here. Now, this is three years later and there is still no answer for the

rubber tires. Not an answer yet for rubber tires. This was the guy with all the

answers, and the government combined still do not have an answer for rubber

tires. They are still stockpiled. They are a threat, a safety hazard. The money

is growing. Everybody has to pay, when they change their tires, for the

recycling fee for handling those recycled tires. They are stockpiled so high

now, I don't know, it is a real threat to public safety. They still do not

have an answer, after three years on the job.

Mr. Speaker, there is lots to talk about in this Budget, I will tell you. It

says in 2006 and 2007 the Province is expecting to generate royalties from oil

production of $703 million, and corporate income tax from companies operating in

the offshore of $224 million. That is direct revenue of $927 million. When you

talk about, what are we getting for corporate income tax?, this year in the

Budget there is $288 million budgeted for corporate income tax. Guess how much

is coming out of other sources like VLTs and lotteries? Ninety-seven million.

Liquor sales, $101 million. Tobacco sales, that just went up one cent the other

night when the Budget was brought down, $125 million. Guess what? Those three

areas of addictions - which are: the lottery, $97 million; liquor sales, $101

million; tobacco sales, $125 million - that comes to $323 million the government

is going to reap in from addictions, but in corporate income tax they only take

in $288 million. So, you can see why the Finance Minister is not too eager to

get rid of the VLT machines, not too eager.

Their slogan this year is, Making The Right Choices. The government is

proclaiming that they have left in 151 teaching units. They are not mentioning

how they took out 500. They are going to leave in 151. If you have done that, I

would say to the government, stabilize the schools. Stabilize the schools. Do

not have people like we saw last week, the residents of Swift Current, coming in

here to government and wanting to see the Minister of Education - after some

time, I might add. Apparently, it was very difficult to get a meeting with the

Minister of Education.

There is a proposal on the books by the school boards for those children to

travel from Swift Current to Arnold's Cove, and pick up passengers, on the way

along, from Garden Cove and other small communities, and a child would spend an

hour and three-quarters on a bus.

If I had a child in here in St. John's and I had to put that child on a bus

and go that distance, an hour and three-quarters, that would be beyond Harbour

Grace, beyond Bay Roberts, beyond Carbonear, beyond Victoria, right down to

Western Bay, do you think that I, as a parent, here in St. John's, would go

along with that? So, how can we expect people in rural Newfoundland to put a

child on a bus for an hour and three-quarters in the morning and an hour and

three-quarters in the evening and expect that child to be fully rested and fully

able to participate in whatever activities go on in the school that day?

I think it is unreasonable. It is safety issue. It is a health issue. Imagine

being gone that long from your home, for the whole day, not even being able to

go and sit down for a moment in a comfortable chair, having to spend that much

time on a bus, being shook up over bad roads and icy weather and foggy weather -

because everybody knows that Swift Current is in the centre of fog out by Come

By Chance.

If I am driving from Grand Falls-Windsor, once I get to Clarenville I figure

that the fog is finished. You can mark it in your book, it is not too many times

that you pass through Come By Chance and it will not be foggy. You can mark it

down. Can you imagine the children getting on a school bus like that in the

centre of the fog where the two peninsulas cross over, and have to be on the bus

for an hour and three-quarters in the morning and an hour and three-quarters in

the evening?

If you are prepared, as a government, to look at keeping teaching positions

in the school where they should be - because it is all based on geography. Even

though the numbers might be disappearing in our classrooms, with students

leaving, having to follow their families looking for work, we still have an

obligation. There is still an obligation on behalf of this government to make

sure that every child in this Province has a good education, and sometimes it

might mean putting more resources into a place that is isolated or remote. It

could be Swift Current today; it might be Buchans tomorrow.

You take Buchans, in my district, actually an hour and ten minutes off the

highway, there is nothing. There is not even a service station. I was able to

stand up in the House last week and say that the rating group AIMS, that rate

schools in Atlantic Canada, they were able to give a first-class rating to

Buchans Lakeside Academy because of the innovative and the quality of education

that they are giving to their students in Buchans; and this was not the first

time that Lakeside Academy in Buchans won this award. This is the second time.

So, you know, that says a lot for the teachers who live in these remote

communities. They are not nine to three. Those teachers are not nine to three.

Whenever I go up to an event in Buchans there is always teacher activity in

every program that is going on. It involves after hours work with students and

it definitely pays off because they might be lacking in some of the

extracurricular programs that you would find in a bigger centre when it comes to

choices but when you look at these remote schools and they can come up with that

kind of a quality education, it proves that government must - they have an

obligation to invest in those rural communities and make sure that every child

has a good education.

Now, there is an issue that is surfacing with this government. It is the

problem that this government is having - I am sure that they would really like

to operate as a Department of Education from St. John's in the Confederation

Building. The people around the Province want a school board system, they want a

school council system, and they want the right to run for school council and

serve on a school board.

Government has taken a lot of flack recently about the changes that they are

going to make to schools, and also to school boards and communities in this

Province. In fact, I would say thank you to the two whistle blowers who stood up

in a conference going on here in St. John's that Dr. Younghusband gave. The

conference talked about stress in the schools; what teachers are expected to do

and the stress levels they encounter. There were two whistle blowers who decided

to give an honest account of some of the stresses that teachers are

experiencing. They were almost ostracized without even an explanation.

Dr. Darin King was going to severely punish those two whistle blowers, and

also Milton Peach, the president of the school board, or the chairman, whatever

title they gave him, until finally, I think the Premier realized that in order

to shut down that negativity we are going to have to make this an education

budget. That was the area that this government chose, an education budget. I say

to thank you to those whistle blowers. In fact, they should be congratulated.

Their peers ought to congratulate them. They should be, by no means, punished.

They should be congratulated for coming out and letting parents, and the school

population and the public, in general, know what is going on in their schools. I

think this was one of the main reasons why this government decided not to make

any teacher cuts this year. It was all because of those two whistle blowers. I

think they are to be congratulated more so than condemned.

Now, what did government do for post-secondary education students this year?

What did they do for post-secondary education students this year? They did not

lower tuition. It is a funny thing about it, when we were the government we

lowered tuition by 25 per cent at Memorial University and froze it at the

College of the North Atlantic. So, this year, this government has frozen tuition

but they never made any advancement in lowering student debt. I had several

e-mails from students. They were waiting anxiously for this Budget to come down,

and students were surprised that there were no new measures in this Budget to

look after student debt load. The students are not interested in having the

ability to borrow more money. They do not want to be able to borrow more money.

That is not the answer. The answer is grants; grants as a way to go. That is

what students are looking for. They do not want to be saddled with unnecessary

debt. Most students today are coming out with a debt load of, probably, between

$40,000 and $50,000. It is almost like having a mortgage to pay for and trying

to start off your career, buy a car and probably a home, and you are saddled

with a debt of $50,000. Make no wonder students are exiting our Province and

going to look for a job out west where the pay is higher. Because their debt

burden is so high, they have to go somewhere where they can make big money and

try to pay for it.

The first order of business of this government when they became the

government was to cancel an income tax feature that we brought in, that students

remaining in our Province and working in our Province had an opportunity to get

credit for paying on their student loan, but this government did not like that.

They did not want to encourage students to stay and that was their first piece

of business, to cancel that particular bill.

It is interesting, on page 15 of the Budget when they are talking about the

public servants. They are saying they are going to provide new training for

their public servants and so on. There is going to be a "...completion of

another round of government-wide human resource planning to build upon the

successes achieved since the current human resource plan..." Those are

flowery words. It gives the impression that this government is going to do

something for their public service, but what they are saying is that they are

going to go through another government-wide human resource planning. Do you know

what that really means? You have to sift through those flowery words, because

that really means that there are going to be more job cuts. That is why, when

you look in the Estimates book, there is about between $13 million and $17

million set aside to pay people's severance. That is an alarming figure,

because a normal annual figure for severance and early retirement is somewhere

in the area of $7 million. So, for government to put between $13 million and $17

million in their Estimates book only means one thing: they are actually going to

be doing more cuts.

I see that all of the time. People call me and say: I have lost my job -

people who have been working in the system for years; the College of the North

Atlantic; medicare; works, services and transportation - no notice, your

services are no longer required. Government is doing that, cutting to their

public servants. They are not doing it en masse. They are doing a couple here

and a couple there. They are trying not to create any stir about it, but people

e-mail me and call me. I know it is going on. That is the reason why they have a

large amount put aside in the Budget to take care of severance for these workers

who are going to lose their jobs. So, if there are any public servants today

watching me here report this, I am only reporting what is in the Budget.

Government is saying that there are going to be more job losses, so look out.

I was shocked to learn that this government are talking about setting the

foundation for the identification and development of future leaders. In other

words - the average age of any public servant right now in this Province is

between forty-seven and forty-nine years old, so government must think about

succession. They must think about what young, bright people are graduating from

our universities, and who would be interested in a career in public service?

But, you know something? It is all lip service because they do not have any

intention of letting young people into the public service.

We had a plan, it was called the graduate recruitment program. Every year,

fifteen students from our university, and those outside who had graduated and

had applied for a job within our public service, some years there were as high

as 500 and 600 applications from our young people looking for a job. We had

about fifty people in various training through all departments of government,

and those young people would have an opportunity to get familiar with three or

four government departments to see if they liked to work in the public service

and they would consider it as their career.

Well, the first thing this new government did, the Williams government, they

scrapped that program, so there is no entry level program now for young people

wanting to make a career in the public service of the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Government goes on to say this will be the first year of operations for our

new Department of Business, their new Department of Business. Well, when I

looked at the salary details for the new Department of Business, I have to say

that I was kind of shocked for the new Department of Business. There was roughly

$1.2 million. There are considered to be five permanent employees in the new

Department of Business. The salary there was about $500,000 and then there was

another section, related salary costs. Related salary cost was $1.2 million.

There was no explanation on how many people were going to be hired on a

contract basis, what they were going to be doing. All we knew from looking at

the Estimates book was that five people were the only full-time employees in the

Department of Business and it was going to cost the government $1.7 million. So,

I cannot wait for Estimates Committee meetings so we can actually - I have to

move away from the television camera for a moment because I do want to get this

material. That will be interesting, to see how that actually works out.

Another interesting part, too, was the Ottawa office. Do you know that there

is an Ottawa office still in Ottawa with nobody in it? Bill Rowe was the last

fellow and the first fellow in that Ottawa office. There have only been a couple

of people there, clerical people, answering the telephone. It is costing the

government of this Province almost $500,000 a year to keep it open, and there is

nobody in it. It might be a dandy place to run in, if you are the Premier, and

change your suit or put on a new shirt or straighten up your necktie, but it is

pretty expensive to have that up there with nothing going on, not a thing. As

long as you have a phone number for Ottawa, that is all that is important. It

must have been an awfully important office, that it hasn't been filled since

Bill Rowe left it! Nobody there, only take a phone call and relay it back here

to the Province. That is the kind of waste that is happening to your money, the

hard earned money of the taxpayers of this Province. That is the Department of

Business: three years in the making; never answered a question in Estimates last

year or the year before. Now there is a CEO in that department, or a Deputy

Minister, so it will be interesting this year to see if we will get any answers

on what has been done for that kind of money being spent.

There is another troubling thing that I am noticing too under Municipal

Affairs. For the viewers out there, they might recall that the federal

government announced a federal gas tax rebate program. That was several months

ago and that money, that federal gas tax rebate program, was intended to go to

municipalities all across our country that were suffering high taxes on gas. It

was supposed to be rebated and go back to these communities so they could use it

in their day-to-day operation of running their communities. What I have noticed

in this Budget since Thursday is that this government now has a different plan

for this money. Twenty million dollars, they say, will flow to municipalities

for environmentally sustainable projects. Now that was not the intention when

that money was announced by the federal government. Can you tell me how many

communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador could actually put their share of

money in for an environmental project?

I saw in the paper the other day that - I can't remember the name of the

community now, but the mayor was saying that he was going to have to turn off

the street lights and the water to a lot of homes because people are not paying

their taxes, and they can't keep going. Well, a lot of communities around our

Province were planning to use that federal gas tax rebate, and now it looks like

government has changed the policy on that particular program and they are now

going to put that into environmentally sustainable projects. Now, who can get in

on an environmentally sustainable project? Probably the big communities like

Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook, Gander, Clarenville, the big communities that

border along the Trans-Canada Highway. Do you think the people in Harbour Breton

can get involved in this project? I doubt it. What is happening to rural

Newfoundland and Labrador? It is absolutely frightening because one community

depends so much on the other one.

When Abitibi closed in Stephenville, there were loggers and truck drivers who

brought wood to Abitibi in Stephenville. Two-hundred and eighty of these

individuals lost their jobs. Now, this is on top of the 300 who actually worked

in the mill. So, you talk about a big project, a big employer like Abitibi in

Stephenville closing down, shutting down. Three hundred people right in the mill

lost their jobs. How about the loggers and the truck drivers who delivered the

wood to and from everyday? They are gone. They are not even included in the

3,000 people who left our Province last year.

How disheartening was it to watch CBC about ten days ago when I saw them do a

show on My Burgeo Home. To see the people - they are not in the Stats Canada

stats that came out the other day. Those individuals do not even register on the

Stats Canada stats, the people who left our Province, 3,000 people, because

these are individuals who will go away and work three or four months to qualify

for EI. It was backbreaking labour that those individuals were doing out in

Alberta. Putting in a power line and carrying coils of wire around their necks,

going to work when it was dark in the morning and coming back when it was dark

in the night, and settled into a meal when they got home, and do that day-in and

day-out for small wages; for small wages. Most of those men in the woods were

making between $10 and $12 an hour. The only thing that boosted their salary was

the fact they were working twelve hours a day, and sometimes longer. So this is

what they did day-in and day-out, grueling work for small pay. I got a big

surprise when I saw that they were only making $10 or $12 an hour, because when

you think about people going out west, you look at probably at least $20 to $30

an hour, but that was not the case in Alberta for those people.

I was also surprised, too, when I saw in government's Budget document that

government is intending to fund the Inland Fisheries Enforcement Program. They

are going to do that and they are going to draft a Sustainable Development Act.

I think someone had to step up to the plate and provide the enforcement that DFO

were not doing. I agree with that, but I looked in the Budget and do you know

what it is costing this Province? It is costing $800,000 a year for this

Province to provide enforcement on our inland rivers. I do not know if the

Minister of Natural Resources wrote the Minister of Fisheries federally and

insisted that the federal government actually pay for this or if they hand it

over to our Province to look after, that they hand over the cheque book with it.

But, $800,000 a year from our own Budget to enforce inland waters when it is the

duty and the responsibility of the federal government, you are letting them off

the hook. I have not even seen a copy of any correspondence that this government

has written to the federal minister -

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you want me to answer that for you?

MS THISTLE: No, I do not want you to answer it because if you had an

answer for it you would not be putting it in your Budget as a cost for this year

and putting it in the Estimates -

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I appreciate and value the role that the member opposite

plays in the House. She has talked about an issue related to the Department of

Inland Fish, just for clarification. I just want to be sure, for anybody who is

watching, that I asked the question if she would like me to answer it for her I

will, but she did say no.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I am not reading from Dodd's almanac. I am not reading from

the navigator. I am not reading from Readers Digest . I am reading from

Budget 2006, and this is what it says: "We will continue to fund the Inland

Fisheries Enforcement Program...".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Now, there are two factors at play here, Madam Speaker. If

this government had any clout with their Conservative cousins and the Fisheries

Minister, Loyola Hearn, one of two things would happen. He would either convince

Loyola Hearn to fund this - he would convince Loyola Hearn to either take it

over and do the job with the federal government to fund it, or he would say to

Loyola Hearn: Now, Mr. Fisheries Minister, I am your cousin down here. If you

going to give us this job to do, because you have been doing a - I was almost

going to say what kind of a job they have been doing. I have to watch my words.

Anyway, they have been doing a rotten job of enforcement. The federal government

has been doing a rotten job. They have not been putting the money in it they

should have been putting into it.

Now, Loyola Hearn, this is a chance for you to stand up and be counted. If he

wants to give this job to the provincial government to do, he should be sending

along the cheque book with it. Instead of that, this government is saying in

their budget book they are going to continue to fund it. And, guess what? It

cost $800,000 a year. Now, it is time for someone to smarten up and either get

the federal government to do their obligation, look after their own

responsibilities, or get us to do it and pay us for doing it. This is going to

be the third year of the Province taking over the enforcement and still not a

cheque from Ottawa to look after it. The first year it was $300,000 and now we

are up to $800,000 that is coming out of the taxpayers of this Province. The

federal government should be doing their job, they can well afford it. It is

time for Loyola Hearn to address that.

Now, Madam Speaker, there is a

section on reducing poverty and increasing

self-reliance. There is nobody who is going to say that is not a good thing to

do, because the more people we can get off the social services role in this

Province and the more working poor that we can get to be self-sufficient, that

is a good thing.

The only thing I see about all of this, when it comes to the extended drug

program, why announce it today if you are not going to look after those people

until next year? Why announce the new drug for Alzheimer's if you are not

going to bring it in until September? There are a lot of patients out there

suffering with Alzheimer's today. What kind of a state will they be in between

now and September,

whereas you might have been able to avert the fact of

somebody going into a long-term care facility with the fact that you have been

able to come up Aricept, the drug that everybody wants who is fighting Alzheimer's.

I don't see the sense of putting out this good information, how you are going

to fund the drug program, when, in fact, you are not even going to fund it until

September. Families are out there today in anguish.

All of us here in this House of Assembly had an e-mail from Gillian Saunders

from Goose-Bay, Labrador. Now, does anybody know who Doris Saunders is? I am

sure that the people represented in this House of Assembly from Labrador know

who Doris Saunders is.

Doris Saunders was the editor and the all-around person, I guess, for many

years - the only person - who wrote the book called Them Days . She was

able to archive and retrieve and put aside all the important documents,

photographs, stories, legends, and all the artifacts that would be featured in

this magazine, Them Days . What a provincial treasure, to have all of

those recorded in Them Days .

In fact, I looked through one of the booklets and I saw a picture of my own

mother when she was a young woman going to Labrador with my grandparents. My

mother was actually in one of those booklets, the magazine, Them Days . I

never saw that picture before, until I opened that magazine and someone told me

that Ina Pike from Carbonear was in that magazine. I have that magazine today,

and I treasure the fact that I could actually open the magazine and see my

mother when she was a very young girl.

Doris Saunders is a young woman too. She is in her early sixties, and she has

been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, and it is so sad. We all had an

e-mail from Gillian, her daughter, and there is no facility in Goose Bay,

Labrador, to look after Alzheimer's patients. Doris Saunders, I have never met

the woman personally, but I feel as if I know her because it was so heart

wrenching the way her two daughters described her situation. Right now, she

still has the advantage of being able to recognize her family, her

grandchildren, and even the family pets and the neighbours and friends who come

to see her all the time.

Most recently, she has been interviewed on CBC, her and her daughter, and the

closest facility is the Hoyles-Escasoni house here in St. John's. So, she is

going to be set adrift. Anyone who has Alzheimer's, the very little that I

know about it, is the more routine your life can become, and the people who have

been a part of your life for many years is the part that keeps you in contact

with the day-to-day living.

She now is going to a strange environment where clinically she will be well

cared for. That is not a question. She will be well cared for, by the wonderful

people who work in that home, but she will be away from the things that mean so

much to Doris Saunders. It was so heartbreaking for a woman in her early sixties

to have to be taken out of Labrador and come to St. John's and be placed in a

long-term care facility, dealing with Alzheimer's, where she will know nobody

at all. There will be no one there to cheer her on and say: Hi, Mom, how are you

doing today? - and love her and give her the support that she is now

experiencing in Goose Bay with her family there. These are the kinds of things

that tug at the heartstrings.

It is all right to have a surplus, and we are glad that the Province has a

surplus, but they have a surplus because of the oil business and the adjustment

to the Atlantic Accord. It wasn't anything this government did to create

economic employment in this Province. I cannot look and find one job that this

government has directly created. They came by it very luckily and we are all

going to benefit because there is a surplus today, but when you say you have a

surplus and you see a situation like this happening in Goose Bay it makes you

wonder. You know, there is lots we can do to alleviate that situation.

I also have people in Grand Falls-Windsor who are now in the hospital in

Grand Falls-Windsor, and their families are calling me on a daily basis trying

to get into our Carmelite House, a beautiful new Carmelite House that was built

about six years ago, but there is not room in the Carmelite House for the demand

that is out in Grand Falls-Windsor and surrounding area. You know very well that

if you have grown up in a community, no matter where your community is - I will

speak about Grand Falls-Windsor; that is where I live - if someone has spent

most of their life in Grand Falls-Windsor and they are about to go to a

long-term care facility, they naturally want to go to one in Grand

Falls-Windsor, where their spouse will be and their immediate family and their

friends, and what they look and know as being familiar.

It is sad when there is a need for a loved one to go into a long-term care

facility and that loved one has to go to maybe Placentia. I have had people from

Grand Falls-Windsor who have actually gone to Placentia. They have gone to St.

John's. They have gone to Springdale. They have gone to Buchans. They have

gone everywhere with the intention that, once a bed becomes available, they will

get priority and they will be moved back to Grand Falls-Windsor. Sometimes that

does not happen. Sometimes that does not happen. Maybe the person who is ill

will take a turn for the worse and that particular person, then, will not have

the opportunity to come back to Grand Falls-Windsor. They may pass away wherever

they are.

I know there are people now in the Grand Falls-Windsor hospital; they are

paying $2,800 a month to stay in the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor because

they have a pension and they are able to pay but they cannot get into the

Carmelite home. Even though they are treated well, they still do not have the

comfort of their own room and their own washroom that they would have in the

Carmelite House, and be able to sit back in an easy chair and let your family

come in and read to you or watch television. So, even though you are paying

$2,800 a month, if you are able to pay it, you still do not have the comfort and

convenience of being in a long-term care home where they want to be, into

Carmelite.

This government must realize that our population is aging faster than there

are long-term care homes available for seniors, and faster than we have adequate

facilities to look after them. That is a huge issue and I face that every day,

being the MHA, and I am sure all of us here do, but I want to talk about some

other things that came up in the Budget that might be of interest.

Government talked about reducing fees this year. Well, it is interesting

that, when government brought down their Budget in 2004, they increased 155 fees

for consumers in this Province and they brought in $26 million of new money.

This year they decided they were going to eliminate or reduce some fees, and

they set about to do this, and the fees that they decided to decrease this year,

or eliminate, comes to $1.5 million. That is a small speck, isn't it, on the

$26 million they are collecting in new fees?

I remember getting a call from a senior care home on Grenfell Heights about

two years ago. There was a man there, a senior citizen, and he got a bill to

renew his driver's license. It wasn't for twelve months, it was for fifteen

months, and I think it was over $200. He said: Anna, my dear, I got a bill and I

have to pay this fee. It is over $200. You know, he said, a man of my age, I don't

know if I will see that fifteen months out. Fifteen months, he said, to me is a

long time