April 29, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 25

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Before we begin the afternoon's proceedings, the Chair would like to

recognize the Skills Link Group of Robert's Arm, District of

Windsor-Springdale. They are visiting our House this afternoon, four young men

and young women with their instructor, Kirsti Collins and their chaperon, Joy

Bingle.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon, as well, we have member's statements from

the following members: the hon. Member for Exploits, the hon. Member for St.

John's Centre, the hon. Member for Port de Grave and the hon. Member for

Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a well-known broadcaster and

former Liberal member and minister of the Crown of this House of Assembly who

passed away yesterday morning. Mr. John Nolan was born in St. John's and made

a name for himself as a broadcaster and a politician.

Following a successful start in broadcasting, Mr. Nolan was elected to the

House of Assembly for the first time in 1966 as the Member of the House of

Assembly for the District of St. John's South. He was also elected to serve

the constituents of Conception Bay South in 1975.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Nolan entered the Cabinet of then Premier Smallwood in 1968

and served in several portfolios, including Municipal Affairs, Supply and

Services, Economic Development, and President of Treasury Board.

Following his political career, Mr. Nolan was a citizenship court judge and

returned for a period of time to broadcasting, as well. As a volunteer in the

community, Mr. Nolan was a founding director of Big Brothers, a well recognized

organization in the Province, in Newfoundland and Labrador, and he also worked

very closely with Lieutenant-Governor Jim McGrath at the time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in

sending condolensces to the family and in paying tribute to a very honourable

former member of this House and former Cabinet Minister, Mr. John Nolan.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I join in the comments with the Leader of the Opposition. John Nolan was an

absolutely wonderful individual, a man who crossed partisan lines and I must

say, I watched with some great nostalgia last night at the clips that were on

one of our local TV stations. It showed him in all his glory when he was a

broadcaster, and that very distinct voice and personality. I knew him as a

personal friend. I appreciated his advice from time to time and counsel that he

gave me when I first entered politics. That is why I made the opening statement,

that he certainly crossed all partisan lines. He was also a good friend of the

father of a very good friend of mine. So there was also an even closer

relationship there.

I join with the Leader of the Opposition, and of course all members of the

House, in extending our condolences but also to pay tribute to a very fine

gentleman and a wonderful Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to join in expressing my condolences on the passing of

John Nolan. He was a very fine Newfoundlander who had a deep and abiding

interest in the Province, even into his retirement, Mr. Speaker, and throughout

various illnesses that were challenged him. The last time I saw him was at

Christmastime at a shopping mall and he took the time to ensure we had a lengthy

conversation about the politics of the day, which he was always extremely

interested in of course. He served this Province in the House of Assembly and as

a broadcaster well known to many throughout the Province. We all are saddened by

his passing as a consummate Newfoundlander, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform the House and hon. members of the House of the 50 th

anniversary of the Vera Perlin Society here in St. John's. This anniversary

recognizes and celebrates the delivery of fifty years of services to individuals

with developmental disabilities and their families.

The Vera Perlin Society was founded by Mrs. Vera Crosbie Perlin with the help

of the United Church back in 1954. Through Mrs. Perlin's efforts, she

persuaded the United Church Orphanage to donate a room in their church basement

in their building on Hamilton Avenue, and she also persuaded Ms Molly Dingle to

take on the responsibility of teaching the first class of students with

developmental disabilities.

Mrs. Perlin received many of her ideas for instructing children with

developmental disabilities through her visits to schools in Great Britain. I n

later years, her teachers were sent there for training. Today, the Vera Perlin

Society continues to provide services to the developmentally disabled community,

following in its founder's wishes.

There are many events planned for this 50 th Anniversary Year, but

one that all members can help with is the Capital Campaign to upgrade and

modernize their teaching facility here in St. John's.

I ask all hon. members to recognize the contribution of Mrs. Vera Crosbie

Perlin and to support the Capital Campaign of the Society once it is more

formally announced.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to congratulate the Town of Bay Roberts and the Special Events

Committee in announcing the lineup for the ninth annual and the fourth major Bay

Roberts Klondyke Concert scheduled for July 31 this year. The three previous

major concerts have brought an estimated $6 million to the local economy.

The lineup for this year's concert include: The Neal O'Leary Band; The

Wilkinsons, Prism, Treble Charger, Blue Rodeo, Kim Mitchell, Air Supply, and BTO.

I would like to extend an invitation to all my colleagues in the House of

Assembly and to all members of the general public to visit Bay Roberts and

attend this family event. As in previous years, I would like to extend a very

special invitation to our Premier, who visits each and every year, to come along

and hear BTO sing their popular rendition of, "You Ain't Seen Nothin'

Yet".

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: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the great

contributions of the residents of Harbour Breton who recently contributed to the

Harbour Breton Volunteer Fire Department in a recent telethon. The televised

fundraiser was hosted by Fire Chief Reg Bennett and firefighter Junior Lambert.

The event contained many local performances gathered for the occasion.

Volunteer firettes manned the phones and firefighters helped in many ways,

including collecting pledges around town. As the phones continued to ring, the

total continued to climb on the display board. At the end of the day, $13,600

was raised from pledges and the firemen's TV bingo.

Fire Chief Bennett said the money raised would be used to make the new fast

rescue truck fully operational.

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

residents of the Harbour Breton area for their generous contributions to ensure

the volunteer fire department of Harbour Breton remains strong and ready to

handle the many emergency situations in the area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The total allocated time for members' statements has now expired; however,

with the leave of the House we could hear more statements if it is agreeable to

the members. We have more statements than we have time in the six minutes

allocated today. With leave?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, at 2 o'clock this afternoon in the community

of North West River, people from all across Labrador will gather to say goodbye

to a woman, an Aboriginal woman, Beatrice Watts, who was born on the North Coast

of Labrador and moved to North West River.

Mr. Speaker, Beatrice Watts raised a family who she loved very much, and not

just her own children but the whole of Labrador was her family. She worked very

hard toward education and she fought very hard for the children on the North

Coast of Labrador. She believed that the children on the North Coast of Labrador

did not deserve any more than what the children in the rest of the Province had,

but she believed that they were entitled to what every child in other parts of

this Province had the opportunity to enjoy in the education program.

Mr. Speaker, they say that memory is one gift of God that death cannot

destroy. The memory of Beatrice Watts, like the true history, the culture and

heritage of Labrador, will live in the hearts of many people, for a wonderful

woman who gave so much. I am sure today that Labrador and many individuals are a

lot better off because of people like Beatrice Watts.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to rise today and acknowledge a group of Level II and III students

who are visiting St. John's from my district, from the community of Mary's

Harbour. They are in the gallery today as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is on a very rare occasion that people from any part of my

district have the opportunity to come to St. John's and to sit through a

session of the Legislature of the House of Assembly. The real purpose of their

trip is to look at post-secondary institutions in the Province. They have had an

opportunity to visit the College of the North Atlantic, Memorial University, and

the Marine Institute, so I wanted to take this opportunity to certainly wish

them well as they look at their future endeavours, look at a career that will

allow them to live in Newfoundland and Labrador and participate in growing this

great Province of ours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of an

expatriate Newfoundlander, who is a member of the Ontario Legislature,for her

quick action in restoring to the shelves of the Ontario liquor stores the

product known as Screech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, Marilyn Churley was born in old Perlican, was

raised in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and has been a member of the Ontario

Provincial Parliament for a number of years, and is Deputy Leader of the New

Democratic Party.

She awoke to the sobering news, she says, of finding that Screech was no

longer to be stocked on the Ontario liquor store shelves, and she took very

quick action, Mr. Speaker, and by the end of the day had a change of heart for

the Ontario Liquor Board who are now restocking Screech so that Newfoundlanders,

and people who would like to be, will have an opportunity to partake of that

beverage in Ontario.

As an ex-patriot Newfoundlander, I think we are pleased to know that they are

doing their work elsewhere to promote Newfoundland culture, knowledge and

understanding.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to ask a series of questions of the

government, through the Premier or whomever chooses to answer, and I think it is

important that the Premier give direct answers and deal seriously with this

matter of creating a brand new law to force employees back to work who are

already working.

The question, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier is this: Will the Premier finally

acknowledge that there is no need to order workers back to work, who are already

working, for health and safety reasons? Will he acknowledge that there is no

need for health or safety issues to be addressed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, all hon. members are under the impression

that as of today this matter will have come to a conclusion and this legislation

will pass in the House of Assembly. I would just like to inform members that I

instructed the House Leader yesterday, in consultation with caucus and members

of the Cabinet, that we will not be proceeding with this legislation today. We

have decided that we are going to postpone this until Monday, because we are in

the process of continuing negotiations, that will continue on, hopefully,

throughout the weekend and we can see where it goes. We are not going to try and

negotiate with union leaders with a gun to their head, on the basis that it was

rolling down to legislation being finalized this evening. We decided,

collectively, that the appropriate and the right thing to do was to continue on

with the negotiations.

If I may, I can elaborate on that or, if the Leader of the Opposition -

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: As well, what I did last night, again in consultation

with my fellow members of Cabinet, and in particular the Minister of Finance and

the President of Treasury Board, I made contact with Mr. Puddister. I asked Mr.

Puddister to personally meet me and have a chat with a view to making a

suggestion to him with regard to a creative sick leave proposal that we felt was

a reasonable proposal. I contacted him. He happened to be at home in Bay Bulls,

and I was at the Confederation Building, so we talked about meeting. He said he

was at home. I said: If you like, we can wait until tomorrow. He said: No, we

can get together. I said: Look, the easiest thing for me to do is to come to

you. He said: No, I will come.

We decided to meet halfway, which I thought was really interesting, when you

are trying to reach this negotiated settlement. To come halfway on the highway

was pretty good. We met in Mount Pearl, a district which I am sure you are very

familiar with, Mr. Speaker, and the Member for Mount Pearl as well is very, very

familiar with. We sat on the parking lot of a service station and we had a chat.

At that particular point what I did was, I made a presentation to Mr. Puddister

to deal with the sick leave, which we felt was a very, very fair, a very

reasonable, compromise on sick leave, and asked him to consider that overnight.

I am not free to disclose that, on the basis that I indicated to Mr.

Puddister that would not be disclosed to the House of Assembly today. We did

meet, we did talk, and talks are going on. At that time I did indicate to him

exactly what I am indicating to this House today, that we would not be trying to

close this today, to put a gun to his head. He could consider that, and even

that would then give us Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday to try and reach a

settlement in this matter.

We have done everything we can to try and reach a conclusion to this, to try

and negotiate a settlement, and we will continue to do everything in our power

to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, we did give leave to the Premier to give the lengthy answer, which was

important, but we would have appreciated, if he wanted to give that information,

if he could have done it as a statement to the House.

Mr. Speaker, again the questions are still pertinent and relevant because

Bill 18, the back-to-work legislation, still hangs over the heads of the people

for completely unnecessary reasons, except the deadline, the hanging time, has

been postponed now until Monday instead of today.

Again, the first question which he did not answer, he is acknowledging,

obviously, by extending to Monday now, that there are no health and safety

concerns. Is that a yes or a no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, there is not the same urgency that was there before. I

certainly fully acknowledge that, and I want to take this opportunity to thank

the public service workers for coming back to work and taking out that critical,

urgent situation that we had, and the possible crisis that we were facing. There

is absolutely no doubt about that, but I must remind the Leader of the

Opposition that we have indicated that we do have to proceed with this

legislation. This is now just about back-to-work legislation. This is also about

reaching an agreement; and, because the public sector workers have given us some

time here, we are now serving them the courtesy of giving them time back in

order to try and reach an agreement. That is exactly what we are doing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The questions that I am going to continue to ask are still very relevant, Mr.

Speaker. Will the Premier finally acknowledge that there is no need today or

Monday, or ever, to legislate a contract since there is already an agreement in

place, as confirmed by the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Labour, the

Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board? Yes or no, does he

acknowledge, will he finally acknowledge, that there is in fact an agreement in

place and the people who are working today are covered by an existing collective

agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if we were to follow that line of reasoning we never would have

entered into any discussions in the first place. There would have been no need

to negotiate a new collective agreement. We could have just continued on with

the old one. So, the several hundred amendments that are contained in

Schedule C

and

Schedule B that are for the benefit of the unions, which have been

negotiated favorably through the unions, which you actually voted against in

this House, against

Schedule B and

Schedule C, they would be off the table. A

negotiation is there so that a new agreement could, in fact, be reached, and

that is why we have done it.

Mr. Speaker, one final point I want to make. As we speak, a Liberal

government in British Columbia is legislating 15 per cent rollbacks when they

have a balanced budget. We have an $800-odd million deficit, we are giving our

workers 2 per cent and 3 per cent, we are trying to reach an agreement on all

major issues, and a Liberal government is legislating back, rolling back, 15 per

cent cuts to their workers and their wages. We refuse to do that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, the Premier did acknowledge that there is a current agreement in place

and the workers are covered by it, so there is no urgency and no need to

legislate a new one.

Mr. Speaker, if he wants to answer for what is happening in British Columbia,

maybe he will move out there along with Brian Peckford, his good buddy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier acknowledge there is no need to

legislate a two-year wage freeze since the current agreement, which is in place

and continues in place unless it is replaced by a new one, provides for no

increases for the next two years in salary?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the workers in our Province, the public

sector workers, asked us for a four-year agreement. They asked us to guarantee

them that there would not be a wage freeze in year one, in year two, in year

three and in year four. When we made our offer on March 31, we were prepared to

give them an agreement whereby there would be wages in year three, wages in year

four, and wages in year five; guaranteed wages. That is what the negotiation is

all about. You were a union leader, you know what the negotiation is all about.

That is what we did, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to give them security and the

comfort of a guarantee.

In addition, another point that I should indicate, I think the public should

know here, is the day of the Budget - I was in the lobby and I spoke with Mr.

Puddister - I indicated that we were also prepared to negotiate a possible

settlement of the pay equity issue; a huge issue for workers. We actually

offered to negotiate a settlement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to finish his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker.

We subsequently contacted the solicitor. We had subsequent contact with the

Department of Justice, and we have been told by the unions themselves, they do

not even want to negotiate pay equity so that we can provide money for their

members and get a settlement of that. They do not want an agreement. We are

doing absolutely everything we can to reach a settlement. We can do no more.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my line of questioning, which the Premier

obviously does not see important enough to answer, but we know the answers.

This question: Will the Premier acknowledge that there is no need to

legislate anything with respect to the hours of work, the so-called Warren

Report, since the public reports are that they have already worked out an

agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no agreement on the final three issues: the Warren Report, sick

leave and wages. I have stated here we were making progress, the minister has

not said that. We are trying to reach an agreement on all three issues. We have

not reached agreement on all three issues. That is the package we are

negotiating. That is what we are dealing with. We are trying to focus on the

most contentious issue, which is sick leave. That is the most contentious. That

is where our focus is, but there is no settlement on all three issues. If there

was, we would certainly be advised of that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier acknowledge that there is no need to legislate

sick leave changes since there are no changes planned for the current employees

- and I am sure he will say that is agreed to anyway - and there will be such a

minuscule number of new employees hired in the next few years, as they slash the

public service by 4,000 positions, that there are only minimal savings, if any

at all, possible for the government over the next two to four years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There will, in fact, be new hires in this government, probably starting as

early as a couple of weeks. We will always be making new hires in this

government. There is no doubt about that.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) since November.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: And we have been doing so, actually, since November,

the hon. minister tells me.

The issue of sick leave is an issue of a systemic problem that we have in our

Province, a structural deficit problem that we have in our Province. Mr. Lucas,

in a meeting with Minister Sullivan, myself and Mr. Puddister, acknowledged -

actually, no, I am sorry, Mr. Puddister was not at that meeting. That was his

own meeting - that we have a financial house of cards. That is the exact words

Mr. Lucas used when he talked to us about our desperate financial situation.

Everybody else is acknowledging we have a huge problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That problem rests with you, Sir, because it was your

government that created that problem when you were a Premier of this Province

and when you were a minister of the Tobin government, a minister of the Tulk

government and you were also a minister of the Wells government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You were privy to it. You were privy to rollbacks,

cutbacks, wage freezes. You were privy to it all and you can stand here so

hypocritical and get on with your nonsense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could I ask the Premier a very direct, short question: Has he been in contact

with Mr. Puddister today before he came to this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was in contact with Mr. Puddister, I would think, at about - probably about

10:00, 10:30 this morning when he called me, and he indicated that the proposal

we put to him last evening was not acceptable. That was the conversation which

we had. We are continuing to pursue it. Our doors are still open. We have

Thursday, Friday, Saturday -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Would the hon. members prefer that we pass the bill

today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

When the Chair is standing all members should be silent. When the Chair

stands it is the signal that people should be silent. However, I do understand

that this is a very difficult situation.

The hon. the Premier was giving an answer, I assume that he is now finished.

If that is the case, we will go back to the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Again, Mr. Speaker, if I can get this straight, the parking

lot proposal was rejected prior to coming here today.

I am glad to see it happening, by the way, the commitment. It is no good for

the Premier now to threaten us that, if you ask a few questions, we will change

the commitment he gave a few minutes ago about not debating Bill 18 today. He

just threatened us, Mr. Speaker. We know what happened. He said: What do you

want me to do now, go ahead and pass Bill 18 today? Everybody in Newfoundland

and Labrador heard it, Mr. Speaker. We know the kind of bully tactics that he

gets on with. They might work somewhere else, but they are not going to work in

this Legislature, Mr. Speaker. We are not going to put up with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: He can yell and scream all he likes. It might work somewhere

else, but it is not going to work in here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

If we cannot have relative order in the House, the Chair has no choice but to

recess the House, consult with the House Leaders, and then we can continue

Question Period after order has been restored and after consultations.

Any further disruptions, the Chair will have to consider recessing the House

until the Chair can be assured that we can proceed in an orderly manner.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask the question - and I apologize for responding to the threat from

the Premier, because he will not and cannot threaten us. Let me say it again,

Mr. Speaker.

Would he now like to stand up with the microphone on and say what he just

said while sitting in his seat?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I said: Ed, did he finish his question yet?

MR. BARRETT: You lie. You are lying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair clearly heard the Member for Bellevue issue - and I understand he

has now withdrawn the comment.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask again another serious question, because we are not getting very

many answers from the Premier today. Would he now acknowledge that because there

are no concerns with respect to the questions I asked earlier, that he stop

playing this game of slackening the noose around the necks for a day, an hour, a

few minutes, and just admit that there is no reason whatsoever for us to ever

debate Bill 18 again. Why won't he not defer it until Monday, and move the

hanging date, but just take it off the table all together and get back to the

real world?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, as a former Premier, and from the other

side of the table as a former union leader, that we have to have an agreement in

this Province. We have to have stability. We have to have an agreement to go

forward. If we had an agreement that could go on forever, we would never have

negotiated in the first place. The old agreement cannot stand forever. The

unions want changes to that agreement. We want changes to that agreement. We

have negotiated changes to that agreement. We have to move forward, and we will

move forward.

The reason the hon. member is so upset today is that we have given time for

more negotiations, because he does not want to see us get an agreement, and he

maybe successful. If he is, he will have accomplished exactly what he wants, but

we are going to leave no stone unturned, believe me, to try and get an

agreement. If I have to meet them on a parking lot or in a pasture or on a fish

flake or on the side of the road, I will go there and I will talk to them and I

will try to work out an agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me return to this issue one more time, for clarification. The Premier

said in his statement to the House, in answer to my first question, which we

gave leave for because we thought it was a serious statement, that because of

the parking lot discussion, that was the reason he was deferring the bill today,

because there was an ongoing negotiation.

He has since answered that at 10:30 this morning he received a call saying

that was no good. So, what is the real reason? We are glad it is happening, by

the way, and I think the deferral should be forever. What is the real reason for

deferring the debate on Bill 18 today? We are prepared to stand up again and say

why we are against it, and to debate it until the cows come home. Give us the

real reason. When are you going to take the real leadership approach and the new

approach and take away the hanging noose and the guillotine and the threat, and

have an open negotiation without a threat of execution?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we decided yesterday that we were going to allow more time. I

was asked by the media: Will you allow more time? I said: Look, we have

negotiated a long time. I do not think it is going to make any difference. We

waited twenty-nine or thirty days. We have tried our best. We thought about it

and said: No, we should be extending this. We will give it more time. There is

nothing wrong with giving it more time.

Obviously, the hon. gentleman disagrees with the fact that we are going to

continue to try and reach an agreement. Why would you be opposed to that? I

cannot, for the life of me, understand why you would be opposed to us trying to

negotiate an agreement.

We will meet with Mr. Puddister, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Reynolds, and anybody else

they want us to meet with, to try and work an agreement. We have talked to

mediators. We have talked to absolutely everybody. We are doing our darnest to

try and reach an agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Why, why, why would you be opposed to us trying to

reach an agreement? That is what we are trying to do, and we are proud of it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, the word in the fishing industry -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Could I have a bit of order here, Mr. Speaker, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. I have difficulty hearing the hon.

member, and I am only ten feet away from him. Therefore, would members have

relative silence so all members can hear the question?

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier would settle down a little bit over there, Mr. Speaker, we

might be able to get on with the orders of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the word in the fishing industry today is that many processors

are delighted and they take great comfort from the stand that the Premier has

taken against the unions. They know he feels the same way as they do, that

unions are meant to be broken and driven into the ground.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the processors feel that if they hold out long

enough, this minister, this Premier, and this Finance Minister, will give them

production quotas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When will this minister stand and tell these

processors that there will not be any production quotas today, tomorrow, next

week or next year, unless the union agrees to them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I have been quite clear in my commentary on

plant production quotas. I committed to a full discussion of the issue of plant

production quotas and/or an industry-wide auction or some other such scenario,

whatever the industry prefers, and that includes all participants in the

industry.

I sent a letter to crab processors, the Fishermen's Union and the

Association of Seafood Processors last week indicating that we would engage in a

full discussion on this in September and October, and that in 2005 there will be

a new system implemented in this Province to establish fish prices and to

determine how raw material will be bought and sold.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, every fisherman in this Province knows exactly

where the minister stands with production quotas. He would like to give them to

the processors, and he has not said anything in this House today to deny that,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is on record here last week, and out in the media,

as saying: There is no room for government in these negotiations. In light of

the fact that government issues processing licences to a select and privileged

group of individuals, and that these privileged individuals will not negotiate

in good faith until they get production quotas, when are you going to stand up

for the 20,000 fishermen and plant workers in this Province, or has the Premier

told you not to ruffle the feathers of his corporate buddies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Member for Twillingate & Fogo that yes,

there are a select group of people in this Province who have the right to

process fish, a select group who have the right to process shrimp and crab, a

group that the government that he was a part of doubled, Mr. Speaker. I can

assure the member that this minister will not be increasing that number and will

not be issuing licences to my corporate buddies or my buddies anywhere in this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am not finished answering the question. I have been engaged in

this process every since I became minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer quickly.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I have been engaged in this process right on through. We facilitated a

decision, we facilitated a process agreement on shrimp for the processors and

the harvesters, Mr. Speaker, culminating in binding arbitration, a set-up that

this crowd here have been looking for over the past couple of weeks, that one

party decided not to agree to, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Again, the minister talks a lot but does not say a word. He

talks about, everyone knows his stand. Yet, the Fisheries Broadcast, the open

line shows, are filled every day and night with fishermen and plant workers

wanting to know where the Minister of Fisheries is. They have not heard from

him.

Mr. Speaker, this minister is saying that he will not get involved, and he

will not deny even today that plant production quotas are coming. He will not

deny that they are coming. I ask the minister: As a former fisherman, as a

former employee of the union, have you turned your back on the fishermen and

plant workers in this Province, and crawled into bed with the processors of this

Province, or has the Premier told you to keep your hands off his corporate

buddies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, there is nobody on this side of the floor who

has corporate buddies in the fishing industry, but there are people on that side

of the floor who have corporate buddies in the fishing industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, this party here, when we were in Opposition

three years ago, two-and-three-quarter years ago, were the people who wrote the

Competition Bureau of Canada and asked them to investigate collusion and

corporate concentration in this industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: This was the minister who, at the time, said that he did not

see any evidence of corporate concentration or collusion in the industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I ask the minister to take his seat.

To meet our commitments to the member of the third party, we will go there

now.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. The Premier brought in this legislate to

as he said - backlogs of diagnosis and treatment in the health care system. Mr.

Speaker, George Tilley, the CEO of the St. John's Health Care Corporation,

said last night that he is going to be unable to meet the backlog and catch up

because there was no money for overtime.

I want to ask the Premier: How is it that there is no money to catch up on

the backlog of services and diagnosis that caused this back-to-work legislation,

when the health care corporation said it has been operating at 10 per cent

capacity for the last month? What has happened to the money, Mr. Premier? What

have you done with it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have had a number of discussions with health officials regarding the

backlog of services in the health care sector. I have informed those boards to

prepare a plan and come back into the department and discuss with me as to how

we should proceed to handle the backlog.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members across the way would

allow me to finish my answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister.

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That information has been relayed to the health care boards, and I am now

awaiting information from those boards and recommendations.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The CEO of the St. John's Health Care Corporation knows what he wants. He

needs money for overtime. Can the Premier confirm that not only have the health

care corporations - but other agencies and boards of government - been told that

the salary budget for the year has been reduced by the amount of money not paid

out during the strike, but that, in fact, there is no money there because the

Treasury Board is taking that money back and using it for other purposes?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I understood -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: If that question is specifically on health, I certainly

will defer it to the minister. I did not know whether the intent was on a

general question across all departments. Maybe if he could clarify it. If it is

health only, I am sure the minister is prepared and willing to answer that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it was very clear that Mr. Tilly said they need

money for overtime. So, the minister should answer that question but also tell

us whether all other departments have been told that their budgets have been

reduced by the amount of money that has been saved in the last thirty days.

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

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I can answer that question as it relates to the Department of Health and the

health care boards. Given that the strike was ongoing for most of April month,

we have not had the opportunity to sit down with the boards and finalize their

budgets for the current fiscal year. So, at this point in time those numbers

have not yet been finalized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members would allow me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: May I finish please?

I have indicated to the health care boards, again, that given the

ramifications of the strike and the effects that it has had on the services

provided by the health care boards, that I would appreciate if they would come

in and provide me with recommendations as to how we should address the backlog.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In view of the fact that we did take some extended time, with leave, with the

first question to the Premier, although we expire at thirty minutes, we will

allow one more question from the Opposition.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I appreciate that extra time.

My question is for the Premier. Mr. Premier, in your recent Budget, the worst

in fifty years, you slapped over 150 fee increases on the most vulnerable people

in our Province. Premier, can you stand on your feet today and attempt to tell

this House and the taxpayers of this Province the cost and the justification of

overtime, meals for management, police protection, riot gear, rented decoy

vehicles and your personal bodyguard for this unnecessary strike?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Oh, (inaudible), you sit down.

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The one who asked the question said she would like me to sit down and not

answer it, I will do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would ask if there is a response from the ministry? If there isn't

MR. SULLIVAN: I have responded, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people in my District of

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. Mr. Speaker, it is with regard to the Labrador

Marine Services. It is no secret that the people in my district, as well as

other people in the Province, are very disappointed and very upset with the

decision of this government to base a Labrador ferry out of the community of

Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, it certainly speaks to the fact that the minister, who's

district is in the area of Lewisporte, made a commitment during the election

that he would restore services to their community. Mr. Speaker, he indeed, did

that. But what is so outraging about this is the fact that he did it after he

played the people of my district and the rest of the people of the Province for

a bunch of fools, because he went out and launched this entire facade about

hiring a consultant to look at this, to look at where the best options would be.

He spent the people's money to do that and then, Mr. Speaker, he ignored the

recommendations.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the people in my district took the word of

the Premier. The Premier told them he would honour the recommendations in a

consultant's report and that report recommended that the Labrador ferry should

operate between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Cartwright and, Mr. Speaker, that the

government should increase the subsidy on the service by almost 50 per cent,

allowing the businesses in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area and in the south

coast area to be able to supply goods from one region of Labrador to the other

at a competitive rate that was being offered through the Island.

Mr. Speaker, it is not only the people in my district who are impacted by

this decision of the government but people in other areas of the Province. For

example, the Member for Humber Valley might be interested to know that the Deer

Lake Chamber of Commerce was very disappointed with the decision that was made

by her government and made by the minister, because, Mr. Speaker, it would mean

less traffic coming through their area. Mr. Speaker, I quote the President of

the Deer Lake Chamber of Commerce who was in The Western Star .

AN HON. MEMBER: She is over there laughing.

MS JONES: I know the Member for Humber Valley is laughing, but the Member

for Humber Valley might learn something if she wanted to listen to this.

Mr. Speaker, they built and expanded their businesses based on the move of a

ferry service to Cartwright. That is what the president said, Mr. Speaker.

Also, the President of the Corner Brook Board of Trade was very disappointed

with the decision that her government made, I will let her know. He said they

have a hard time. His quote, Mr. Speaker, "...he's having a hard time

understand the government's rationale behind the move." Well, I will tell

him the rationale, Mr. Speaker. It was all political. That is what the rationale

was.

Lets see what they had to say on the Northern Peninsula. Mr. Speaker, the

President of the Viking Trail Tourism Association is very disappointed, I say to

the Member for St. Anthony and the Member for St. Barbe, very disappointed. Do

you know something? They went out and invested money, according to the

President, businesses in that area invested money, in order to meet the new

demand for service that was coming out of Cartwright, and saw a 25 per cent

increase in their businesses last year; one of the poorest areas in this

Province, economically, Mr. Speaker, that has had a hard time, has struggled,

after the closure of the fishery. They finally saw a bright light, just like the

people in my district did. They had a new opportunity.

What did this government do? They came in, they wiped that opportunity right

out from under them and they paid $1.7 million more a year to do it. It is

unbelievable that you could see this happen in this day and age.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MS JONES: No leave? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My petition has to do with the allocation of funding this year by the

government for the roads program in the vicinity of $30 million. I have a

petition from the people of Garnish in the District of Grand Bank on the Burin

Peninsula. They say:

WHEREAS the provincial government has stated they will be spending $30

million this year on roadwork throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS Route 220 was not considered part of the Road for Rails Agreement and

therefore not on the receiving end of funding approved under that agreement.

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon all members of the

House of Assembly to impress upon the Minister of Transportation and Works, and

Aboriginal Affairs of the urgency of including that

section of Route 220 between

the turnoff to Winterland Road and the turnoff to Garnish in this year's

allocation of funding for provincial roadwork.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the Burin Peninsula, the highway there and the

money that has been allocated in the past while to get work done, unfortunately

that part of the Burin Peninsula highway which is Route 220, on the other side

of Marystown, which includes all of the tip of the boot of the Burin Peninsula

was not part of the Road for Rails Agreement, the federal-provincial agreement,

that saw a significant amount of money come to this Province, but only for those

roads covered under that particular agreement. That

part is called a trunk road

and unfortunately there has been little money compared to what has been spent in

other parts of the Province, again because of the availability of federal money

to cover off those roads that needed work done, and was able to get it done

under the Road for Rails Agreement.

When we look at what happened on the Burin Peninsula in the last little

while, with respect to the washouts on the road and the danger situation there,

clearly there is a need for more work to be done on the Burin Peninsula. We have

a case where, of course, we now see the contractor there and hopefully that work

will be done in the not too distant future.

It is important to make sure that our roadways are safe. What we are finding

is that, with so little money available to be spent in the last while on roads,

even though we put in as much as we possibly could, we are finding that there

are sections of the highway on the Burin Peninsula - or at least that part which

was not included in the Roads for Rail Agreement - that really needs some

attention from this government. The fact that they have allocated $30 million -

I am hoping they are going to be fair in their distribution of that money, as

the government that I was part of was whenever there was a need to distribute

money for roads. We made sure that it was done on a fair and equitable basis,

and we are hoping that the same will be the case with this government, Mr.

Speaker, because we need to ensure that our roads are safe, that people can

feel, when they get in their cars or when transport trucks are on the highway,

that they are indeed safe. When we have a lot of transportation trucks, in fact,

that go down the Burin Peninsula - especially when they are on their way to St.

Pierre and Miquelon. We have a lot of trucks that drive that route because, of

course, they are delivering a lot of goods and services, many of which are made

in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, it is important for us to make every effort we can to ensure that our

roads are safe. That is why I am calling on the Minister of Transportation and

Works, and Aboriginal Affairs on behalf of the people in Garnish, in particular,

because the petition came from them, but on behalf of everybody on the Burin

Peninsula, in particular because, obviously, anyone who has to travel over the

road knows the extent of work that needs to be done. I am calling on the

minister to allocate the necessary funding as is called for by the people of

Garnish to make sure that

section of the road, in particular, will get the

attention it deserves.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Orders of the Days, Motion 1.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the motion of non-confidence in this year's Budget,

Budget for 2004. After giving some preliminary review to this Budget and I look

at the Introduction of the Budget, the whole thing begins to develop an odour

just in the Introduction: "First, to balance the budget on a cash basis in

four years and restore sound fiscal management."

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have just seen twenty-eight, twenty-nine days of that

attempt of trying to balance the Budget. Any government in this current society

that we presently live in would take number three there in their list of

priorities, and that is, "...to ensure that our health and education

systems meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and are sustainable

into the future." But what I see happening in this Province right now over

the past twenty-nine days does not come close to being anywhere in the ballpark.

We have a promise of 4,000 layoffs. Now, granted, the Minister of Health and

Community Services said that would come through attrition. Well, a job gone is a

job gone, regardless in what name you put on it.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the minister that a job gone is a job gone. It does

not make any difference if it is through attrition, through death or whatever.

It is still a job gone.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order was raised by the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have raised this in debate before. I will ask the hon.

member if he will acknowledge, as his leader did, that when they were on this

side of the House they had an attrition policy operating for the last three

years, two which were not announced, but last year announced in their own

budget. Will he acknowledge that when he was in government and a minister of the

Crown, that that government had an attrition policy in place as well?

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. Opposition House

Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Just a comment, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is well known, certainly by the Government House Leader, that it

is not a point of order, not even a point of clarification. It might be a point

of information. I would suggest to the Government House Leader that he knows

full well he has time to debate on these matters. If - in the course of his time

that he gets - he would like to stand up in this House and clarify any

statements that the member over here from Carbonear-Harbour Grace makes, he is

totally at liberty to do that. He need not be disruptive. He need not interrupt

the member in giving his statements. I am sure we all, from time to time, make

misstatements or misunderstand, or disagree with someone, but he understands

full well. He has all the time in the world that he needs to do this. He does

not need to do it on a point of order. It does nothing, other than to be

discourteous to the member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. It is merely a disagreement between two hon.

members.

Continuing debate, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand full well, Mr. Speaker, of the members opposite urgent need to

get up today and speak. They seem to think that this is safe ground to speak on.

Well, let me tell you, there was not much speaking going on here on Monday and

Tuesday. There was not very much speaking going on from the other side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I spoke as well, I say to the Government House Leader. You

were allowed too.

Mr. Speaker, I know I have twenty minutes here today to speak and give my

views of disgust regarding this Budget. This Budget is part of a plan. It is

part of a plan by a group of people in this Province, a group of people that we

- the ordinary people of the Province have fought for years of trying to

establish themselves.

I heard a union leader this morning on the radio saying that - I do not know

if I have her words correct or not, but I can give you the gist of it: That it

is not good for the poor people to reach up into the ranks of the rich people.

We all cannot be equal. It creates problems when we establish this thing of

people having equal money. It is not good for society because then, of course,

when everybody has what everybody else has, the luxury of being able to go out

and buy groceries on their own, or send somebody out to buy groceries whatever

the case might be. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a family of nine.

I lost a brother in an industrial accident when he was twenty-three years old. I

lost a brother-in-law some years ago, a short time ago, forty-six years old,

leaving a wife and two young girls on their own.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we celebrated a National Day of Mourning in this

Province. I should not say celebrated because, I guess - yes, maybe we did

celebrate it, because it took years, up to 1984, before it was finally

recognized that we did have a decent Workers' Compensation Act in this

Province.

I looked at what is after happening. I observed the impact it had on my

family. We have to be very, very careful when we start cutting back employees of

the government, of this public service, because those public servants - and I

have been a member of the public service since 1974. Let me tell you, I took

great pride in doing what I did, and never, never, was the spectre of darkness

over my head as to what is there now. I have bumped into dozens of my friends

since they have come back to work in this building, dozens of my friends. I have

had numerous phone calls. I was here yesterday until late, answering e-mails and

taking calls from people voicing their concerns. They are saying to me: Why is

all of this stuff happening? What is going on? We are back to work; that is the

legislation. We do not need the legislation, we are back to work.

You know, I think, as I said a week ago, the real reason, one of the real

reasons, is that the devil is in the detail. It is here in this Budget, because

I have heard and I have listened. I have sat very intently and listened to what

has been coming out of the government members. I heard the Minister of

Transportation and Works say some time ago it may be 6,000 or 7000 people who

are going.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are going (inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Exactly.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are going to retire. (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: They are going to retire.

Here we go, playing with words again. Are we going to retire - I could have

retired last October 21, I say to the minister, if the people decided I was

going to retire. I could have been sent home. It is the same thing here. Your

plan is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the minister: methinks thou dost protest too much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is too much loud talking going on. The Chair is having difficulty

hearing the hon. member, and I ask for your co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no problem with exerting my voice to a tone that can be heard, let me

assure you. I will not be intimidated by the members opposite. It is not in my

makeup at all. I fought too long and hard to get where I am today, and I will

continue to do that and fight for the people I represent. I will not be shouted

down or bullied down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I go back to Monday and Tuesday. There was no

problem getting time here to speak, or standing up and getting a word in,

because the zippers, the gags, were all in place. They were all in place. Today,

all of a sudden, somebody has blown the whistle and the sheep have become attack

dogs. The gags are off.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a different bill.

MR. SWEENEY: It is a different bill. Because they, too, were following

the line of saying: This is good for us. This is the Budget that is going to

lead us through the dark days of the Liberal government and take us out and

bring us to prosperity under the PC government.

Well, I saw the PC government in action, when I stood shoulder to shoulder

with my friends and co-workers back in the 1980s when I was almost hit with a

paddy wagon in their mad rush to get somebody arrested and dragged off to jail.

I saw that, and I was almost injured through it.

Do you know what that does? - and the PC government still has not learned -

that makes the ordinary person, the workers of this Province, stronger, because

you go back to where we were, where we came from. It was the big word, fish,

which was the economy of this Province, when people worked like dogs to be able

to come down and work for the whole year, from daylight until after dark, and

their wives and children worked as hard as well. What happened? At the end of

the season, guess what happened? We might give you some salt for next season, to

start off the year, because you still owe us for your food for this year. That

is where we have evolved to, and we are heading back.

When my friend here, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, today raised the

issued about what is happening with the crab fishery -

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty thousand people.

MR. SWEENEY: Twenty thousand more people are going to be affected by this

government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise at this point in time a sub-amendment to

the non-confidence motion:

I, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, seconded by the Member for

Twillingate & Fogo, move the following sub-amendment to the motion of

non-confidence moved by the Member for Exploits and seconded by the Member for

Burgeo & LaPoile, and the said non-confidence motion should be amended by

adding immediately after the word "problems" the following: "And

further, this House rejects the Government's Budget statement because it is

predicated upon mythical and inaccurate information".

Mr. Speaker, I submit the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the member could arrange to have the sub-amendment delivered to the Table,

the Chair will call a brief recess so that we can consider the sub-amendment and

come back with a ruling very, very shortly.

This House is now in recess.

Recess

[Technical difficulties]

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) be speaking to the sub-amendment.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That was my understanding as well. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair will proceed with the debate on the sub-amendment, on behalf of the

Opposition.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GRIMES: Be gentle with them now, they are very sensitive over there.

MS JONES: Indeed, I will be gentle.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to the Budget, as my college for Grand Falls-Buchans

indicated today, probably one of the worst Budgets to be ever presented in this

House of Assembly in the past fifty years. It is simply because it is a Budget

that attacks the ordinary working person in our society. That is the problem

with this Budget, Mr. Speaker, and I will go into some details today that will

certainly substantiate and outline to the people of the Province why that is.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, if you look at this Budget, it tells you that we

are approaching the fiscal position of the Province from a two-pronged approach.

Mr. Speaker, one of the prongs in this approach was certainly the attack on

working people, as we have seen over the past few weeks, but not only in the

area of what has transpired with regard to collective agreements and bargaining

with unions, but also, Mr. Speaker, this Budget increases almost every single

fee known to man and woman and child, to be paid in this Province. Those fees,

if you look through it, are fees that incurred by ordinary working people in

this Province on a daily and a weekly basis.

Mr. Speaker, I live in a district where people love the outdoors, as well as

many other people in the Province do, and what we are seeing is more fees tacked

on to the kind of lifestyle that we have grown accustomed to lead.

Also what you see are job cuts, Mr. Speaker, again an attack on the ordinary

person in our society. I can tell you right now that it is not easy to get a job

in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If

you are lucky enough in my district, Mr. Speaker, to work for the public

service, then you are probably one of the highest paid, have the best employment

conditions of any worker in my entire district, because those are the best jobs,

Mr. Speaker. The ones who get a job at the school or get a job in a government

office or a government building, they are looked at as having the best jobs in

my district because they are year round. They have some stability to them. So,

when you talk about taking 4,000 of these jobs out of the public service in this

Province, Mr. Speaker, it leaves very little opportunity for new people to move

into those jobs.

I have students from my district, some of whom I announced in the gallery

today, who come to the capital city to get educated, to go to Memorial

University, to go to the College of the North Atlantic or the Marine Institute.

Mr. Speaker, they spend a lot of money, they make a lot of investment into their

education, and they do so hoping that, when they finish, they too will be able

to get one of those good jobs, one of those year-round jobs that will pay them a

decent wage; but, Mr. Speaker, their options are becoming more limited as time

goes on. Every time you talk about taking a job out of the civil service, it

means you are taking a job from one young person in this Province who is going

to graduate from university or college this year, looking for that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget also looked at schools, and reduced spending in

schools, taking, I think, this year and next year, a combination of 478 teachers

out of the school system in the next twenty-four months. Mr. Speaker, that too

has tremendous impacts on a district like mine. I have all small schools, all

that fit the necessarily existing school formula for small schools in this

Province. I have schools, Mr. Speaker, that have less than twelve students in

them, and are in one of the most isolated regions of this Province. Actually,

the hon. member across the way, from Placentia & St. Mary's, continues to

talk about travelling by helicopter in this Province. I happen to live in a

district, Mr. Speaker, that there are times of the year that you can only access

these communities by helicopter. That is how isolated they really are. So, I

have some grave concerns every time I hear of teachers coming out of the school

system, no matter what government is in power, because it is always the smaller

schools that are going to be impacted the greatest because they have the fewer

students.

Already in my district, Mr. Speaker, I have students who do a lot of their

programming through Distance Education, and they are very bright kids. I have

stood in this House time and time again to congratulate them on the many

successes that they have accomplished. I am very proud of the things they have

done, but I also want to make sure that they have the opportunity for a

continued level of education that is achievable in any major centre in this

Province, no matter where you live.

Mr. Speaker, the school board restructuring, this was an initiative that this

government walked into at the last moment. We know that because the Minister of

Education was on record only a week before, in Central Newfoundland, saying that

in his estimation there would be no restructuring of school boards this year. A

week later the Budget is dropped, Mr. Speaker, and sure enough, sure enough, we

will see boards cut in this Province. Right now, my district will become a part

of the Western Newfoundland board. We will be lost in the shuffle of over eighty

other schools in that board area, and it was done with no consultation with the

people I represent.

I am not saying that it is bad thing or a good thing to be part of a Western

board. All I am saying is that people, parents who have their children in the

school system, deserve the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, at the very least, to be

asked their input, to be asked what they feel about this kind of restructuring,

and whether their children should be going into these schools, into this board

area, or if they should not. That did not occur. To me, I think that is wrong

because it shows no respect: no respect for the students, no respect for the

parents to make decisions arbitrarily, outside of seeking their advice and their

consultation. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker, and frankly I am very disappointed

that the present day Minister of Education would allow that to happen, because I

have known this man for quite some time and I know that he is an hon. minister

and I know that he cares about people. I was so disappointed when I saw that the

government went out and did away with these boards, appointed PC affiliated

people to replace the elected board members to go in and arbitrarily put the new

system in place, without talking to parents, without talking to teachers,

without talking to students, without talking to elected school boards and parent

committees, and that is what I have a problem with.

The other side to the Budget, the other prong, the social prong, the health

care piece, we have not seen that yet, Mr. Speaker. Even the minister today

stood in this House and said: We have not ironed out the budgets for this year

with all of the health boards.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, when the shoe drops on the health budgets in

this Province, it is going to be alarming for everybody, because we have seen

what is happening with education. We have seen already the 478 teachers who will

come out in the next twenty-four months. We have seen this government not

wanting to guarantee hours of work for secretaries and janitors in our school

system. We have seen their budget that looks at buying more computer monitors

for classroom as opposed to putting teachers in the classrooms.

Now let's see what we are going to see in health care. I think that the

people on the West Coast of the Island, on the Northern Peninsula, and in the

central region who have raised issues with regard to the health care system over

the last few months are very legitimate. There are very legitimate concerns, Mr.

Speaker, because the word is out. The word is out that there is not enough money

voted in the Budget this year to maintain the level of health care that we see

in the Province today. Now, that is no secret to anyone. You can look at the

Estimates yourself and see that in order to maintain the level of service that

we have today, you would have had to see an 8 per cent increase in health

spending, and that did not occur in this Budget.

So, Mr. Speaker, where are the savings going to come from? That is where we

are going to get our answers. They are going to come from the same

recommendations that boards are being forced to put through. These boards out

there right now, these health boards, are being forced to offer up concessions

in order to meet this government's downgraded budget targets for health care

this year. That is exactly what is happening. That is why we are hearing that

hospital facilities in Flower's Cove and Roddickton could be downgraded to

clinical operations. That is why we are hearing that there could be major

procedures taken out of the Stephenville hospital and relocated to Corner Brook

only, a brand new hospital that just opened. That is why we are getting

petitions in here from small communities on the West Coast of the Island that do

not want to lose their clinics, because they know. They can read the Estimates

in the Budget, and they know there is not enough money there to maintain the

level of health care that we already have.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's look at the other prong, because the other prong to

this Budget - one was to attack the working-class people and jack up every

single fee possibly known to man, woman and child in this Province, and to

ensure that we cut education and cut health care. Well, the other prong was

revenue generation. There was going to be a full revitalization of the economy

under this Budget, the day the Minister of Finance stood in this House and

talked about his two-pronged approach, and talked about revenue generation.

Well, let me tell you, they had the opportunity to generate revenue in this

Budget. They could have increased the corporate income tax, to bring it up to

the same level that it was in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Only a week ago, the Government of Nova Scotia brought down their new budget

and what did they do? They increased corporate income tax rates. That is what

they did, but in this Province our corporate taxpayers are paying 5 per cent as

opposed to 15 per cent to 16 per cent in the Province of Nova Scotia. That is

the difference. This government had the option to generate revenue. When the

minister stood there and said it was a second prong, he did not give it any

substance, and that is why people like myself find it doubtful that they can

grow the revenue of the Province under the existing circumstances. He had the

opportunity to bring about $65 million in corporate taxes into this Province and

he did not do it, and that is why you have groups out there today that are

having their hospitals taken down as opposed to being completed.

Then, Mr. Speaker, they are talking about growing revenues. Now, how do you

grow revenues in a Province where you are going to take 4,000 jobs out of the

system? I have never seen consumer confidence lower in this Province than it is

today. People are not spending money. In a lot of cases, in the last month,

there have been 20,000 with no money to spend because they did not have a

paycheque coming in. Consumer confidence is down, and with less jobs in the

Province we are going to see less income tax being submitted and you are going

to see less business development. I say that because I live in a district where

we have had tremendous growth in business development in the last two to three

years, but that is stagnant now. It is stagnant because of policies that this

government opposite have implemented that have been done to the demise of

businesses in my district, so they will not be generating new revenue. They will

be trying to stay alive, trying to survive.

We already know that businesses in rural Newfoundland and Labrador do not

have a large population base upon which to build a business. They do not have

that large clientele, and their struggles are every day - every day. What this

government has done on the Northern Peninsula and in my district is, they made a

decision to make it even harder for these businesses to survive. They will see

what they have reaped, Mr. Speaker, come another six months. They will see what

they have reaped when you start seeing a lot of these businesses having to

probably declare bankruptcy because the entire economy on which they built their

business has been taken from them by this government.

Mr. Speaker, we also, in the two-pronged approach, heard of the Rural

Secretariat. The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is so proud

of the Rural Secretariat. Well, let me tell you what it is, Mr. Speaker. It is

$1.7million going into a Rural Secretariat that is going to be used to keep the

Strategic Social Plans going in this Province, an initiative created by the

Liberal government. It is a good initiative but it is not the key to rural

revitalization, I say to the minister. No, it is not. It is another social piece

that needs to be done out there in our society, but that is what her Rural

Secretariat is all about. It is about an initiative that the Liberal government

started and has been carrying forward for five years now. That is what the Rural

Secretariat is. It is such a farce. It is a play on words. It is words to

convince people out there that we are actually going to do something as a Rural

Secretariat.

Well, I will tell you what they are going to do. They are going to hire two

or three people. They are going to stick them in an office somewhere, Mr.

Speaker, and they are going to use the rest of the money to pay for the SSPs and

to do the community accounts. That is what it is going to be used for, I say to

the Member for St. John's Centre. He is up there shaking his head. Go read the

Budget. I have the press release here. Your minister signed it.

She says, the monies in the Rural Secretariat are going to be used for

community accounts, a Liberal government initiative, started a year ago, Mr.

Speaker. It is going to be used for the SSP, a Liberal government initiative.

That is where the $1.7 million in the Rural Secretariat is going. You never

know, there might be enough money left over for a couple of people in an office

with a sign on the door that says: Rural Secretariat.

If you are going to put it in the Budget, Mr. Speaker, do it with substance.

Do not play on words, to the people out there in this Province, but that is all

we have seen, Mr. Speaker, words. I live in a district where we have seen broken

promises - broken promises - from this government.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Labrador Metis Nation, of which I

am a member - a Metis woman, the only Metis person in this House of Assembly,

and very proud of my Aboriginal roots - let me tell you, the Metis people of

Labrador believed what the Premier had to say. They believed this government

when they were on the election trail, when they wrote them letters and said that

they would recognize the Metis people under the Powley decision. That was in

October, when they were out knocking on doors, when they were looking for votes,

when they were trying to get their candidate up in the Lake Melville area

elected, Mr. Speaker. They were out telling people that yes, we will honour the

Metis people under the Powley decision.

Do you know what they did on January 31, Mr. Speaker? They sent the Member

for Lake Melville and the Minister of Transportation and Works and Aboriginal

Affairs up to Goose Bay. They sent them to the Metis Nation office and they

said: We are not going to honour that commitment any more. We have just had a

couple of lawyers look at this, and the

interpretation is different.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier himself was a lawyer in October when he made

the commitment. I believe he had six lawyers running for him in the election in

October when he made the commitment to the Mtis people. Now, do you mean to

tell me that between the six of them, in October, that they took one

interpretation and then after he became Premier and formed government and sent

it to another law firm he had another

interpretation. I don't think so, Mr.

Speaker. It was politics. It was pure, simple politics. We will tell you what

you want to hear because we need your vote. That is exactly what it was.

It forced the Mtis people, Mr. Speaker, to have to go out and take out full

page ads in newspapers to get their message out as to how they were treated by

this government opposite. Do you know what they said in those ads, Mr. Speaker?

They said they felt betrayed. They felt like they had been taken for a ride.

They were told one thing in October and a completely different story in January.

Now, Mr. Speaker, lets see if they live up to their last commitment that they

made to the Mtis people, that we will re-examine this again. We will give you

a decision on the 12 th of April. Well, the 12 th of April

has come and gone. We don't have the decision yet, but I understand with the

strike and things getting sidetracked a little bit. They have been under a lot

of stress over there, Mr. Speaker. They have had a lot of issues on their plate,

most of them created by themselves. They have had a lot of issues on their

plate, so they have taken a little bit of time getting back to the Mtis

people. Mr. Speaker, no doubt they felt betrayed. They felt that they were taken

for granted by this government. They had a line signed by the Premier saying: I

will support the Mtis decision on their Powley. Then, Mr. Speaker, he sends

the minister and the Member for Lake Melville to say: No, it is not on now.

Three months later it is not on.

Then again, Mr. Speaker, it is no different than the commitment that he made

to the unions in the middle of the election, when he went out and took out full

page ads and said that we would not have layoffs in the public service. What do

we have in the first budget? Four thousand jobs gone in this Province. Just like

when he went to the NAPE convention and said: I will respect the union movement.

We will not legislate workers back to work. What do we have today in this House,

Mr. Speaker? Bill 18 to legislate people back to work. That is what we have in

this House. Now that workers are back to work they refuse to withdraw the

legislation from the floor of the House. I have never seen anything like it in

my entire life.

Mr. Speaker, I have experienced the wrath from this government first-hand in

my district, because in my district they have been able to take every single

piece of marine service and turn it upside down. For the first time ever, Mr.

Speaker, in probably five years, we didn't get the ferry on early in the

Labrador Straits. Every other year, with no ice, governments before them went

out and spent the money to put the ferry on to Labrador, because we are no

different than Bell Island or Fogo Island or anywhere else in the Province. We

need to get out too. We want to have a transportation system. But, no, the

minister says, it is going to cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars. So, we

cannot afford to do that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MS JONES: No leave? Leave has been denied?

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe the member who denied leave was not in his

seat. So I am awaiting directions from -

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would just like a point of clarification, if

you could. I realize that leave was denied, and that is not an issue. That is

certainly the right and prerogative of anyone over there to do that, but I would

like some clarification: Is it in order for the Deputy Speaker or the Chairman

of Committees to deny that leave, which she did?

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible)

MR. E. BYRNE: I am allowed to speak to the point of order, I ask the

Leader of the Opposition, am I? Is that okay with you?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are telling him what to say.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I am not. I am giving you my point of view, if that is

okay with you. You are not going to deny me my point of view in this House

either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I said that in my view it is in order, because there was a

point here one time, about two-and-a-half, three years ago, when the former

Member for Humber East, who was also Deputy Speaker, had made a similar point.

The ruling at the time was that the Speaker - I am just refreshing what went on

at that time, and why I say to your point of order that he can, that the Speaker

is the only person who can operate in that. That is the reason why I responded

to it the way I did.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I -

MR. GRIMES: Everything is foolishness with you, Loyola, unless it is what

you want to do. That is the problem with this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Opposition House Leader has the floor.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I appreciate the comments of the Government House Leader. Again, as I

indicated earlier when we started this session, I am still in learning mode

here. I have a lot to learn. Pardon me if I stand from time to time to ask for

clarification and ask direction. It just seemed to me, in the parliamentary

process, that if there is a Speaker, a Deputy Speaker, and a Chairman of

Committees, all of whom act from time to time as referees in this House, I was

concerned and did not know if those persons who are our referees from time to

time, when they are not filling that role, if they in fact act as private

members when they are in their seats? Obviously, the Government House Leader's

opinion is that it is, and I appreciate his information. I would assume of

course that you are going to confirm that to be the case, and I would appreciate

that.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Our Standing Orders are quite clear. As it is a parliamentary precedence, any

member who has a seat on the floor of the House has all the rights of any other

member who has a seat on the floor of the House. The only person who cannot

participate in debate or vote on any motions, excepting where there is tie vote,

is the Speaker. The Speaker does not have a seat on the floor of the House, so

therefore is not permitted to take

part in any debate in any way. So, the Chair

would rule there is no point of order, but I am sure all members appreciate the

point that was raised.

MR. GRIMES: A new point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A new point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure all members opposite appreciate the clarity of the ruling you just

gave because as we have said before, we are with a new government in its first

session in the Legislature with a lot of new members on that side who have never

been here before. I am sure they all appreciate the clarity of that ruling, for

all of us, and we now understand the rules. Every time a ruling is made, that is

that clear, it benefits all of us and I appreciate it.

My separate point of order is this: when you were dealing with that issue,

which I am sure you would recognize as a serious issue, and it was actually a

useful point of order raised for clarification - and I am sure I can look at

one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten members on the

opposite side who heard that clarified for the first time and it is beneficial

to all of us. Now, Mr. Speaker, my point is this, while you were doing that, one

of the veterans and the leaders in this House of Assembly for the government,

the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance said across the

floor, in an angry tone: Stop the nonsense, he said, and let's get on with the

debate. No, Mr. Speaker, he qualified it. He said: Don't be so silly!

Now he said - that is not what he said, by the way. He has a track record of

forgetting very quickly what he said. He said: Stop the nonsense! Now he wants

to say it is silly, it is foolishness and he is making my point for me. If he is

a serious and hon. Member of the House of Assembly - which we do not believe he

is, by the way, because we do not find him to be credible and we do not believe

a single word he says - he would stand up and apologize and take the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is hearing a point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

Are there any comments from any other member? If not, the Chair will rule that

there is no point of order and we should proceed with the debate.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak to the Budget Debate today. I want to start

off by saying that we are dealing with a very serious fiscal situation in the

Province today. To put it into perspective somewhat, it took from 1949 to 1999,

fifty years, for this Province to build a debt of about $8 billion. That is

fifty years, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is altogether too much shouting across the floor. If members wish to

carry on dialogue with each other, I would ask them if they would go outside the

Chamber. We are hearing an address by the Minister of Environment and

Conservation and every member has a right to be heard in relative silence.

The hon. the minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, it took fifty years to build a debt in this Province of about $8

billion; fifty years. From the time we joined Canada in 1949 to 1999 this

Province built a debt of about $8 billion. To make it perfectly clear, that is

throughout all of the Smallwood years, throughout all of the Moores years, all

of the Peckford years, all of the Wells years and the Tobin years, up to 1999,

to build a debt of $8 billion. From 1999 to 2004 - in fact, to be more precise,

from 1999 until the time we formed government in October of 2003, the debt of

this Province was in excess of $11 billion. It took from 1999 to 2003 to go from

$8 billion to in excess of $11 billion, one term. We have had seventeen

elections in this Province and in one term - the majority of it led by the

Leader of the Opposition - our debt has grown from $8 billion to in excess of

$11 billion. Mr. Speaker, that is the financial crisis we are dealing with

today.

In the last term, of which the Leader of the Opposition was Premier, the debt

of this Province grew by approximately 30 per cent in one term. Mr. Speaker, all

of the one-time financial payments to this Province, the one-time upfront cash

grabs, have been taken by the previous administration. They have taken an

enormous amount of money from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. That is no longer

there to be taken. They have cashed out whatever money was available to be taken

from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. On top of building the debt by 30 per

cent, they have taken all of the cash money available from Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro and they have taken all of the money that they could squeeze out

of Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation. The previous Administration,

Mr. Speaker, took an up front cash settlement from the federal government. Under

the Terms of Confederation, under Term 29, we were entitled to $8 million a

year. They took forever. They took an up front cash settlement from the federal

government. I will ask the Finance Minister, what was the amount? One hundred

and eighty million?

MR. SULLIVAN: One hundred and thirty million.

MR. T. OSBORNE: One hundred and thirty million, and they spent it. It is

gone.

They took money on the coastal ferry service, an up front cash settlement

from the federal government. The South Coast ferry service, that money is gone.

That was $55 million.

So, on top of building, increasing, adding to our provincial debt by 30 per

cent, they have taken money from every nook and cranny they could find: from the

federal government, from hydro, from the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation,

hundreds of millions of dollars from the sinking funds, Mr. Speaker. They have

milked whatever financial resources were available to this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: They went after the Labrador money.

MR. T. OSBORNE: They went after whatever money they could get, and they

left this Province with a financial crisis. They went after the Labrador Fund.

Because of public pressure and pressure from the Opposition they did not do

that, but they went after every possible nook and cranny that had money there,

and spent it. That money is gone. It is no longer there. It is no longer

accessible. In addition to adding to our provincial debt by over 30 per cent,

over $11 billion, that is what we are faced with, Mr. Speaker. That is what we

are faced with.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government, on top of that, has reduced cash

transfers to this Province. The federal government has reduced health and social

transfers to this Province, and that Administration knows what it is like to

deal with that, because they had to deal with it: less money coming to this

Province from the federal government. Over the past ten years, the health and

social transfers, our equalization payments coming from the federal government,

have been reduced, so the Province is dealing with that.

MR. JOYCE: Eight hundred million in health care alone.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I hear the Member for Bay of Island saying that is $800

million in health care alone.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is less money coming in from the federal government,

the Province's debt has been increased by over 30 per cent in one political

term, and all one-time cash sources to this Province have been dried up,

eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to sit on the other side of the House today and

criticize and blame us for the financial position that Administration put this

Province in. In fact, when they took government in 1989, the Province's debt

was $5 billion. It is over $11 billion today. It took forty years to have a $5

billion debt and they more than doubled it, Mr. Speaker, in one administration.

That is what we are dealing with in this Province. That is the financial mess

that Administration has left us to deal with.

Mr. Speaker, the decisions that were made by this party in the Budget were

difficult, difficult, decisions to make. They were not made lightly. I can tell

you that, as a Minister of the Crown, as we sat around the Cabinet table, we

agonized over the decisions we had to make. We pondered line by line through

every department. We agonized over the decisions that we had to make. Day after

day we sat at the Cabinet table, trying to determine how we could put the fiscal

situation in this Province right, how we could protect the future of this

Province. We agonized, Mr. Speaker, how we would deal with the mess that

Administration had handed to us when we took office. Those decisions were not

made lightly. They were very difficult decisions indeed. We would have preferred

to have made the easy decisions. We would have preferred to have been able to

provide more money for this group or more money for that group. We would have

preferred to make the easy decisions, but not only did that Administration cash

in on every possible source of revenue available to this Province; they used up

every easy decision that this Province could have made for the last ten years.

The only decisions that were left when it came to putting this Budget forward

were the difficult decisions. The only decisions that were left were the

difficult decisions, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the fiscal situation that the Province now

finds itself in has demanded that the difficult decisions, the tough decisions,

be made. They are tough decisions, because nobody wants to make the tough

decisions. Nobody wants to make the tough decisions, and that is what got this

Province in the situation we are in today, because the previous Administration

did not have the courage to make the tough decisions. In fact, I will go this

far: The longer you put off making tough decisions, the tougher they get, the

worst a situation gets, and that is exactly what has happened in this Province.

That Administration, in one term, added 30 per cent to the Province's debt. If

they had made some of the tough decisions, they would not be so hard for people

in this Province to take, and the very tough decisions that had to be made in

this Budget would not have had to be made.

They had promised a better tomorrow, don't forget. They had promised a

better tomorrow. Well, Mr. Speaker, a better tomorrow only comes when you

protect the financial integrity of this Province. A better tomorrow, for future

generations, will only come when you protect the financial integrity of this

Province, and that is what we are trying to do. That is what we are trying to

do. We are trying to protect the financial integrity of this Province. We are

trying to reverse the fiscal crisis that has been created by the previous

Administration. We are trying to ensure that our children and their children and

their children have a Province that not only can they live in, but that offers

opportunity - a Province that offers opportunity. That is the only way we are

going to prevent the out-migration from this Province, by creating opportunity.

We agonized over the decisions that had to be made. We agonized over those

decisions, Mr. Speaker, because we were forced to make them in order to address

the very serious fiscal situation that is now before this Province. The

financial situation in this Province is the worst that this Province has ever

had to deal with, the worst that this Province has ever faced since we had

joined Confederation. Our Province now has a debt of $11 billion. Eleven billion

dollars. The first time that this Province, with a population of just over

500,000, has had to deal with a debt of over $11 billion, a cash deficit on

current account of over $800 million, that is what this Province is faced with.

That is what our party, who has been in power six months, are faced with. We are

faced with trying to reverse the fiscal situation that was created by the

previous administration. The longer you put off hard decisions the tougher they

get. They have been put off, Mr. Speaker. They have been put off since 1989.

Nobody wanted to deal with the tough decisions. Nobody had the courage to

deal with the decisions that had to be made in this Province. We did not enjoy

making those tough decisions, Mr. Speaker. We did not enjoy raising fees. Nobody

takes pleasure in that, but those are the decisions that had to be made. Those

are the decisions that we had to make in order to protect our Province's

financial integrity for future generations; to secure a future in this Province

for our grandchildren and their grandchildren, because if nobody ever makes them

- and this Province, when it was a colony, went through it. This Province, when

it was a colony, went through it, Mr. Speaker, and none of us in this House

today were around at that time. But, Mr. Speaker, history shows that when this

Province faced bankruptcy, when there were protests because of that situation -

nobody wants to go back to that again, but that is the direction the Province is

headed in and that is the reason we have had to take the measures that we have

taken. Because unless somebody has the courage to make those tough decisions,

that is going to happen again. When the Province, for fifty years, has spent

more money than they were generating, there comes a time when the bond rating

agencies, when the lenders say enough is enough. That time is today. That time

is today, Mr. Speaker.

The time has come for politicians in this Province to make the tough

decisions to do what needs to be done, and that is exactly what we are doing. We

did not take pleasure in making those decisions. We had courage to make those

tough decisions. We had courage to make the decisions that had to be made. We

made those decisions, not based on the date of the next election. We made those

decisions, not on the narrow-minded survival mode of the previous

Administration. We made those decisions on the survival mode of this Province.

We made those decisions to protect this Province. Nobody wants to be taking the

tough calls and tough e-mails that we have taken. Nobody wants to be doing the

tough interviews. We all would rather be taking the pleasurable calls: Thanks

for giving us this extra money. Thanks for opening this. Thanks for opening

that. That is what has happened in this Province for decades. Instead of saying:

We do not have the money. We continued down that slippery slope of giving,

giving, giving, what was not there to give. We want to give, and that is the

reason we have made the tough decisions, so that we can give to future

generations a Province that is better off than it is today.

The reality is we were forced to make these decisions, because if we did not

make these decisions and the Province was dealt the unfortunate blow of facing a

downgrading of the credit rating, that would mean $100 million, $200 million,

maybe $300 million a year in additional interest. If we were faced with a

downgrade in the credit rating, where would we get the money? After all of the

tough decisions we have made in this Budget, we have saved $240 million. That is

all we have saved. With an $840 million cash deficit, we have saved $240

million. That is why those tough decisions have to be made. That is exactly why

those tough decisions had to be made. We went somewhere between what we were

being told had to be done and what we figured the Province could sustain and the

people of the Province could sustain. We went somewhere in between, Mr. Speaker,

because we did not want to do it all this year or next year, but we want to do

it slowly. We want to reverse the trend that this Province has been facing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave to clue up has been granted.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by making just a couple of

more statements, and that is we have made these decisions, not because we

enjoyed making them, but because we wanted to secure this future for future

generations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is good to see the Minister of Environment on his feet speaking today

because he is the first one I have seen, I think, since Thursday, on the

opposite side, get up and speak to anything. I guess that is probably because we

do not have as many strikers in the gallery today as we had up until this point.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the Budget. I can tell you up front

that I will not be supporting this Budget, and when given the vote I will vote

against it. As one of my colleagues said here today, it is the worst Budget that

we have seen - or anybody, I guess, has seen - since Confederation in 1949.

I think that, besides being the worst Budget, the reason that the people of

the Province are so upset and feel so betrayed by it is because they anticipated

so much more from this government. The reason that they anticipated so much more

was because just a short year ago the government sat over here as Opposition and

they promised so many things to the people of the Province, and they condemned

us day after day after day, when we were in government, for the things that we

were doing and things that we were not doing. In so doing, they promised the

people so much more.

Their leader, the Premier, was offering this new approach. I think that over

a period of a year or so, in going around the Province and telling people what

he was going to do, I think the first commitment he made was to a tunnel across

The Straits. The only reason he did that was because he visited the Northern

Peninsula during a by-election a couple of years ago and looked across and saw

how close Labrador was and said: We should build a tunnel over there - just like

Frank Moores did in his first visit up there back in the early 1970s. We know

what happened to the tunnel that Frank Moores started to build during an

election back in the early 1970s. I say, Mr. Speaker, it is because people

anticipated so much that they feel so terribly done by, by this Budget that the

Minister of Finance presented here in the House just about a month ago.

Mr. Speaker, I will go through some of the issues in the Budget and talk

about the draconian measures that the Minister of Finance and his colleagues are

trying to foist upon the people of this Province. Maybe if some of the new

members across the floor would sit up and take note, instead of sitting around,

laughing and talking, they might learn why their constituents are e-mailing and

phoning us to say how disappointed they are with their members.

MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The Member for St. John's Centre is over there heckling me

now. Maybe I will send you down the e-mail that I had from one of your

constituents yesterday afternoon about the education system and the draconian

measures that the Member for St. John's Centre applauds his Premier for, when

he gets up and talks.

I know he is angry because he, himself, was going to go out and make all of

these commitments, and that people were going to forget about them the day after

the election, like the one that he made to the seniors of the Province when he

talked about how the Liberal government did not give them a raise in their

pensions from 1989 until 2003. During the election he met with these same

seniors and gave them his solemn word, his solemn commitment, that not only were

they going to increase their pensions but they were going to do it

retroactively, right back to 1989.

I say to the Member for St. John's Centre, if he would like for me to sit

down for a few minutes so that he could get up and explain to the people how he

misled them, well, I might even do that.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will start with education because I am the critic for

Education. I was the former Minister for Education, and I remember a year ago

sitting in the same seat that the Minister of Education now sits in today.

MR. SKINNER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER ( Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

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

I would happily take that time, if the member would offer it. I did not think

that he offered it. He indicated that he would, but when I stood he did not.

The point of order, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SKINNER: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to speak to, is

that the commentary I made to the member was that he should speak the truth

about what is happening here. He has just indicated that I misled some people. I

would like to see the factual information where he can indicate that I misled

people and then I would be happy to respond to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Exactly, Mr. Speaker.

For some reason, every time I stand on my feet here in the House of Assembly,

he or one of his colleagues have to get up and interrupt me, to kill my time. I

am not going to get up and tell the member opposite whether or not he told his

constituents the truth. They were the ones who told me what you said, so I

suggest to him that instead of hiding away on a camp cot somewhere in

Confederation Building the last four or five days, he go back to his district

down over the hill and talk to those very constituents who are saying that you

did not tell them the truth. That is what I suggest you do, the Member for St.

John's Centre.

Let's talk about education. One short year ago the Minister of Education,

when sitting here in the Opposition, got up and railed for days about the cuts

to teachers in the Province. At the same time, the member for Marystown was at

that time a director on the school board down there. He knew, and he was down

there giving them the information, sending it in to them, in anticipation of

running for them in the election. They railed about the cuts to the education

system, and said that a Tory government would never do that. They would never

lay off teachers. They would never touch school boards. What do they do, Mr.

Speaker?

That is one example. That is what they said a very, very short time ago, a

few months before the election, that they would not touch the teachers in the

Province. The teachers in the Province listening to the Education Minister, who

they thought was an hon. man, said: We believe him. Maybe we will not lose any

teachers if he forms the government.

They listened to his leader, and they listened to all the rest of the

candidates who ran for him, when they made the commitments that they would not

cut teachers. What do they do? A short six months after they are elected to

government, what do they do? They bring in a Budget and one of the first things

in the Budget was that they were going to eliminate 475 teaching positions in

the next twenty-four months. So they went from eliminating none to eliminating

475, and we still do not know, because we have not had a decent debate on the

Budget, we have not gone into Estimates to determine how many other teaching

positions are going to go. Because there are a number of teachers in the

Province today who have been seconded to the school boards, and this government

over here is eliminating six school boards, there are more teachers than that,

actually, who are going to receive their pink slips in the coming months before

the next school year.

Mr. Speaker, another commitment that government across made to the people of

the Province is that they were not going to eliminate the elected school boards

- and I say elected school boards - in the Province. They were not going to

touch the elected school boards, because back in 1997, when we had the

educational reform, we reduced the number of school boards from twenty-seven

down to eleven. We reduced them from twenty-seven to eleven. We did not think we

could reduce them any further than that because of the geographic locations of

the schools around this Province and the vast geography that we have, so we

though that the eleven, maybe, would be sufficient.

The Tory Opposition, at the time, said that they would not touch the school

boards. The Minister of Education actually went out to Corner Brook and told the

people on the West Coast, when he met with them out there about a month before

the Budget: No, we are not eliminating school boards. In fact, he met with the

school board in Gander one week before the Budget came down. The hon. Member for

St. John's East, the Minister of Education, met with the school boards and

said: No, we are not touching them. Then, one week after that, they rise in the

House of Assembly and say in their Budget, we are eliminating six school boards

in the Province. We are going to establish only four.

Then, on top of that, to talk about the new approach to democracy in this

Province, not only are they eliminating six school boards but they actually have

the audacity in their new approach to democracy, where these school boards were

elected, now they are appointing some of their old political cronies to take the

place as the Chairs of these interim boards, like the Premier's finance

officer during the last election, the one that we heard about last night on one

of the media in the Province. The unfortunate thing that the media did last

night was that they said that the new Chair of the western region board was a

Tory crony, but then they also tried to give the impression that the current

Chair from Corner Brook was also a political crony. What they forgot to add was

that the current Chair was elected by the people of the West Coast, not

appointed by a Premier, a dictatorial Premier - was not appointed by a

dictatorial Premier.

I just heard yesterday that this new approach to democracy, the one that the

Premier talked about so eloquently prior to the election, about eliminating

political patronage, I hear today that the new Chair, the newly appointed Chair,

not elected Chair of the Board -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, can I get some protection from the member from

Clarenville. The old trust; the centerfold for trust magazine.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members if they would refrain from shouting back and forth the House.

The Chair has difficulty hearing the member speak. I ask if people would show

respect to the person who is speaking and allow him to be heard.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate your protection. The only shouts - they are not coming back and

forth the House. All the shouts are coming from the zoo crew down here, led by

the member from Clarenville. They are the only ones who are doing the shouting

down there, and the Member for St. John's Centre. They are the only ones. So,

thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your protection because they have a

difficulty with the truth.

Lets go back to the new appointed chair of the Labrador board, the individual

who ran against my colleague. The individual who ran for the Tories against my

colleague for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. He could not defeat her, so what

does the Premier do under his new democracy? What does he do? He goes and

appoints him as the interim Chair of the school board. We also hear that the new

Director of Education for the super board is going to be the Tory candidate who

ran against my colleague from Grand Bank and was defeated. Now we hear that he

is going to be the new director who will make in excess of $100,000 a year as a

director of the super board that they are establishing here. All we want to know

is, where are you going to put that super board?

Mr. Speaker, if you wonder why the people of this Province feel like they

have been betrayed, feel that they have been led down the garden path and feel

so angry with the government is because they anticipated such a new approach.

The Premier was talking about his business acumen and how he was going to make

the rest of the Province rich like himself. So you can understand why they feel

so let down and so angry and so frustrated with the crowd opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what the Minister of Education and others

opposite - I heard the Member for Humber Valley stand up here in this House last

week and utter words that I could not believe. She talked about, in her maiden

speech, how great it was that we were eliminating school boards. Now, she never

explained why it was such a great idea to eliminate school boards, but I think

she is under the false impression that the money saved from school boards is

going to be reinvested back into the education system. But, the Minister of

Education - and she does not even know it. He has not even told her. The

Minister of Education stood out in front of those doors, in front of TV cameras

two weeks ago and told the media and the people of the Province - I do not know

where she was - that no money saved from eliminating six school boards was going

back into the education system; going back into classrooms, going back into

teachers. They were taking the money saved from the school boards and going to

pay off the deficit because the Minister of Finance says they have to do it.

Another broken promise.

They are not going to take the money saved from the elimination of 475

teachers and put back into education, no, because the Minister of Finance and

the Premier says: No, we cannot do that. That is not good business sense. Forget

the people. Forget the teachers because the teachers belong to another union. He

has not gotten around to axing them yet. You cannot put any money for teaching

salaries back into the education of our youth. He wants to put it elsewhere.

Now, Mr. Speaker, those are just a few examples of broken promises that this

crowd opposite made in education. Let me talk about my own district for awhile

because I have not had the opportunity in the last few days. Let me talk about

the commitments that were made in my district. The Premier, in three of his

jaunts to my district prior to the election, met with representatives of various

councils on the island and at each of these council meetings he was asked by the

people on Fogo Island: What about the new hospital that was just about complete?

In fact, as we speak, it is completed today, waiting for the grand opening. They

asked him: If you are elected, are you going to open our hospital? And you have

to watch this Premier, and I say to anyone who might be out there in the

Province today: Pay very careful attention to his promises and his commitments

because he commited to every single soul on Fogo Island that he was going to

open their hospital.

Then we heard him in Gander just one week, the week that the Budget came

down, he never announced anything about the hospital, but when questioned by a

member of the media he let it slip: Yes, we are opening the hospital, but we are

only going to open ten of the twenty beds. Just imagine how cute he is with

words. I guess that is his legal background and his business background, to

trick someone into doing something for you but not getting the reward that you

were promised. I guess that is what it is all about. It is about contracts and

stuff like that, but I tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, when I tell my

constituents I am going to do something, I do it. I did not do what the Premier

said. I did not do what the Minister of Health and all that crowd over there

said, that they were going to open the hospital and find out about it thirdhand,

that opening the hospital meant ten beds instead of twenty, because he can go

back out there now and say: I didn't lie. We are opening your hospital, but we

are only opening ten instead of twenty beds. The people of Fogo Island have made

call upon call to the Minister of Health's office and to the boards in Central

Newfoundland and asked them to explain why only ten of these beds are opening

and, guess what? Nobody knows to date.

The other one, Mr. Speaker, which really irks me - because we froze the rates

for ferries all the while I have been elected. I got elected