May

1, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 20

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order please!

Admit strangers.

Today, the Speaker would like to welcome to the House of Assembly eighteen

Level I and Level II students from St. James' Regional High School in the

District of Burgeo & LaPoile. The students are accompanied by their Guidance

Counsellor, Ms JoAnn O'Brien, Vice-Principal, Mr. Dave Clarke, and chaperone,

Ms Eleanor Clarke.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker would also like to recognize Mr. Jim Rourke,

Dean of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical School, who is visiting the House

of Assembly today.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today, members' statements will be from: the hon. the

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

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port;

the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the

Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans; and, the hon. the Member

for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. WISEMAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in this House I was responding to a question from the Leader of the

Opposition and I misunderstood her question, so I want to make a correction to

my answer today.

I had indicated, in response to her question I am just citing from

Hansard, now - with respect to the $100 per month as a part of our progressive

family growth benefit program. I think her example that she shared was someone

who was on maternity leave prior to January 1, and whether they would be

entitled to the $100 benefit.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. WISEMAN: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but I misunderstood her question.

The benefits, the total benefit program, comes into effect January 1, so it

applies to individuals who have a child from January 1, 2008 onward, both for

the income piece together with the $1,000 per child.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates the point of clarification.

There is no point of order, but the Chair appreciates the point of

clarification as brought forward by the Minister of Health and Community

Services.

The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the Queen Elizabeth Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corp 2562 has a

long and proud history in the Towns of Conception Bay South and Paradise. Since

its formation in 1955, 2562 has contributed to the development of hundreds of

youth in the community. There are presently fifty-seven proud cadets who are

members of this Cadet Corp.

Mr. Speaker, the 2562 Army Cadet Corp operates under the leadership of

Captain Rod Priddle, who is supported by a staff of civilian volunteers,

reservists and Cadet Instructor Cadre officers. They are sponsored by Branch 50

of the Royal Canadian Legion in Kelligrews.

Mr. Speaker, training at 2562 runs from September to May and includes, among

other things, theoretical and practical instruction in drill, bushcraft, map and

compass, marksmanship, citizenship, leadership and physical fitness.

Of particular interest and pride is the Scuba Diving Program, which has been

very successful, earning 2562 national recognition with the receipt of the

Gerard Buckley Cadet Fund Award. As part of this prestigious award, 2562 will

receive a monetary contribution of $3,000 toward their Scuba Diving Program.

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

2562 Queen Elizabeth Army Cadet Corp on this outstanding achievement of national

recognition, and for the opportunities they provide for the development of our

youth in the community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today and

recognize a wonderful young man in my District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Jordan Keating is a fifteen-year-old Grade 9 student at Brother Rice Junior

High. He was nominated by Rogers Television for a Volunteer of the Year Award

which he received at a ceremony making Volunteer Week, this past Sunday night.

The staff at Rogers Television describe Jordan as "a very valuable

volunteer, eager to learn all aspects of production. His commitment to the

volunteer program and his willingness to fill in, in a pinch, is regarded with

much appreciation."

As matter of fact, Krissy Holmes, one of the Out of the Fog hosts,

jokes that "Jordan is one of those guys who pops up just about everywhere,

volunteering his heart out. And if he is not careful, he is going to get a job

one of these days." Not bad for a fifteen-year-old.

Everyone who knows Jordan is impressed by his enthusiasm, unflagging energy

and desire to be around until all the work is done. He is a wonderful example of

the many young people who are involved in volunteerism in our Province.

I ask all members of the House to congratulate Jordan on receiving the

volunteer award and wish him luck in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when Stephenville Theatre Festival opens on July 2, 2008, it

will mark its thirtieth season of providing outstanding professional theatre to

Newfoundland and Labrador. We in Stephenville are proud that it was Maxim

Mazumdar and others in Stephenville their vision - that created the first

professional summer theatre festival in this Province, which led to the creation

of so many more, like those at Trinity, Gros Morne and Grand Bank.

When Mazumdar founded this professional theatre company in Stephenville in

April of 1979, there were many who thought he was totally crazy. Who would come?

Better still, who would work there?

Well, Mr. Speaker, we are very proud that twenty years after Maxim's

untimely passing, we are about to celebrate the thirtieth season of this

amazing, internationally known company. Stephenville's production of Heave

Away , a newly created work celebrating traditional and contemporary music of

Newfoundland and Labrador, represented our Province in Yakumo, Japan, in

November of 2007, and received excellent notice by the staff of the Canadian

Embassy in Tokyo.

Stephenville Theatre Festival has survived for many reasons, but mainly

because it is a community project created by, for and with the people at

home. With the help of our government, and our citizens, and the artists who

make it happen, Stephenville Theatre Festival remains, surviving and thriving in

its thirtieth season.

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

congratulating the Stephenville Theatre Festival on its thirtieth season, and I

take this opportunity to invite you to Stephenville to take in a show or two.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to commend the Lions Clubs in the District of

Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune for their dedication to helping our youth develop

leadership skills, in particular, for the time they devote to holding annual

Lions Clubs Speak Outs.

This forum provides young people with the opportunity to learn about

important topics of relevance in today's society, develop public speaking

skills, and build self-confidence that they can use throughout their entire

lives as they pursue various career paths and make their own volunteer

contributions in the years to come.

In the district this year, the first place winners at the local clubs were

Samantha Lambert of Harbour Breton, and Raman Sohi of Hermitage.

Ms Sohi went on to win the zone speak out, and I am delighted to report that

she was also the winner of the Lions 41-S1 district competition in Grand

Falls-Windsor on April 4. She spoke about the importance of vaccination for the

human papilloma virus, seeking to increase awareness of the virus and the

vaccination and she has indeed succeeded! Raman will be representing the

Province at the next round of competition in Prince Edward Island in May, where

she will compete with contenders from all across Atlantic Canada and the State

of Maine.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this House join me and my constituents

in thanking the many Lions Club Volunteers for the invaluable contributions they

make to members of our communities, and to congratulate Raman Sohi for her

remarkable success in both public speaking and raising awareness about a topic

of significant importance to the young females of our great Province. Well done!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In early March of this year, the best and the brightest from business schools

in Eastern Canadian colleges and universities gathered in Halifax to compete for

the ACE (Advancing Canadian Entrepreneurship) regional titles.

I am particularly pleased to report that one team from the Grand

Falls-Windsor campus of the College of the North Atlantic competed in the

Students in Free Enterprise Financial Educational Challenge and succeeded in

achieving second place honours and a cash prize of $500. Team members were:

Herman Calderon, Melinda Hemeon, and Kyne Lynn Williams. On behalf of this

House, I extend congratulations to them on a job well done.

A second team from the Grand Falls-Windsor campus of CNA competed in the TD

Entrepreneurship Challenge and, Mr. Speaker, they were declared the champions

for all of Eastern Canada and awarded a cash prize of $1,500. This team

consisted of: Tammie Greening, Sarah Kelly, and Kenneth Williams. Coaches for

both teams were Suzanne Ivey and Teri Lynn Oldford.

As ACE champions, this team from Grand Falls-Windsor will now represent

Eastern Canada in the final round of competition in Toronto from May 12 to May

14. The Grand Falls-Windsor campus of the College of the North Atlantic will be

recognized as one of the top six schools in Canada in competing for this

prestigious award.

No doubt, Mr. Speaker, our schools are doing an excellent job in preparing

the next generations of business leaders and entrepreneurs to play a profound

role in the shaping of future economies.

I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in offering congratulations

to both teams from Grand Falls-Windsor and their coaches, and in wishing Tammie,

Sarah, and Kenneth the very best of luck as they compete for the national title.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Town of Paradise on a

successful winter carnival, Snow & Ice in Paradise. This event took place

back in February.

This was my first year attending the Paradise winter carnival, and I was very

impressed with the variety of events organized by the carnival committee. Winter

can be a down time for many people. I think it is wonderful to engage the

community and have them participate in various events and activities. Regardless

of age, the Snow & Ice in Paradise winter carnival had something for

everyone. Special thanks to the Paradise Town Council, and in particular to

Steve Hobbs, the town's events coordinator. I look forward to attending Snow

& Ice in Paradise again next year, and invite all of the residents to join

me. There truly is something for everyone!

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

Town of Paradise, as well as the organizing committee of the Snow & Ice in

Paradise winter carnival in hosting a truly wonderful winter event.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to congratulate Memorial University of

Newfoundland's Faculty of Medicine on its Rural Education Award from the

Society of Rural Physicians of Canada.

The award is designated to the Canadian medical school which matches the most

graduates to a rural family practice program for their residency. I am proud to

say that in 2007, Memorial University placed 26 per cent of its graduates in a

rural family medicine practice. This is a significant achievement, especially

given the national average for rural placement is only 7 per cent and the next

highest medical school match was only 13 per cent of its graduates, half as much

as Memorial University.

Mr. Speaker, this accomplishment acknowledges the excellent opportunities that

the medical school offers students to experience practice in rural communities

during each of the three years of the program. As well, 40 per cent of our

medical school students are originally from rural communities and we know that

medical graduates with a rural background are more likely to choose a medical

career right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Furthermore, initiatives by our

government are working to enhance physician recruitment and retention,

especially in rural areas.

Our government knows very well the value in training more of our own people

to build upon our workforce of physicians. Budget 2008 includes $4 million to

expand Memorial University's medical school to increase the number of spaces

for students another Blueprint commitment fulfilled.

Mr. Speaker, improving access to health care services is one of the top

priorities of our government and we invest over $6 million annually in physician

recruitment and retention initiatives. Over the last three years, we have

awarded 117 bursaries to seventy-nine post-graduate residents who have committed

to provide medical services in areas of need in the Province upon graduation,

including twenty-seven family practice bursaries.

We have acted and have been successful in recruiting more physicians to

Newfoundland and Labrador. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador currently

has the most physicians in practice in its history. It is our promise to

continue building on this number to improve access to physician services for the

people of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased today to congratulate Memorial University and the

faculty of medicine for the work that they are doing in trying to recruit rural

graduates in Newfoundland and Labrador to stay and practice in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is not an easy task for them, even at the best

of times, even when you have a 40 per cent occupancy rate of our own graduates

from rural regions going into that particular faculty because we do have to be

competitive with the rest of the country. I also realize that Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, while we may be deeply rooted in our community and in our

Province, that sometimes even that devotion is often marred by the tremendous

workloads that we have with those particular occupations; sometimes the

remunerations, the benefits that are offered to us in relation to other

opportunities that exist across the country. So you do have to be competitive.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that there are a number of people

from my own district who I know have graduated medical school here in this

Province. One, I made a statement on last week, who is now practicing here at

St. Clare's, but I also have family members who graduated from the Faculty of

Medicine here, who are working today in Western Canada - actually, a couple of

them simply because they are able to get a better quality of work, less

workload, and more remuneration.

So, we cannot ignore the fact that we still have shortages of physicians in

this Province, that we still have to maintain a competitive edge, and we have to

give the supports that are needed to that faculty to ensure that we continue to

place and fill physicians in family practice in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am sure the hon. minister will get his chance in a minute to make his

statement.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement the Minister

of Health, that is and I am also pleased to have the opportunity to

congratulate the Faculty of Medicine at Memorial University on receiving the

Rural Education Award for their work on securing twenty-six of its graduates

residencies in rural practice. This is a wonderful achievement by the Faculty of

Medicine.

I know that they are working very diligently to recruit students from our

Province to stay, and this achievement, with regard to residencies, I hope, will

soon become stronger when it comes to retention. It is one thing to have the

students choosing residencies, but we also have to retain our physicians.

As we know, we still do have a major problem with regard to adequate family

physicians in rural Newfoundland. It is in some of the urban centres, too, but

especially in rural. The fact that we have communities like Labrador City,

Wabush and Gander just to name three who are looking at how they, as

municipalities, can put incentives in to have family physicians come to where

they are is a sign of how much work still has to be done, and I would like to

see the Province doing more with regard to retention so that municipalities do

not have to fight with one another in looking for physicians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to inform all hon. members of this government's ongoing efforts in

Labrador to support healthy living through the Air Foodlift Subsidy program

administered by the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

As the members opposite are well aware, on Tuesday this government delivered

an historic Budget that will see Newfoundland and Labrador soon cast off our

have-not status. Mr. Speaker, the Williams government has delivered a fiscal

plan for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that is meeting today's challenges,

with a view for long-term prosperity.

As the Minister of Labrador Affairs, I was especially pleased to see in

Budget 2008 unprecedented spending through the Northern Strategic Plan for

Labrador. Part of the goal of this plan is to address the challenges faced by

the people of Labrador. This includes making sure that they have access to

nutritious foods that are affordable, particularly in winter months when

transportation routes are especially challenged. We do this through the Air

Foodlift Subsidy Program. In Budget 2008, Mr. Speaker, the annual budget for the

program has been increased from $400,000 to $600,000.

Mr. Speaker, the Air Foodlift Subsidy Program is providing the people of

Coastal Labrador access to nutritious perishable foods during the winter months

at reasonable prices. Extensive community consultations have resulted in

positive enhancements to the Air Foodlift Subsidy program, such as beginning the

program earlier in the season and providing a healthier food item list. The

ongoing improvements and increased investments in the program, based on

community consultations, are a testament to this government's firm commitment

to the coastal people of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the standard of living on the Coast of Labrador is continuing to

improve year after year. According to a recent federal survey, in 2007 a family

of four living on the North Coast of Labrador had the lowest weekly food cost of

all of the northern isolated communities surveyed.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador remains firmly and deeply

committed to the Air Foodlift Subsidy program. We will continue to monitor the

program closely and value all public input as we work to further improve this

vital service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that we are always pleased to see more money being put

into programs to help offset the cost of living of people in this Province, and

I think it is only appropriate.

This is a program that we started when we were in government, recognizing

that there was a huge discrepancy between what it was costing a family to live

in northern regions of our Province compared to other regions.

What I am not clear of today, Mr. Speaker, is if this extra money will go to

expand upon the list of eligible products that will now be available to be

subsidized going into the communities or if it will increase the amount of

subsidy that is paid out on goods. As it is right now, we are paying about

seventy or eighty cents, I think, in freight but we are being reimbursed at

about thirteen cents, I say to the minister, and I think he knows that. Some

changes in the program last year - whether he did consultation or not, I am

unaware - changes in the program such as the dairy program, in which the

wholesalers were not claiming the rebate now but the retailers were, caused a

tremendous increase in the price of milk products on the Coast. In fact, back in

the spring I was paying $5.80 for a 2-litre carton of milk which was up about

seventy cents more than it was the year before simply because of changes that

were made in the program.

I say, if you are going to make changes, if you are going to enhance it, do

it so that the benefits are accruing to the people who need the program.

Increase the rate from thirteen cents and ensure that things like milk products

are not measured in terms of the costs with Iqaluit and Kuujjuaq but rather it

is measured in costs with Goose Bay and St. Anthony and those areas next to

these Labrador communities that are having their freight brought in by road.

We welcome the extra money, but I hope that the program will be revamped so

that we can see the subsidy better put to use and reach the consumers in a much

more positive way than we did with the change in the spring.

Thank you.

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

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

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

I am very happy to see the increase in the aid that is being given to the air

foodlift that has to happen for people in Coastal Labrador. Obviously, one of

the factors is the price of fuel and therefore transportation going up,

therefore making the cost of food that much more prohibitive on the Coast and

making the cost of the airlift more expensive. I suspect that is one of the

reasons for the increase.

It is absolutely essential that we subsidize, and the subsidization of the

airlift every winter is extremely important. I do encourage the minister to also

look at how food production can be increased in Labrador. I am sure that those

discussions are ongoing and would have been part of the consultation that

happened with the agricultural sector. I think so much more could be done with

regard to food production in Labrador that could also be lengthened with the use

of greenhouses, et cetera.

I would like to see more money being invested by the government in its

program for Labrador around food production. It doesn't take care of the

perishable foods in the winter but it does really encourage the desire to have

more nutritional food available to people in Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I I am sorry, there are no other statements.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, a point of order.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order for clarification.

In recent decisions by the Chair, there has been an indication that we can't

refer to certain documents. I think this works for both sides at Question

Period, from a question perspective and an answer perspective. For example,

yesterday I referred to the Budget document and it was indicated that we were

not to refer to documents.

I don't pretend to be an expert in parliamentary procedure by any means but

it is my understanding of previous rulings that casual references to telegrams,

newspaper articles, or commentaries, I guess, for want of a better term,

commentaries or hearsay type of documents were not allowed to be referred to.

I am just wondering, for purposes of convenience to both sides and with the

approval of the Chair, if we can refer to documents or reports that are within

the House or tabled within the House, would that be satisfactory, or is it the

intent just to make Question Period expeditious and to prevent long

preambles

and long statements? However, I think we are both kind of hampered in some

respects - both sides are hampered in some respects by not being able to refer

to tabled documentation that is official, House documentation. Otherwise, we are

actually deemed to have knowledge of everything that is in them without even

being able to refer to them.

Just a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, and I just raise it for that

purpose.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. the Opposition House Leader going to have some

commentary to that point of order?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have certainly been confused, I guess, by some of the

rulings. I guess the confusion might result from whether your ruling applies

only to Question Period or applies to other debates in the House. It has been

our understanding in the past that in Question Period you probably would be

restricted and you should refer to a document but not read from it,

whereas in

the debates in the House you certainly can.

For example, this afternoon, if I am going to reply to the Budget Speech I

would think that is going to be virtually impossible to do if I am not allowed

to reference the Budget itself and certain other supporting documents that go

with it.

That was my understanding of how you have been ruling, but I am not sure if

we have been consistent in that. So your guidance would be certainly

appreciated.

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling that has been put forward by the Chair does not

make reference to members not being able to reference documents; it is strictly

the reading of documents. The Chair said in other rulings here that members can

refer to documents, they can paraphrase, and they can use documents as

references but not to read from. That is strictly for Oral Questions and it does

not include debate. Members can read from documents, read from letters and

telegrams in taking

part in debate. That is certainly allowed.

When the Chair ruled on referring to the reading of letters and telegrams it

also extends to the reading of Hansard, even though it is a document produced

right here in this House. That is not only in this Parliament but in all other

Parliaments. Precedence has been set that the reading from documents in Oral

Question Period is unparliamentarily.

Any further clarification for that particular ruling?

If not, before the Chair moves to Oral Questions, the Chair would also like

to ask members again for their co-operation in referring to members by their

names. When members refer to other members by their name it personalizes things

and that is certainly unparliamentarily. I ask all members, once again, to refer

to members either by the district they represent or by the executive position

that they hold. I ask for your co-operation.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we learned that another pathologist will be leaving

Eastern Health. Dr. Dan Fontaine was a cervical cancer specialist and also did

testing on samples from across the Province. He also does pathology work for

patients suffering from lung cancer, thyroid and other cancers.

I ask the minister: What will be the service impact on patients as a result

of his resignation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we are aware that we have had another resignation. He will be leaving, I

understand, sometime in the latter part of June, as I understand it now. We met

with Eastern Health last week to have a discussion around what might be the

impact, because we had some sense that might happen.

We had a discussion with Eastern Health last week about what might happen

with respect to services. They are now evaluating what impact that might have.

They have made some initial contacts with a couple of labs outside the Province

to be able to assist them during an interim period of time while they are

continuing to recruit. We are hopeful then, in the immediate term, there will

not be any interruption in service to pathology services within Eastern Health

or for the people of the Province as a result of that resignation. Obviously,

Eastern Health, together with the department, is anxious to ensure that they are

restored to a full complement of pathologists.

The Premier and I met with the medical association last week to have a

discussion around the issue of pathology service for the Province. There is a

follow-up meeting tomorrow with myself and the medical association and

representatives from Eastern Health to continue some dialogue as to what might

be, both the short-term strategy to deal with the workload today, but more

importantly, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you.

More importantly, to look at what are some of the long-term solutions to

ensure that we have an adequate complement of pathologists for the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Fontaine's resignation now brings it to

eight vacancies in pathology at Eastern Health. The head of laboratory services

have told us that this resignation will no doubt lead to longer wait times.

I ask the minister: How much of the new testing will now have to be done

outside the Province? Wait times that would have normally been a few weeks, how

much longer will they be extended for those patients waiting to hear what their

treatments and diagnosis will be?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: With respect to the workload, I just want to comment about

the reference to the eight positions. There are eight positions that have been

referenced in the media and in this House on several occasions, but I just want

to create some understanding of that. There are two people who have resigned but

have not yet left. So, those resignations have not yet had an impact. There are

two other people, who - one is on maternity leave, returning early in the

summer. There is another person on an education leave, I believe, and they are

returning early in the summer. There are two vacancies where replacements have

already been recruited, and they are starting early in the summer. So when you

look at trying to figure out what impact it will have on the departure of those

two people who recently resigned, their resignation effective dates are

coinciding with recruitment of a couple of other pathologists.

Eastern Health are trying to determine the exact impact, in terms of

workload, but clearly, as I said a moment ago, they have made arrangements with

two outside labs to be able to assist them in the interim.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the minister, you would think

that we do not have a problem here, yet the people who work in those labs are

telling us that we are into a crisis position. The minister knows that if you

cannot retain the professional pathologists that we have here, our efforts in

recruitment have not been that great in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has already said he has met with these

pathologists, and I think he is due to meet with them again. They have outlined

five particular things that they need in order to be able address the shortage

and to deal with the recruitment. We did not see any of those pieces funded in

the Budget.

I ask the minister, why there have been some gaps in dealing with this issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: First of all, I want to correct something the member

opposite has said.

I clearly - any comments I have made in the House in response to questions,

is to be able to answer your questions in a factual way. My answers in no way

should indicate, should have indicated, nor do they indicate, that we are not

concerned any time that there is a vacancy. Obviously, the recruitment of

physicians and the retention of physicians in this Province is a big priority

for our government. My statement a moment ago talked about some of the successes

and some of the work we are doing with the medical school to enhance those

efforts.

So, I say, Mr. Speaker, any time we have resignations, or multiple

resignations in any discipline, it gives reason for concern, and that is why we

are moving quickly to work with the medical association and Eastern Health to be

able to address the issue.

Issues around the strategy, what we will be doing in the short term and the

long term, as I have said a moment ago, we are working very quickly with the

medical association and Eastern Health to be able to address the issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, we certainly applaud the efforts that you are making

with the medical school, to have more recruits and to encourage more people to

stay and work in the Province, but according to those in the profession there

has not been a Canadian pathologist graduate in this Province in years. Mr.

Speaker, we see that as being a longer-term solution, not a shorter-term

solution.

So, I ask the minister: Will he admit today that the salary benefits and

remunerations paid to pathologists in this Province is inadequate and hampering

our efforts to recruit more people to this profession?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I stood in this House last year, about this

time, around the middle of May last year, in 2007, and I announced to the House

and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we as a government were

announcing an increase in the compensation paid to pathologists, adding to the

stipend that was provided to oncologists, extending that to the pathologists in

this Province, which was a reflection of our government's commitment to ensure

that our salaries for physicians and other help disciplines in this Province are

competitive, and puts us in a position where we are able to recruit capable,

competent people and to retain them. Looking at other issues, such as the full

package of benefits and working conditions, are all a part of our retention

efforts.

We are not suggesting, I say, Mr. Speaker, we are not suggesting at all that

we should not be continuing to try to build on what we are doing, and improve

what we are doing. That is why we are taking the efforts that we are taking now,

and making the movement and putting some investment of interest and time and

energy into ensuring that we work with all of the affected parties, the Medical

Association and our health authorities, to ensure that we are successful in

continuing the recruitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the compensation or the stipend that the minister

keeps referring to has allowed the pathologists in this Province to move from

dead last in terms of salary benefits in North America to the bottom of the

scale in Canada, I say to you, Minister. We know today that retention of these

pathologists is hampered by the workload that they have, and because of the

shortage. Minister, I cannot say it any clearer than I have.

What are you going to do immediately to address this problem, to deal with

the benefits, to deal with the remunerations, so that we can get on with

recruiting pathologists and ensuring that we have a stable and first-class

health care system to the people in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Like the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, I,

too, cannot be any clearer when I say that we are, in fact, working with the

Medical Association. We are working with the pathologists at Eastern Health. We

are working with our four authorities to actually address the issue that she is

raising here today. We met last week, we are meeting again tomorrow. I cannot

tell you today what will come out of tomorrow's meeting, but I can clearly

tell you that we are bringing a great deal of energy to bear. We are bringing

all of the affected parties to the table, to try to work through a solution

collectively.

For me to stand here today and prejudge what might come out of tomorrow's

meeting would undermine the intent and the spirit of co-operation we have with

these interested parties. I will not do that, Mr. Speaker.

What I will do, I will commit on behalf of this government, to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, that we will continue with our diligent efforts to

make sure that we have an adequate supply of physicians for this Province and

will do our best to work with them to ensure that we are able to keep them in

this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister had a proposal on his desk. He has met with them. We had a

Budget, and the critical matter that we are dealing with in the Province today

was not addressed, was not even spoken to in the Budget, but this is an issue

that was. Let me ask him about this.

There were about 4,400 people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disorders

COPD - in this Province. A life with lung disease means being condemned to a

life of minimal activity, unless assisted with oxygen. I know the minister knows

that, because he brought in some money in this Budget for a portable oxygen

program, but it applies to those who are on the Special Assistance Program.

I say to you, Minister, there are thousands of people out there who need this

portable oxygen program, who do not fall in that program. Can you tell me what

will be provided to those people?

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

MR. WISEMAN: I am glad the member opposite has acknowledged the

investment we made in yesterday's Budget.

We have met with the Lung Association to talk about the issues that they have

concerns about with respect to those individuals who need oxygen to have a

quality of life. I say, Mr. Speaker, this program, together with many others,

has been enriched in recent years as a result of our government's Budget.

Last year, we made some major investments in our Prescription Drug Program.

This year, we have made some enhancements in other programs and we will continue

to do that, I say, Mr. Speaker, all within the fiscal capacity of the Province,

making sure that it is sustainable for the long term.

Many of these programs, though, do have a means-testing process. There are

many people in the Province who have the fiscal capacity themselves, or have

group insurance programs, where they are able to cover the cost of those, which

frees up the money for us, as a government, to be able to put money into things

like poverty reduction, or things for other people who are socially

disadvantaged.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: I say, Mr. Speaker, having programs such as that one, that

are universally available, sometimes may be challenged, and sometimes we are

better off making some decisions to have it (inaudible) so money can be freed up

(inaudible) programs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, portable oxygen is only one of the expenditures

that these people have to deal with. They have to deal with home oxygen programs

as well. All provinces right now, except for Newfoundland and Labrador, have

programs for funding home oxygen to the general public, outside of those special

assistance plans.

I ask the minister: Now that you understand the issue and you know the

numbers of people impacted, why is it that you and your government were not

prepared to bring in a similar program for people who require home oxygen as

that being offered in other provinces across Canada?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I always find it interesting, Mr. Speaker, in the House where members

opposite will cherry-pick an issue and compare us to the rest of the country.

You can take any range of services, live in any province in this country, you

can scan the environment and you will find something that is being done in other

provinces that is not being done where you are living today, whether you live in

Newfoundland and Labrador or you live in B.C. or in Ontario.

If you are going to use that, if that is what you want to do with Question

Period, my colleague will stand up in a few moments and he will talk about the

great work we are doing with poverty reduction. We are the leaders in the

country. With the investment we are making this year, we will be up to about

$100 million annually that we are putting into poverty reduction - the leaders

in the country. We can get up in Question Period and make all kinds of

comparisons, Mr. Speaker, around this country about programs we are doing.

Again, as I said a moment ago, we made a commitment this year to enhance the

program. Programs such as this are always under review and evaluation, and in

next year's budgetary process we will reconsider it again, look at

opportunities for

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say, cherry-picked or not, it is hard to get an answer out of that

minister.

Mr. Speaker, many seniors in this Province rely on Old Age Security benefits

as their only source of income, and home oxygen can range from a bare minimum of

$150 a month up to $600 a month depending on what their requirement is. The

average cost right now in this Province is about $300 a month for those

particular people. There are about 1,500 seniors in the Province who require

home oxygen, and I ask the minister if he will now review it to see if these

particular people can be added to the prescription drug formulary so that they

can get some subsidization on this vital medical treatment.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I am baffled by the member's questions, because yesterday

we went through a line of questions where she was zeroing in on very specific

examples in the context of a broader program. We are having the same thing

happen here today.

I say, Mr. Speaker, as a government, and through our regional health

authorities who administer these programs on our behalf, sometimes individuals

who find themselves maybe not quite within the parameters of the program but

have some unique circumstance have an ability, through the Special Assistance

Program, to have their circumstance reviewed.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that happens each and every day. If you want to take one

individual or some in a group of individuals who are in an extreme set of

circumstances, there are many opportunities, through the existing program and in

the construct of existing programs, to have those individual circumstances

evaluated. So if there are people that she has some knowledge of like that, I

suggest that she refer them to her respective regional health authority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next questions are for the Premier. The Premier indicated yesterday that

public sector pensioners will not be getting any indexing or any further

benefits on their pensions in the foreseeable future under his mandate.

I ask the Premier: Why is public sector pension indexing not an option for

your government?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I have said in this House on many occasions

that this government is very concerned about the impact of high energy costs,

for example, that are having on the seniors of the Province. We feel an

obligation that we have to look after all of our seniors in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

All seniors have the benefit of federal government programs, such as the Old

Age Security Program, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Canada Pension Plan,

which are all indexed. Some of our retirees have had the benefits of being part

of a Defined Benefit Pension Plan, but the majority of citizens in this Province

have not.

What this government has said that it will do, what we did in last year's

Budget, what we have done in this year's Budget and what we will continue to

do is to proceed with more and more initiatives, like lower income tax benefits.

We have doubled the seniors' tax benefit this year. We improved the Seniors'

Benefit last year. We have lowered income taxes. We have improved the drug

program. We have improved the home heating program to put more money in seniors'

pockets to help them cope with the cost of living.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, as the Minister of Finance knows better than all of us, we have a

tremendous amount of money in surplus budgets and more predicted because of

soaring oil prices. Even when previous governments had little money available,

in 2001 there were small increases provided to index these pensions.

I ask the minister today: With such a significant Budget surplus and the

rising cost of living, why was there not some recognition of the struggle of

these public servants in your Budget and some kind of inflationary measures

incurred to provide some alternative subsidization for them?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

This government certainly recognizes the contribution that senior pensioners

who worked for the government have done for the people of this Province. In over

just a few years, our government has invested $3 billion into the pension plans

of our former employees and our teachers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, that is $2 billion into the teachers'

pension fund; that is $982 million that was invested in the public sector

pension fund. Obviously, it is very important that if any further benefits were

to come out of the fund - we cannot have the Unfunded Pension Liability

increased because that will totally undermine the advantages of the $3 billion.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to look after the needs of all seniors and

we will continue to bring forward initiatives that will help all seniors in the

Province, just not one particular group.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the piece to this that I do not understand is when

the members opposite where in Opposition they were out talking about how they

were standing shoulder to shoulder with pensioners in this Province and

supporting this indexing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's

Centre was quoted at one point in the paper saying how he supported this.

What I do not understand is why there is such a change of heart on this

particular issue at a time when we are resourced well enough to be able to

tackle it and do something about it?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, most people do not have

the benefit of having been part of the Defined Benefit Pension Plan, but those

who have the advantage of being in that - a Defined Benefit Pension Plan is a

plan where the benefits are actually determined beforehand and an actuary is

hired to calculate what investments have to be made into the plan and then the

employer and the employees make contributions to the plan to fund those benefits

that have been agreed upon.

In the case of our pensioners, the promise contained in the pension plan has,

in fact, been met. Even though there is not enough money in the plan, the plan

still remains unfunded but the pension benefits have continued to be paid.

Mr. Speaker, there are many people in this Province, as I have said, who do

not have the benefit of such a plan and we have to look after them, we have to

look after those people that have been - like people who worked for Kruger who

have plans that they are not in as well. So we have to ensure that all seniors

in the Province are protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of public sector workers today

who have raised a concern with us and it is regarding the increases that they

are paying on their insurance benefits. Many workers with family medical plans

have seen an increase of up to 25 per cent in their premiums.

I ask the minister: Why do the employees of the government now have to pay

such a significant increase?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, if I recall correctly, the increase in the

premiums under the insurance program was caused by - well, there was an increase

in the premium and that cost had to be paid by all. Generally, under the plan, I

believe that the employer pays 50 per cent of any increases and the employees

pay 50 per cent of the increases. What I will do, my memory of that is a bit

hazy, but what I will undertake to do is get more information and come back to

the House and respond in more detail to the question the hon. member has put.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remember when government made the shift from Blue Cross to Desjardins, that

they were saying at the time that there would be some savings for government.

Now, I do not know if government's rates have increased as well, or if they

have maintained the same levels. Maybe the minister could tell me that?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, there is a committee, consisting of

government representatives and employee representatives on the committee that

make the decisions relating to the government's group insurance and what not,

and the medical protection and the health protection and the insurance. They

made this decision, and again, I will certainly undertake to check and get more

information and report back to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for his

answer.

Mr. Speaker, my questions now are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

There has been an ongoing debate around the protocols and processes for the

fire commissioner's office, but one thing we are sure of is that if has been

indicated that the fire commissioner will require more funding in order to carry

out proper inspections on a routine basis in public buildings throughout the

Province. We did not see any funding allocated in the Budget for this particular

initiative.

I ask if the minister could explain to me what resources will be provided to

him, in addition to what he already has, and what new mandate of

responsibilities they will be given?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I said time and time again, since the

deficiencies were noted in the facilities in Newfoundland and Labrador, I came

back and I was going to look at the protocol; our staff now are looking at the

issues there. They are looking at the volunteer fire sector. They are looking at

all the stakeholders. When they get the report done, Mr. Speaker, then I will be

in a position to say what is going to happen, but for me to prejudge what is

going to come out of that, it is sort of unfair for me to do that. I cannot do

that. I want to see those people come back with the recommendations to me, as

minister, and then I can look at the recommendations and make some

recommendations to government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister was aware of, and I understand

requests were made for a fire protection officer for the Labrador region.

Currently they have no presence there when it comes to fire and emergency

services. All the investigations, inspections and so on are being done by

offices on the Island.

I ask the minister: Why was this particular position not funded?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, we have fire protection officers across the

Province, the Labrador member is right, but the thing is that we have two on the

West Coast in Deer Lake. At the time with the amount of inspection that can be

done, the person on the West Coast can alternate back and forth from Labrador to

the Province. That is the reason why it was not done.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, as we speak today there are officials of the Fire Commissioner's

Office who are traveling by helicopter in Labrador, from Mary's Harbour to

Nain, doing inspections on Coastal clinics.

I ask the minister: Why was their office not instructed to do the inspections

on the schools on the Labrador Coast at the same time as they were making this

trip?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, when the decision was made to send the fire

protection officer to the Coast of Labrador, at no time did the schools become

an issue with me, and it hasn't become an issue with me in terms of the Fire

Commissioner's Office. What we did was, we sent the fire protection officer to

the Coast to look at the community clinics. That was the issue at the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My first question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

In light of the impending loss of pathologists and I say impending

because I realize some have put in resignations and are still there in the

Province, we have heard many concerns expressed by the Canadian Cancer Society,

most particularly the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, individual

pathologists and the Director of the lab, with regard to the morale of the staff

who remain.

I am wondering: In the discussions that the minister will be having with

Eastern Health tomorrow, will you be dealing with the issue of helping this

current staff with their morale?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will.

Obviously, with the discussion we are talking about here, as I said earlier,

looking at the issues before us, issues around the supply, retention and

recruitment efforts, working conditions become a piece of that. The morale and

working conditions will be a part of our discussions. In fact, the Premier and I

will be meeting I think it is next week - next week or the week after we are

going to have a meeting directly with the pathologists and oncologists

themselves to continue the discussions we started last week with the Medical

Association.

I say, Mr. Speaker, all aspects of working conditions, issues that impact our

ability to recruit and issues that impact our ability to retain the

pathologists, are all topics of discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just one more question on that, then, to the minister.

If things that you come up with in your discussions tomorrow, and your

ongoing discussions, are going to involve money, are you going to be prepared to

have that discussion if more money becomes part of what needs to be done,

whatever that money would be for?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: As I said in response to an earlier question from the Leader

of the Opposition, as a government we are interested in working with the

individuals who are impacted, like the Medical Association, health authorities,

and pathologists in this particular instance here. We need to better understand,

what are the issues we need to be dealing with, and what are some of the

strategies in and around that?

One of the things that I am committed to, I say, Mr. Speaker, and government

is committed to and I acknowledged earlier our commitment to do it we

are committed to ensuring that we have an adequate supply of capable, competent

physicians in this Province, and we will work with all parties to ensure that we

have strategies in place to not only help us recruit them but to help us retain

them in the Province for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That answer from the minister actually leads me into another question that I

had hoped to ask today. It has to do with the recruitment and retention of

nurses, because the Budget talked about the recruitment and retention of nurses;

however, all of the incentives that I could see in the Budget, bonuses for

students, cost of moving, signing bonuses, all have to do with recruitment only.

I really could not find anything that could be identified as a retention

strategy for nurses who are already working in the Province.

I ask the government: Why did it not see fit to invest in more full-time

positions for nurses, to help with retention?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, we could arrange to have officials provide a

more detailed briefing of yesterday's Budget, because there was information in

there with respect to creating new positions.

If you look under the community health support system, we are creating new

nurses in public health. We are creating new nurse practitioner positions, I

say, Mr. Speaker, all with a view of expanding opportunities for career

enhancement, expanding new opportunities for nurses in this Province.

We already had, last year, announced in our last year's Budget, initiatives

with respect to quality workplace initiatives that are carrying over. They just

were not in last year's Budget and they stopped at the end of twelve months;

they are continuing into this year, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Money has been provided in the previous year's Budget. Annualize that

money; we do have money in this year's Budget to deal with those issues. Some

of it may be contained in the allocations reached for our regional health

authorities, but very clearly, I say, Mr. Speaker, very clearly we are committed

to as I said with respect to the physicians, not only do we want to have the

ability to recruit but we need an ability to retain nurses.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, that is why we have created more permanent

positions by converting casual positions to permanent positions in this year's

Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to present a petition today on behalf of residents with regard to the

road maintenance program and the closing of depots in various areas of the

Province. I want to make it very clear from the outset, this has nothing to do

with the wonderful capital funding that came down for all of our districts, but

just some concerns that people have with the maintenance and with the closure of

those depots.

I know for a fact, I have spoken to some of those individuals who work in the

various depots in Avondale and different areas, they are on in the wintertime as

operators and now they have to take a reduction in pay and they are classified

as labourers. I know, last year, many of them decided that they would stay

around and take the lower paid position, but this year some of them are saying

that they are going to more on and look for work outside the Province, and that

is unfortunate.

When it comes to the maintenance program that I am referring to, I know in my

own area - and I just referenced some of the areas there - there is an awful lot

of rutting and maintenance problems that have to be done with the roads. If it

is not taken care of this year or next year, there is going to have to be major

repair work done. I guess it is better to try to take care of that now than in

the future.

The other thing I would like to mention is with regard to the class 4 roads.

I know I spoke to the minister and her officials and they are looking at that.

What we are after is not a full maintenance program on the class 4 roads; it is

just that maybe they can be graded in the spring and again in the fall of the

year, and hopefully that will be taken care of.

I know maintenance will be done on those roads, but I just want to impress

upon the minister that she would consider hopefully keeping those depots open,

and then more work can be done over a larger area; because, when they are only

operating out of the Bay Roberts depot, they have to travel quite a distance to

get to the areas.

I call upon the minister to consider that, and hopefully that would be

adhered to this year, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move first reading of Bill 26,

An Act to Amend the Income Tax

Act, 2000.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 26, and that the said bill be now read a

first time.

MR. RIDEOUT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a misprint on the Order

Paper from yesterday. All of those bills were given notice of by the Minister of

Finance, and they ought to be standing in the name of the Minister of Finance. I

see that all three of them that I intended to give first reading of today, or

ask for leave to do first reading, are standing in the name of the Minister of

Government Services.

I think everybody knows that the Minister of Finance gave notice of those

bills in his own right yesterday. Excuse me, not yesterday, Tuesday.

If it is a problem we can leave it over and fix it, but if everybody

recognizes that then I would still like to do first readings and the Order Paper

tomorrow could notice that these bills stand in the name of the Minister of

Finance, if that is okay with the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader gives indication that is quite

okay; it is just a misprint on the Order Paper.

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000,

Bill 26, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall

have leave to introduce Bill 26, and that the said bill be now read a first

time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," carried. (Bill 26)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 26)

On motion, Bill 26 read a first time.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move first reading of Bill 27,

An Act To Amend The Health and

Post-Secondary Education Tax Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act, Bill 27, and that the said bill be

now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall

have leave to introduce Bill 27, and that the said bill be now read a first

time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act," carried. (Bill 27)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education

Tax Act. (Bill 27)

On motion, Bill 27 read a first time.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move first reading of Bill 28,

An Act To Amend The Retail

Sales Tax Act And The Tax Agreement Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Retail Sales Tax Act And The Tax Agreement Act, Bill 28, and that the said bill

be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall

have leave to introduce Bill 28, and that the said bill be now read a first

time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act And The Tax Agreement Act," carried. (Bill

28)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act And The Tax

Agreement Act. (Bill 28)

On motion, Bill 28 read a first time.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call Motion 1, standing in the name of the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board. The motion is that this House approves

in general the budgetary policy of the government. In other words, a debate

known as the Budget Debate, and we await in eager anticipation of the gems of

knowledge and wisdom to come from the official critic for the Opposition.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess this is one occasion where I can say I have more than an opportunity

for a few comments, given that the normal talking times in the House are usually

restricted to twenty minute sessions, or fifteen minute sessions. We are dealing

with a special motion here today, commonly referenced as the Budget Speech.

Under the rules, of course, the person in the Opposition who is the critic for

the Department of Finance normally has, under rule 46.(4) - and does have,

actually - twice the amount of time that the Minister of Finance took to deliver

the Budget on Tuesday, or three hours, or the greater of.

I, of course, had my stopwatch going on Tuesday when the Minister of Finance

was delivering his Budget so I could be sure of exactly how much time I was

going to have to speak. I think, according to the clock in the House here -

probably not visible on the cameras I am sure, at home viewers - I have three

hours, seven minutes and four seconds, as of now, to respond to the Budget

Speech. Now, I am not quite sure if I am going to be able to last three hours

and six minutes and fifty-five seconds because part of the rules also states

that you are not to take a break. So, if this member has to go to the washroom

or whatever, I am out of luck. I have just lost my speaking time. Hopefully, we

will be able to have a few comments before that necessity overtakes me.

Again, if I do not need the full three hours and six minutes I certainly will

not take them. I will not, by any stretch of the imagination, be competing with

the person who has the record in this House for responses to the Budget Speech.

That distinction belongs to the former Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, who spoke

in this House thirteen hours and fifteen minutes and set the record.

I do believe the former member for the district known as Waterford Valley set

the record at one time, but he was eclipsed, as did the Member for Ferryland at

one time, and he was eclipsed by the former Member for Grand Falls-Buchans and

she, to this day - in fact, she was the reason that the rule got changed. She

did such a good job and she intimidated the government so much, as a result of

her thirteen hours and fifteen minutes, that the government used their majority

and changed the rules and implemented this new rule, 46.(4). In fact, I do not

know, if truth be known, if the government had to use the majority to do it. I

think it might have even been done by consent. With all due respect to the

former Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, I think that was a consensual motion. In

any case, before that it was an unlimited period of time that a person had when

you were responding to the Budget Speech. We do not need unlimited time. It is a

matter of making your comments, I would think, and move on.

One other thing I would say in preliminary comments, I guess. People sitting

at home might wish to understand the process a little bit about the Budget. It

is different than a bill. In the case of a bill you have a first reading, a

second reading, a committee stage and a third reading,

whereas in the Budget

Speech here, it is different. For the next two or three weeks, for those people

who are avid viewers of the Budget process, and just to make sure that they

understand what is happening, not everybody who stands up in the Opposition is

going to get three hours and seven minutes. It is only the person who is the

critic who gets the three hours and seven minutes, in this case.

There has to be seventy-five hours dedicated to the process of passing the

Budget, and that is broken down into a number of sectors. For example, we have -

according to the Government House Leader's list that was provided here in the

House a few days ago - nineteen different heads or departments of government:

the Department of Finance, Justice, the Department of Human Resources, the

Department of Tourism, Culture. We have nineteen different heads of government

and each of these is farmed out to three committees of government called

Estimates Committees. There are three different Estimates Committees.

So, you people who watch this on TV, you will not see any work that is going

on in those Estimates Committees because they are not televised, but each of

those Estimates Committees takes three hours. They are usually conducted either

in the morning or in the evening, and that will add up to - three times nineteen

is fifty-seven. Then we get so many hours for what they call Concurrence Debate,

which is nine. The time we spent on Interim Supply, which was somewhere like six

hours and twenty-seven minutes, I believe, that will be added in there.

At the end of the day, this Budget and all the pieces of it, through this

House and through the various Estimates Committees, is going to get seventy-five

hours of drill down, serious, tear apart work. It is not a case where the

Minister of Finance just read it and it gets passed here through the House. It

actually gets seventy-five hours of detailed inspection, shall we say, before it

comes to a vote. That is what we are going to be doing over the course of the

next two or three weeks. Sometimes, of course, as also part of that process, the

Opposition are not satisfied with what is in the Budget. Traditionally, that is

the case. I do not know if there has ever been a case in the history of this

Province where the Opposition has voted for the Budget. I think it is a

tradition that Oppositions vote against budgets.

Now, I am sure there are going to be all kinds of calls from the government

as we are speaking and saying: Well, surely you are not going to vote against

this Budget. Surely, this Budget is so good that you cannot possibly, even in

Opposition, vote against it. I would suspect that some speakers over there, in

the next two or three weeks, are going to put that point forward and say what an

irresponsible Opposition if they vote against this. My God, there are so many

goodies in here they are irresponsible if they vote against this. It is such a

good Budget that they cannot do anything but vote for it.

There is always something, of course, that you can find wrong with a budget.

Now, I don't think the vote takes place on the basis of, I liked more of it

than I didn't like and therefore I am going to vote for it. I don't usually

assess where I stand on a voting process. You look at the principle of the thing

overall, you look at some of the details, and if you find on balance that, no, I

am really not prepared to say that this is going in the right direction, albeit

there are some pieces of it I like, that makes you determine in the end how you

are going to vote for a document.

There is no doubt that there are going to be lots of things, and there are

lots of things, in the document that the Minister of Finance read the other day

that you would be foolhardy if you said you didn't like them. I will get into

some of those details as we move further on.

By the way, this is going to be broad ranging as opposed to most topics where

you might be able to say, there is the topic, this is my introduction and there

is my commentary on it and there is my conclusion. I will have those broad

parameters in my three hours of talking but, of course, the document is such a

massive complex document that the only thing general about it is the word budget

itself. There are literally millions of figures within it. There are dozens and

dozens of different strategies and programs that are talked about in a budget,

so it is not like you can take a certain subject and talk about it. It is not

like I am going to be able to just pick out, for example, an issue in the

Department of Justice and talk about it. You can't do that, because the Budget

is so far ranging it affects everybody and every activity virtually in this

Province. By its very nature, your commentary has to be broad ranging as well.

If from time to time in the next couple of hours, three hours, I might seem

like I am all over the place it is not because I intentionally am taking you all

over the place but it is because it is necessitated because there are no many

pieces to this document that was delivered. I am sure if I were to stay here for

twenty-five hours I would never get into all the details that are in this

document. It just didn't materialize on Tuesday when the Minister of Finance

walked in here. This document is the end result of a process that took months

and months of putting together.

Actually, the consultations start in departments as soon as the Budget is

delivered you almost start the process for next year. That is how complicated it

is. As you get closer to next year, of course, in the fall of this year, things

speed up, where you are so far this year and where you are going to go next

year. Those things get started in the consultation process. There are all kinds

of government departments that have to go to work to drill down and prepare the

documents to give to their ministers. The ministers have to take them to various

government committees, social policy, economic policy, and get them fleshed out

and deal with and they go off.

Then in January or so, normally, you are into serious stuff. You are up in

the Cabinet level by now and you are starting to put your document together and

get down to the nitty-gritty details in January or February, usually. Then

there are pre-Budget consultations, and that has usually been the system. I

believe that started under the Tobin Administration when government said, okay,

we have our big picture drawn, where we want to go, we have the financial

details that we need, but just so we are certain that we do not overlook

anybody, let's do a consultation out in the public so that anybody who has a

particular concern that we may have missed, we can go and hear about it.

The process started whereby they would hold meetings in various places around

the Province, like in Labrador, in Corner Brook, St. Anthony, Port aux Basques

and so on. You give the people an opportunity to come forward and make their

case known. Hopefully, some of that has been listened to by the minister and he

has tweaked this Budget, in the last minute sometimes, he has tweaked it so that

he could put that information in the Budget. That is usually why we have the

pre-Budget consultations.

The big thing we had this year, of course, which was different, the Minister

of Finance, wherever he went this year in his pre-Budget, he had the famous debt

clock. For those who did not hear about it, what it was, as you were sitting

down to tell the minister and his officials what it was you thought should go in

the Budget, he had a clock there that was ticking, telling you, every minute you

were talking, what it was costing this Province in interest on the debt. He was

trying to make the point, of course, that we need to pay down our debt and

therefore we would save some of that money in interest charges.

It was very effective, I guess, in the sense that, from conversations I have

had with different groups, it intimidated a lot of people. Some people were

intimidated. It was almost like: Here I was, for my particular group or

organization, looking for some funding, and the minister was showing me that

maybe I was being a little bit greedy and selfish because all the while I was

talking to him I was finding out how much the Province was paying in debt and

charges. So it was intimidating.

He made the point, I guess, but the question is if it was the best way to

make the point. The feedback that I had from some people was: Yes, you could

make your point. You could explain to people the consequences of having a debt

load, and the need to pay them down, but you didn't necessarily need to have

that in-your-face type of reminder to people, because some of them were put off

by it and felt, well, maybe I shouldn't be here asking for anything; I should

consider myself lucky and put up with what we have here.

Now, there are a few general themes I would like to touch upon first when we

get into the Budget. Everybody who has heard of it so far, the word surplus has

been talked about. We had a surplus a few years ago, and now this year we had a

massive surplus, and a Budget - by the way, everybody has a budget. It does not

have to be a complicated document like we are dealing with here. Most people

have a budget for their household, and the same analogy applies to a government.

It is a matter of: How much money do I have coming in - or revenue? How am I

going to spend that money? What am I going to spend it on?

In most cases you usually do not have all of the money you need so you

sometimes, in a household, go out and borrow. For example, you get your

month-to-month income that you buy your groceries with, or pay your light bill

with, but you have to have a home to live in so you might have need of a

mortgage. We find ourselves in the same situation in the Province.

The Province could not buy or afford everything that it needed at one time,

so over the years they invested or borrowed monies so that they could do things

they needed to do. It wasn't always to buy a house. It might have been

sometimes because we were short of cash and could not pay our employees, so we

had to go and borrow. There were times when we needed money to put into roads

and schools and we never had it, but it needed to be done, so it was borrowed.

As you can see, after a while that debt built up. In our Province, we ended

up somewhere about $11.8 billion in debt. That is a pretty hefty bill, a pretty

high-paying credit card debt you have; you have to pay off $11.8 billion. In

fact, according to the information we have been provided with, on a per person

basis - there are about half a million of us in the Province - according to the

information we have, we have the highest per person or per capita debt load of

any province in this country. Somewhere in the tune of $22,000 a person, I

believe. They are saying obviously there comes a time when you have to say:

Whoa, we can't afford having all of those debt charges. We have to get our

credit card in order.

So, that is where the Minister of Finance has been coming from, in most of

his talks this year. He is saying, yeah, we have to get our debt in order.

I will get into and drill down through some of the details here, because once

we know where the money came from, and it goes in, and we know what our debt

load is, and we know what we definitely have to pay anyway on our credit cards -

there is so much, a minimal balance, that you have to pay - the question is: Are

we going to have any left over to pay for the other things? Once we pay for the

basics and then we have that surplus left over, what are we going to do with it?

That is the dilemma - a nice dilemma, by the way - that the Province had this

year, to the tune of $1.4 billion: What are we going to do with that extra cash?

Are we going to put it in a sock? We have a couple of options. We can pay down

some of the debt. We can create some new programs that we know we have needed

for a long time but we have not been able to afford. We can say to people who

work for government: Look, you people took some trouncing in the past, shall we

say, in terms of not getting the wage increases that you would have liked or

that we would have liked to have given you, so therefore maybe we should reward

you and give you a few extra dollars on your paycheque. That was an option that

the government had. Those are the kinds of things they had to size up. At the

end of the day, and once you get beyond that big picture of what goes in and

what goes out and what you spend it on, then you drill down into the details.

Then it is the nitty-gritty.

On Budget Day, of course, you see people outside and they will ask the NLTA:

Was there anything in the Budget for you? They will look at it and say: Oh, yes,

we got this or we got that, but we never got such-and-such that we wanted; but,

yes, we did okay on this. They will ask different groups, hospital people: Did

you get what you needed? Schools: Did you get what you needed?

People have their opinions. Some people are very pleased with what happened,

and some people are displeased because they wanted something to happen and it

did not, and this Budget is no different than any other in that regard.

I guess, like the old saying, you can't please everybody. What government

has tried to do here is, they have a certain theory, shall we say, or a

philosophy, of how they wanted to handle things, and that supposedly is

reflected in this Budget document.

The question, of course, from an Opposition point of view is: Is what the

government said they did do the facts bear it out? Because it is fine to say

that we did this and we did that, but our job as an Opposition is to drill down

and say: Okay, did they actually do what they said they were going to do? If so,

where is it?

Part of the process of this member speaking to the Budget is to find out, or

ask some questions, because the Minister of Finance is listening to what I am

saying and he will get an opportunity some time, and hopefully he will take the

opportunity, to respond to legitimate questions, because you don't get the

opportunity to ask him any questions when he stands up on Budget Day and he took

his one hour and thirty-four minutes to read it all off.

He mentioned a whole pile of figures, and he gave a whole pile of documents

called Budget documents out to everybody, but people do not sit down and read

that level of detail - except some of us do, or we try to - and it raises

certain questions. This is an opportunity as well for this member and the

Opposition, or anyone in the public, to say, well, what about this or what did

you mean by this, because it is not always clear in the documents when you read

them. Even when it is black on white, sometimes it is not clear. It does not

make sense. Sometimes it makes sense but you just cannot figure it out without

somebody helping you. So that is part of this process, and I will be posing some

questions as we go through, as well.

There is no doubt that the government here, I guess in a nutshell, when they

put out a little

summary called - in a little booklet form, Budget Highlights.

It is very helpful, actually. Very helpful in the sense of if you take a look at

the pie charts that they have, it tells you a lot. Like the first big question I

asked in preparing their budget was: Where does it come from? Where does the

money or the revenues come from? That little pie chart is pretty good. It tells

you pretty well everything you need to know.

First of all, we know from this that the government is going to have a budget

of this year, in terms of coming in, they are going to have six, roughly - and I

will speak in round figures, even though it is big figures and rounding them off

might slip a few millions here and there, but that is the kind of magnitude of

dollars you are talking about here. They are looking at $6.8 billion of money

going in the pot. That is in that little pie chart.

So, the question is: Where does the $6.8 billion come from? It comes from a

number of sources. For example, people who pay fines, or pay fees in the

Province - you go get your drivers' licence, you go get a moose licence, you

get a marriage certificate, or you get a death certificate. The fees that you

pay on that - or if you got a speeding ticket or whatever, if you were a poacher

and you were fined in court, those fees and fines add up to about $219 million;

about 3.2 per cent of the money that went in the pot - fees and fines.

Now there is also, it says here, $205 million came from investments, because

the government does have investments in certain stakes, in certain businesses,

and those interests, those business interests, those investment interests give

back to the Province somewhere around $205 million a year. So that gets added in

there, that is 3 per cent.

Then, it says, other provincial sources. It does not detail here what it is,

but it is $341 million, or 5 per cent of the Budget. They talk about Atlantic

Accord, $898 million, a fairly substantial chunk, 13.3 per cent. They talk about

health and social transfers - and this is federal, by the way. This is what

comes from the federal government. It is not being paid or collected from people

in the Province. This is what is coming from outside the Province, coming in.

From the federal sources, this is what the feds pay into the Province under the

Atlantic Accord, this 13.3 per cent or a whopping $898 million; health and

social transfers, $531 million, another 7.8 per cent. Equalization - this is a

complex formula that exists in our Canadian federation whereby if provinces are

what they call have provinces, you contribute in, and if you are a have not

province, there is a formula they use, very complex, where they give each

province back so much money. So far, for many, many years, we have been a

recipient of money. We have been in equalization. We have been a have not

Province and getting money back.

For this year, on a go-forward for 2008-2009, we are just going to get $18

million. That is the lowest it has ever been, I guess, since we have been

getting equalization payments. The prediction from the Finance Minister is that

after this year, 2008-2009, we will not get any more equalization because we

will not need it. We will not be a have not Province; we will be a have

Province.

If you total all that up, the federal share - if you take the full pot - 27

per cent of that pot comes from federal sources. Taxation is a big one,

$4,184,000,000 or 62 per cent, roughly, of the Budget comes from taxation. That

is where every man, woman or person in this Province who works pays some kind of

tax. It is my understanding, I could be wrong - and that is why I pose some

questions to the Minister of Finance in the course of this talk. I am assuming

that includes the royalty revenues and everything that come from the offshore as

well, $4.184 billion, a whopping 62 per cent. So, it comes from different

sources.

Then of course, on the other chart it says, where do you put it? That is a

pretty educational pie as well. It says in the Province we are going to spend,

on health care alone in the Province we are going to put out 37 per cent of our

full budget. Of that money we have coming in, $6,776,000,000 we are going to

take 37 per cent of that and put it into health care and all the different

programming in health care; hospitals, the equipment for hospitals, the staff

and employees who work in hospitals. Everything related to health care in the

Province, 37 per cent.

The next one is education; 20.1 per cent is going to go into educational

needs, universities, teachers, schools, equipment in schools, 20 per cent. Then

there is going to be 25 per cent going to general government and the legislative

sector. That takes in a broad range as well, paying MHAs, paying all the public

sector people, anybody who works with NAPE who is a government employee, or CUPE.

All of that gets included in here, the public sector wages, operations of your

highway departments and so on, transportation, highways, the ferry service.

Everything that government operates as a government, the infrastructure and the

equipment needs associated with it, that cost goes in there. It is a big chunk,

25 per cent of it, is what government has to expend.

Then there is 5.2 per cent that goes out to the resource sector, some $337

million. There is so much comes in, so much goes out. It looks like the

difference between what is going to come in in this year and what is going to go

out is going to leave another surplus for next year, somewhere to the tune of

$544 million, I think is the figure. That is what is projected. If you count all

the money coming in this year and what is going to go out, we are still going to

left, at the end of the day, next March 31, because the government calendar year

runs from April 1 to March 31 - at the end of the year next year, we are still

going to have, based on government's figures right now and what the minister

delivered on Wednesday, a surplus in excess of another half a billion dollars.

We just had $1.4 billion in the year gone that we did not spend and we are going

to have another half a billion-plus next year that we do not have outlined here

where we are going to spend it yet. There is going to be a surplus that

government will have to decide where it is going to go.

On the surface, that looks like a pretty good situation when you account for

all of your expenditures and then you know you are going to end up with half a

billion-plus still in your pot. That gives you some leeway in deciding: Well,

what am I going to do with that? That is like having your paycheque, you have

all of your bills paid, and you look - well, you still have a few bucks in your

bank account and you have some options as to what you want to do with it; maybe

refurnish your house, maybe you need a new car, whatever. It is the same thing

in government: What are they going to do with the money? The government is

destined and determined to put so much of that money - each surplus down on that

big debt I was talking about, that $11.8 billion. That is where the money is

going to go and that is the kind of dollar figures that we are talking about.

As anyone is aware who has been following the news in this Province as well,

there were a lot of interest groups and special stakeholders who wanted a share

of the surplus. I am sure the minister heard this when he went around the

Province with his debt clock for his pre-Budget consultations, a lot of people

said: We have needs; we want you to help us. and it appears, to my reading

of the Budget, what has happened here is, government has said: Yes, we are going

to look after some of them.

We saw, from Question Period today, they obviously never looked after them

all, because in just the case of the oxygen, for example, the minister stands up

and says we are going to put so much money into mobile oxygen for people. Now,

on the surface, that is great stuff; you help somebody. You are going to let

somebody who needs oxygen, get oxygen. You are going to subsidize it for them,

and that is good. So, on the surface, someone is out saying: That is great; they

helped our association because we got our people looked after who need oxygen -

but, when you drill down a little bit deeper, you say: Just a minute now. Just a

minute; how many people who need oxygen in this Province actually benefited from

this Budget, with that announcement?

According to the information that we have received, there are about 4,400

people in the Province who have oxygen needs, and this new program is not going

to help 4,400 people, nowhere near 4,400 people. It is our understanding, from

the people we have talked to, it is a very limited number of people. Only people

who currently receive social assistance and income support are going to benefit

from the oxygen program. Our question of government, of course, is: Why did you

go halfway? Sometimes just helping a few and leaving the rest in a lurch, that

looks bad too. So, how did you make a determination as to what sector of the

oxygen group you were going to help?

It is fine to say we helped somebody, but why did you help that group and not

the rest of the people in the same group who had the same needs? Those are the

kinds of questions that get raised. Nobody is saying that you should not help

the ones who are being helped, but that does not take away from the

responsibility to say, why didn't you help the others?

Now, your answer to that might be, well, we couldn't help everybody so we

picked out a few and we helped them. Well, maybe that is doable; maybe that is

sellable. Maybe people will accept that. I am sure the people out of the other

4,400 who were not helped are not going to accept that.

As long as there is an appreciation that there are usually at least two sides

to every story; it is one thing to say it is positive because we helped some

people, but realize that you did not help them all. Maybe you could not help

them all. Maybe that is your explanation.

Some of the parties who have contacted me, for example, said it looked like

you had a whole wish list and you threw a little bit of money at a lot of

things.

Whereas other people would have said, well, wouldn't the better

approach be to take certain specific things and deal with them all in total

rather than just throwing little pots of money at everybody? I guess it is a

matter of how you want to approach it.

The general comment that I heard again to the overall Budget, one person told

me it was a banker's budget. I said: What do you mean, you call it a banker's

budget? He said: Well, a banker's budget versus an accountant's budget. I

said: Well, you are going to have to explain that one to me because, by the way,

I don't come from a financial accounting background. I can't look at

detailed financial statements and pick them inside out like some people. I

usually have to get some assistance in doing that, and I apologize if I don't

know the full details. I am sure the minister has the staff he doesn't

come from a financial background either, but he has the staff - to be able to

find any of the answers that I do not have, that he needs to give an explanation

on, and that is part of this process as well.

Anyway, this person said to me: That is a banker's budget, not an

accountant's budget. I asked him to proceed to explain it to me, what he

meant. He said: Well, it is like this; accountants are like bean counters.

Accountants want to know where every penny is coming from, and accountants want

to know where every penny is going to go out. It is a very explicit

find-the-money type of approach, and manage it very closely and see what is

going to happen. Usually, particularly if there is not enough money - some

people call them Scotchie - they are very particular and specific about what you

are going to put money on, and they don't want to spend the money.

We had a lot of years in this Province where we had accountants' budgets

because there were a lot of years when we never had the money in the coffers to

decide what you wanted to do and where you were going to put your money, and

there was never enough money to go around.

Whereas today we find ourselves in a

situation where we have a banker's budget, not a case of where your money is

coming from. Your money is in the bank account and it is a question of managing

it, and where we are going to put it - not that we do not have it, or we have to

go find it, the same as an accountant might have to do, but it is a case of we

are sitting flush with cash and what are we going to use it for? That is a

pretty envious situation.

Now there are some concerns, of course; the minister says we must pay down

the debt. I do not think any right-thinking person in this Province is going to

disagree with that. I think every person in this Province who says we have to

pay down our debt because it is way too high on a national basis would agree,

and we certainly agree that you have to do that. The question is in the balance

act that you have to do in terms of paying down your debt and putting needed

services into your Province. For example, we have need for new health care

facilities, equipment in health care facilities, schools, people want raises, so

you have to do that fine-tuning act of where do we put most of our money? That

is what the minister has tried to do here.

Now, some people are going to disagree with him. Some people are going to

say: No, you put too much on the debt. You didn't put enough into the services

that we need, the infrastructure pot; you didn't put enough into it. That will

be debated as we go on, of course.

Now, there are certainly some nice things here and I don't mind pointing

out a few of them. For example, we see the tax on insurance. That was a tax grab

that has been on the go for many, many years, and finally we see now that the 15

per cent tax on your insurance is going to be gone. Whether you have car

insurance or whether you bought life insurance or you bought boat insurance or

fire insurance, you do not have to pay that 15 per cent. It helps a lot of

people. It doesn't only help a few people, I would agree it is a good move,

because it helps a lot of people and you end up with more money - I think

thirty-three point something million dollars this year, the minister said - that

he is going to put into new hospital equipment. God knows, it is needed. God

knows that we need it.

There are a whole pile of new studies being done. I did not calculate the

actual totals, and I guess that is part of the planning process, you have to

figure out a plan and then come up with a strategy before you decide where you

are going to go, and we certainly got a lot of that in the Budget. For example,

I think I counted sixteen different references to sixteen different strategies

in this Budget and the continuation of some: Poverty Reduction Strategy,

Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy, Immigration Strategy, Research and

Development Strategy, Ocean Technology Sector Strategy, municipal infrastructure

investment strategy, Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy, Northern Strategic Plan

for Labrador, Intangible Cultural Heritage Strategy for Aboriginal Peoples,

Caribou Strategy, Strategic Cultural Plan, Recreation and Sport Strategy,

Healthy Aging Strategy, even an - and I couldn't believe this word

(inaudible) reduction strategy, and a fiscal dragon wrestling strategy. So we

have all kinds of strategies coming out of this Budget and every one of these

strategies, of course, costs money. We just hope that putting this money into

the plans and putting it into the strategies will materialize into something

productive.

Looking at the global picture on the Budget again, people say, yes, you've

got a surplus and you are going to pay down on the debt. One of the big pieces

that I think is missing from the Budget is actual ideas of economic development.

I think we are missing some things there. Yes, there were a few things there but

if you take away the funds that come into this Province from oil and mining

and God forbid if the prices don't stay up where they are. In fact, all of the

documents talk about securing a sustainable future. That is the big operative

word about all of this planning; sustainability. Right now there is no question

about it, for anybody who doesn't know, we are enjoying the benefits of these

surpluses because of the oil and because we are doing so well in the mining

sector. Those are the two biggest ones.

MR. T. MARSHALL: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Well, the Minister of Finance says, that is Danny Williams.

I beg to differ. I think there are few other issues involved there other than

Danny Williams. I think somebody years and years ago, back in the 1970s, started

the first explorations here in this Province when it comes to the oil. I do

believe, as well, that some former administrations had something to do with it.

For example, right now, as I understand it, we have White Rose. All of this

money that is coming is coming from White Rose, Hibernia and Terra Nova, and we

hope if we get a deal that in the future some time - I think 2015 is the first

oil that we hope to get from Hebron. We don't have a deal inked yet, we have

an MOU as I understand it. We are looking forward to some announcements on the

deal, but that is eight or nine years out. There is no money in this pot right

here now that we are talking about. These Budget surpluses have nothing to do

with Hebron. There is no money coming out of that.

By the way, White Rose didn't start on this government's watch. Terra

Nova didn't start on this government's watch. I am just getting into the

facts. This government has the very good fortune of being in the position to

decide how they are going to spend the money, no doubts about that, but there

has to be the recognition that the money going into this pot wasn't created on

this government's watch. Now, that is a fair statement, that is a true

statement. The money going into the pot would never be here today if there wasn't

a culmination of events that happened to make it possible. We wouldn't be

talking of surpluses if we didn't have somebody do the exploration back in the

1970s and make the deals in the 1980s and actually get into the development

phases in the 1990s. It was a combination of things.

Now, you can argue for days about: Did we do it right back then? Did we cut

the right deals? We never had the right deals but the bottom line is, the

developments themselves, the exploration, was done. The developments were

started back then and it takes years and years as we can see. We have been

twenty-five years, I think, knowing what oil was in the ground out there for

Hebron. I think that was discovered twenty-five years ago. We still do not have

a deal on Hebron, but it was discovered and known about twenty-five years ago.

Personally, I do not think there is any government that can take credit - any

government! - for where the offshore oil industry is in this Province today

single-handedly. It was a consequence of a lot of actions by a lot of different

governments. I do believe we had exploration in the 1970s under the Moore's

government. We had more under the Peckford government in the 1980s. We had the

Atlantic Accord first back in 1985 under the Peckford Administration. I do

believe we had even more exploration during the Wells' Administration from

1989 to 1996. Thanks to Mr. Crosbie, who was a federal cabinet minister at the

time, when Hibernia came on some very tough times the federal government stepped

in there through Mr. Crosbie and played a major role in helping out Hibernia

which was in a crunch at one point and might not have happened. We had the

governments, for example, who started the White Rose thing. Right or wrong it

was started under the Grimes' Administration. We had Terra Nova, the same

thing. The projects were started then. We are only in the position today where

we say we have the money in the pot because they were started back then. Now it

so happens that this Administration is in the position to administer the funds

that are coming from those projects.

By the way, I think it would be pretty small minded too or convenient if you

forgot the fact of the Atlantic Accord. This member is not overshadowing the

events of the Accord. If this Administration has given us a better deal and a

better piece of what we are getting, that is good, kudos to them. But let's

not shade the whole process by saying, because we have the Atlantic Accord we

are responsible for all of the good things that we have now. That is going too

far the other way. That is not recognition of the contribution that former

administrations made. I am sure in the future, if it lasts long enough and we

can keep finding discoveries whether it be oil or gas or more minerals, I am

sure that twenty years out or thirty years out somebody is going to improve upon

the deals we currently have. What do we say then? Do we look up then and say

this Administration was a failure because somebody improved upon what was done

now? I do not think so. I think you have give credit for what happens today but

also recognize and give credit for those who helped put things in place

previously. Albeit, it might not have been everywhere you wanted to go maybe

the circumstances were not the same.

It was very fortuitous, for example - very fortuitous! - that the Premier

found himself in a situation where he was dealing with a federal minority

government and he squeezed a commitment out of them. He played poker and played

it great, holding a full house, against a guy across the table name Martin, who

only had two pair at best, and he did it. Congratulations! But that set of

circumstances was not again created by him. He handled the situation, but he did

not create the situation that Paul Martin found himself in. Some people say he

exploited I am sure Martin might say he exploited it. I think he took

advantage of it for Newfoundlanders. I would put a more positive spin on it. A

lot of people sort of give credit for the moment and do not think about who put

the overall contributions in over the course of time.

The other thing is, the dollar value of what we are exploiting. We are

sitting here today as we speak I think I saw it last night on the NTV News,

that a barrel of oil was trading at about $118; $118 a barrel. When we first

started taking oil, or talked about taking oil out of Hibernia and I believe

Hibernia came on-stream, maybe the first oil, in 1997-1998, around then. I

remember back years ago when we were talking about Hibernia, we said, we do not

know if it is viable, if we can make it work, because we need $18 a barrel.

Imagine! We had to have $18 for a barrel of oil in order to make any money off

of Hibernia. Today we are at $118 a barrel. Since production started in

1997-1998 we did not start at $18, but even in four years, and the minister

can correct me on this if I am wrong, I think in four years, from 2004 to now,

oil was trading at about $35 a barrel in 2004. Even in the four-year period that

this government has been in power and on watch, the price of a barrel of oil has

gone up from $35 to $118. Now, with all due respect, the Premier had nothing to

do with that. With all due respect, the Premier had nothing to do with that,

folks. We can put whatever spin we want on that.

The point I am trying to make is we have found ourselves in a situation where

two things have come together. We happen to have gotten certain oil projects to

a point where they are developing; Hibernia, White Rose and Terra Nova. At the

same time they are producing a commodity that has become very much needed in the

world market, oil, for example, places like China that are just expanding at

amazing growth rates. You put that combination together when there is a massive

demand in the world and we happen to have a product and a commodity that is very

good and that has driven the price through the roof.

The money is there not because this government - and I mean this government,

i.e. 2004, post-2004 - this government did not create these three ventures. They

were there. This government did not create $118 a barrel. They were there. Give

credit for the fact that we might get more out of it because of the Accord, but

that does not take away the fact that the price you are getting, and the fact

that we even had it in the first place was not created by this government.

Take credit if you are going to in how you manage what you have. You had the

good fortune to be in a situation where there is lots of money in the pot. The

history of this administration is going to be, at the end of the day, when the

assessment is going to be done and the report card is going to come in, to say:

What did you do with the money that you had. How did you manage the money that

you got? That is where the report card is going to come in.

AN HON. MEMBER: The report card came in last October.

MR. PARSONS: Someone said the report card came in last October. There is

no question about it. The people of the Province felt, at that point in time,

that this administration was managing the economy well. The question is going to

be, at the end of the day, because you do not measure your success as a

Province, I would not think - we think in four-year increments. I would like to

think in this Province that twenty years out, thirty years out, forty years out,

as we keep saying about looking after our children and our grandchildren we are

going to be in a position then to say, not what we did in October, 2003 but do

we still have anybody here in 2053 or are we turning the lights out. That is

where the challenge is going to come in and that is what comes back to the

minister's statement about sustainability.

We are very fortunate that we have a lot of money coming in. By the way,

there is going to be a lot more of it coming in in the next few years. I

happened to attend a session at the Harris Centre back, oh I guess more than a

year ago now, and Professor Wade Locke was there. He had some great overhead

slides and showed us where we are going with our offshore industry. There is no

question that the current return from our oil industry, albeit it is good now,

is going to dip in 2012. If we do not do things like Hebron, and

if we do not do the Hibernia South expansion and if we do not do the White Rose

expansion, we are going to have a serious problem down the road.

We have been doing well the last few years, exceptionally well last year and

we are going to do good next year, but the question is, after 2012 when that

starts to run out, where is your money going to come from? That is the whole

question. We use this great big word, sustainability, and people say: Well, what

does that mean? What do you mean by being sustainable? Quite frankly, folks,

there are a lot of people who do not understand it. We throw around words like

strategies and sustainability and they all sound nice but a lot of people do not

understand it. How do we get there, in particular? All it means, quite simply,

is if we achieve a certain level of standard of living and we want to stay

there, what do we have to do to stay there? It is no good to build up an expense

every year of $6.5 billion, knowing that we need $6.5 billion every year to pay

for it, only to find out, five years out, that we do not have $6.5 billion any

more. We do not have any surpluses any more. We only got $5 billion now. So then

the question becomes: Well, what do you do? Now you have a situation where we

have ratcheted up the cost, but we are not going to get the money any more to do

it.

If the price of oil stays up where it is, we should be in pretty good shape.

That sustainability should not be an issue for a few years, particularly if

Hebron comes on, gets producing around 2015. The biggest catch here is obvious,

the price of the barrel of oil. I hope the government is right. I hope the

Minister of Finance is correct in his projections, because he told us the other

day - I asked him a question in Question Period and he said he has two reports

sitting on his desk from two different sources. One of them says the barrel of

oil was going to go to $65 and another one says it is going to go to $150. He

said it here in the House.

That itself shows how volatile or how fluid that is. The big fear here and I

am sure the government has this - I do not know about fear, but apprehension of:

What if we build a house of cards and it all comes tumbling down because

something happens again that we had no control over, i.e., the price of oil?

That is the concern. That is where you have to hedge your bets, I guess, and

make sure that we cannot ratchet up our expenses to the point that if something

happens, my God, we would never be able to sustain it or keep it. Then we have

to look at cutting stuff back, and it is far more difficult to cut that back

than it is to talk about spending. This government had the enviable task, back

in the 2004 Budget, of making all kinds of cuts because the money was not in the

cupboard. Now we have the money in the cupboard and we will see how they handle

it.

It is pretty scary when you think about it, that all this money that is

coming in from the oil and gas - well not the gas, but the oil, and the mining -

might just evaporate. I hope the minister's projection that he got saying $65

a barrel is not the one that comes to be. I hope it is up to $150. Albeit, there

are consequences to that too, in terms of high heating costs and high gas prices

and so on, but it is better to be in that position, I would think, than to have

your expenses built up and then the bottom fall out of the price of a barrel of

oil.

The other thing that has put a substantial amount of money into the Province

so far - again, this government cannot take credit and would not, I am sure, try

to take credit for it - and that is the Voisey's Bay deal. I believe next to

the oil, the money, again, is coming from mining interests - and Voisey's Bay,

in particular. We are only seeing the beginnings of it yet. We still do not have

the massive construction facility that is going to go down in Long Harbour. So,

that piece and the employment that goes with it, is going to be good.

Again, it was not this Administration that created Voisey's Bay. I do

believe, in fact, it was this Premier who said - because I was here seated over

on the other side of the House in 2002 and the Premier was over here at the time

as Opposition House Leader, and I was the Minister of Justice, and I remember

him saying: You could drive a Mack truck through that. He said there are so many

loopholes in that and off-ramps. So many off-ramps, he said, and loop-holes in

that you could drive a Mack truck through it. So I said, well, the Leader of the

Opposition, he was a lawyer - we gave it out to everybody, days before we came

in here for a debate. We actually sat here, I think it was for three days, in

June of 2002. Everybody had - by the way, it was not just a little one-page MOU,

or a two-page MOU like we saw - we have not seen anything, by the way, on

Hebron. I do not think we have seen anything. We are told that an MOU was

signed. We are told that there are certain equity stakes in it, but we have not

seen anything else at all.

Back then, the government of the day took the statement of principles - it

was what, thirty, forty pages long - gave it to everybody and anybody in the

Province, publicly put it out there and said: This is the deal. This is the deal

we are going to do on Voisey's Bay. Every