House of Assembly
Newfoundland and Labrador

Private Member's Motion 
Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Home |  In the House | Private Member Motions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile. The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to introduce this private member’s motion today.

First of all, I am sure my colleagues opposite were disappointed that the hon. Member for Port de Grave did not get to raise his petition today – which, of course, he has done every day the House has been open – but, as indicated, he was out of time. He will be back tomorrow, I am sure, with his petition again.

Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward today deals with the issue and the suggestion that the House of Assembly should urge government to establish an all-party committee or All-Party Summit on the Economy. It is not talking about the establishment of a committee of anything, but that there would be a summit held in this Province that would deal with the issues and address the issue of the economy. That is where I would like to address my comments, of course, in support of that particular motion.

The purpose, of course, is outlined there, who would be included. As opposed to being a political venture, it is deliberately geared and worded such that it would not be political, other than having members of every political stripe in the Province involved as observers, listeners, and hopefully contributors.

The main focus, of course, is to involve union leadership, to involve business leaders in the community, to involve municipal leaders in the Province and, as it says, members of this House who would also be involved.

Now, some people might say we do not need to have a summit on the economy. We might not need it. Now, this does not in any way detract from what this government is doing, not at all. We had a case here yesterday where the Minister of Finance gave his update and it is very pleasing for the people of this Province, of course, to see that we are going to be in a pretty good situation financially in the Province when it comes to money in the coffers this year. I think we are looking at a surplus, as has been indicated by the minister, to the tune of about $1.3 billion dollars, and that is based on deflated oil prices, even, compared to what we thought. We had hoped, of course, to have it based upon $87, even based upon that and given the fact that oil has gone from $147 down to, I believe, trading at about $44 or $45 today, we are still going to come in with $1.3 billion. That is great! Nobody is going to be adverse to having that good news, of course, and it is going to allow government to do what it said it would do in terms of public sector raises. It is going to allow government to continue with the programs that they wanted to do and services, and it is going to allow government to put, I believe, some-$800 million, it was suggested, down on the provincial debt at the end of the year. Nobody is knocking, nor should they knock, I believe, the fact that the government is going to do that with that money.

Of course, we heard about the infrastructure program, and there is no doubt, nobody is criticizing the fact that this government, in the last three or four years, has a particular designed infrastructure program that is going to put quite some substantial dollars into our economy. It is going to create jobs. About $4 billion, I do believe, over a six-year span was anticipated that is going to go into infrastructure. That is good! Nobody is knocking that, nor should they, and we are not knocking it.

The main purpose of this motion is not to detract from what has been done and what is ongoing but merely to try to find out: Is there anything else that could be done? Now, that is not to say government does not have its advisors, they do. We asked a question last week in Question Period: Would the Premier consider having such a summit? He said: No, I have my own council. He is entitled to his opinion, obviously, like anyone else. He said: No, I do not need it. I have myself and I have my Cabinet. No problem with that, but we would submit – that is not everybody and it is not necessarily the full scope that should be looked at. What is the problem with having as many people as you would like, or could get, involved in giving you advice? At the end of the day, you get to keep your own council. That is why you are the government. That is why you would have the Cabinet and the Premier.

We do, and we had yesterday, the Premier said we met with business leaders in the Province. No question. In fact, they have a Business Advisory Council. I believe it comes under the Department of Business that the Business Advisory Board is structured under. They meet with the minister quarterly and they meet with the Premier annually, according to their annual report, or more if and when needed.

Now, that is a specifically designed advisory board, but obviously everybody needs to react when certain circumstances occur based upon what the circumstances might be. We did not know, nobody knew, for example, when you created the board, and I am sure the Minister of Business and the Premier did not know in January, 2008 that we were going to have the economic circumstances that came upon us starting in August of this year. Nobody anticipated that. It was not anticipated here. It was not anticipated nationally or internationally, but the fact is, the world is unravelling when it comes to economic circumstances, folks. It is not only here. In fact, we are probably – and certainly, based upon the financial information yesterday. We are probably one of the better situated jurisdictions, certainly in this country and in the world when it comes to the situation we find ourselves in. At the end of the day, if everything comes to be and in 2009, certainly by 2010 all the economists are predicting we are going to come out of this again and things are going to improve. Great! Not a problem.

The question is, have we considered all the options that we might have as a Province now, so that we do handle it the best way that we possibly can? It looks like we are going to have some bucks if you needed to do something, without ever going into a deficit situation like other governments are going to have to consider. The federal government is going to have to consider deficit financing, apparently, to spend its way out of this recessionary time. We look like, as a Province, we are not even going to have to do that. If the government decided they needed to, they had the choice of not putting the money down on the debt and to use the money for, if they decided, for example, an increased infrastructure package. They had the money there to do that.

All we are suggesting is, what is wrong with having as much advice as you can get? That is the purpose for the suggestion. It does not take a lot of time. It is not an issue about who controls. It is about having as many heads as you can possibly have involved to see what suggestions are out there. A lot of people do not feel that they can approach governments unless they are asked and invited, and that is all that is being suggested is: Why not invite people? It does not have to be an expensive proposition. It can be low key. You can ask the business leaders. You can ask the municipal leaders to come in and have whatever, a two-day, three-day session and see what ideas are out there.

Now, with respect to the Business Advisory Board – and I say, by the way, a lot of people in this Province that I know of, anybody who knows of the existence of the advisory board has nothing but respect for the persons who sit on it. We have some of the best business brains in this Province involved in that board, without question, but if you look at them, you talk about sectorially, they are not all represented on the Business Advisory Board. You just need to go through their resume. That is not to say because you have a business that is in one sector, you do not know something about other sectors as well, but why would you not include somebody who would be from the other sectors?

For example, I do not know if there is anybody on the Business Advisory Board who specifically has or is involved in the fishing industry. I do not think so. I do not think there is anybody on the Business Advisory Board that is involved in the forest industry. I do not think there is anybody who sits on the Business Advisory Board who is involved in the mining industry. I do not think there is anybody on the Business Advisory Board who is specifically involved as one of the processors or producers of our offshore industry. That is not to say that the Premier should not, and he should utilize the Business Advisory Committee to his best advantage, but what I am saying is that that committee has a specific mandate.

There is nothing wrong, I would suggest, with asking people, business leaders from other sectors to get involved, the manufacturing sector in particular. What is wrong, for example, with the - I know we had John Steele on the board, but there are people around, even his own father, like Harry Steele, for example, who have a multitude, years and years of experience that they could offer. What about Mr. Penney, for example, who has so many diverse businesses in this Province and elsewhere? What is wrong with asking him if he would be able to be consulted even? That is all we are suggesting here. To close the door and say that we are not even prepared to take the time for a twenty-four or forty-eight hour period to invite these people in to see if they have any ideas that they can contribute to us, I think is short sighted. It is not to say that you are not doing well financially.

The question is: Is there anything out there that we possibly might miss? Let’s not take a chance on possibly missing it because even though we might be rosy financially, there is no doubt that there are a lot of issues going on in this Province that are not so rosy. For example, we can ask if we want the 1,400 workers out in Grand Falls-Windsor and surrounding area do they feel comfortable?

We can read a statement showing that there is going to be a surplus of $1.3 billion but we still have a problem, particularly in rural Newfoundland, that there is going to be a lot of people in this Province who are going to be out of work in the next two years. One is Grand Falls-Windsor. I mean here we have a case where we had an industry that started 100 years ago. It existed through Commission government. It existed through the 1930s, the depression. It existed through two World Wars. It existed through the inflationary times of the 1970s. It existed through the recession that we had in the 1980s and yet, it could not exist past this Administration. So we have major, major issues. Major issues, I say.

Now, for example, people will ask again: Is enough being done?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the minute you even suggest to the government that maybe they should look at something else or maybe there was a little shortfall somewhere, they get defensive, because they do not want to listen obviously, and that is what this motion is all about.

I quote, for example, from the Minister of Natural Resources in this very House, during this session when asked about the Grand Falls-Windsor mill, she said: Don’t worry, we have a committee struck. We have a task force, she said, on page 2341 of the December 4 Hansard. She said: We have a task force struck and it has been on the ground for three months.

Now, that is suggestive that you have been doing something, folks. Yet, we have the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development in the paper today, who had a meeting yesterday in Grand Falls-Windsor, say: We are starting the process. We are going to get involved. We are going to start the process.

Now that seems to be a little bit inconsistent from a minister who says we have been on the run and on the ball for three months, to another minister saying: Oh, yeah, we are going to get around to this now.

We are out here today, December 9 – or December 8 - for our first meetings. There are some inconsistencies there, folks. There are some inconsistencies there.

These people are not prepared to consult. These people are not prepared to consult with anybody. I understand one of the suggestions yesterday was: Well, maybe we can put the displaced Grand Falls-Windsor workers to work on the transmission line for the Lower Churchill.

That is one of the suggestions, apparently, that came out of the governmental group. Now, that is only hearsay and I hope that it is not correct. I certainly hope that is not the hare-brained scheme that the government is trying to sell to the people of Central. Because if we are going to try to bring a program in and put them to work on the transmission line there are all kinds of questions about that one. What transmission line? Where will it be built? Where is it going to go? Is it even on the drawing board yet?

Let’s see something a little bit concrete before you start tooting your horn yet as to what you have achieved and what you are going to do for the people of Grand Falls-Windsor. It is not only Grand Falls-Windsor, by the way; there are a lot of communities in Central Newfoundland that are impacted by this, and it is not only mill workers.

For example, I understand that there might be some negotiated assistance for the mill workers who have a collective agreement, in terms of severance. Is there going to be any severance for the loggers? Was that included? Is that going to be done? I understand that their collective agreement does not provide for any severance for them. Has government taken that issue into consideration and tried to fight for severance for the loggers who are impacted by this? I understand it is in the hundreds in terms of direct employment but it is in the thousands in terms of indirect, the loggers and so on. It is a case again of: Can we ask anybody else out there if they know something other than ourselves?

We had an indication here again today from the minister, in terms of IOC, there are going to be impacts and shutdowns up there. What consultation has gone on between the government and the people of IOC, again, in terms of preparation? What are the impacts of it going to be? What do we do to offset this negativity for our workers and for our economy and our communities?

We get the minister saying she is going to get a phone call this afternoon. News flash, folks: this has been on the go for some time now, and the minister is going to get around to a telephone conversation today to figure it out – and this is a group who thinks, no, no, we do not need to consult with anybody. We do not need to consult with anybody. We have all the answers over here. We have all the answers over here. Yet, every single calamity that we see in this Province gets dealt with on a reactionary basis - reactionary.

It is like Wabush. Have there been any consultations between the government and Wabush Mines concerning their situation? We know there was not much on the IOC situation. Have there been any talks by the Minister of Labrador Affairs with the people of Vale Inco as to what is happening up in Voisey’s Bay?

We know what the minister thinks about the officials of Voisey’s Bay. He expressed that here the other night when he got up and spoke. That sounds like a great way to have a positive, productive relationship.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time for speaking has expired.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the global economy is in crisis.

Yesterday the Bank of Canada, which had previously sugar-coated the issue of recession somewhat, indicated that Canada was now entering a recession. If the hon. member opposite wants to talk about news flashes, where has the Bank of Canada been for the last few months? If we want to talk about news flashes, where is the technical recession that Prime Minister Harper talked about?

The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that we are in very volatile times economically and it is very difficult to know where these times are going; however, that should not take away from the significant statement that was made yesterday in terms of the surplus, and the $1.27 billion. Nor should it take away, Mr. Speaker, from how we are going to deal with that surplus. We are going to deal with that surplus for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Opposition today raised a number of issues about the problems that we are encountering here in our Province. Well, news flash, it is hitting us too. Rio Tinto issued a news release. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, they are cutting 14,000 jobs worldwide, 12.5 per cent of its workforce. Rio Tinto is the world’s second-largest aluminum processor.

Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do, as a government, is what we have been doing for the last four or five years, since 2003, what my predecessor and his predecessor did, keep us on a steady economic course. We were left a mess by the Liberals, Mr. Speaker. We were left a debt that was at $11.5 billion. There was a current deficit of almost $1 billion.

What we have managed to do, Mr. Speaker, as a government, is deliver, we hope, unless oil goes away to nothing, our fourth consecutive surplus. What we have managed to do, Mr. Speaker, is reduce that debt, or we will have reduced it by March 31, to $9.2 billion. We will get that debt hopefully, Mr. Speaker, into the $8 billion, under $9 billion, potentially before this year is out.

How have we gotten there, Mr. Speaker, because lets not forget what we hear today? All I hear from the other side – I heard it today from the Leader of the Opposition and I heard it from the Opposition House Leader – is what we are not doing. That is the problem with the negative approach. Let’s look at what we are doing, and what we are doing is doing things right. Mr. Speaker, that is not me just saying that. We are talking to economists both on a local and a national level and we are talking to business leaders. What is being suggested to battle recession we have been doing for a number of years. We have, Mr. Speaker, reduced debt, as I have just indicated, we have created employment and continue to create employment, we have reduced taxes, and we are maintaining an aggressive infrastructure policy. Now, we have done all that, Mr. Speaker, while maintaining social programs that are significant to the quality of life that is offered in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, last year – I am looking at 2007-2008 numbers now – we contributed, and I can’t find my numbers but by memory I think it was $2.3 billion into health, almost 37 per cent of our expenditures, and $1.3 billion into education, 20 per cent of our total revenues. Mr. Speaker, out of a $6.35 billion budget, 56.7 per cent went into health and education. Now, that is not a government that is not addressing the issues. We are reducing debt, we are creating employment, but we are concerned and we are contributing to our health and social programs and our education programs. We have, as outlined by my colleague today, the Minister of HRLE, contributed $100 million to a poverty reduction program. So, we are addressing the issues.

What has come upon us, Mr. Speaker, is something that no one predicted. However, in our Economic Outlook, 2008, there were suggestions that the US economy was in severe trouble and potentially heading for recession. When it hit, Mr. Speaker, it hit big. Now it is starting to hit us in this Province, but we are told and we believe that we are in as good a situation as anyone in this country to deal with the problems. What I was told, Mr. Speaker, approximately a month ago by several economists of the major banks, was that we, along with Saskatchewan, are not in recession at this point. Again, recession can be a somewhat technical term, Mr. Speaker, I think in two quarters of negative growth.

Let us look at what we are doing. Let us look at what is happening in the United States, Mr. Speaker. We have, in the United States, 1 million jobs lost in September, October and November; a million jobs. In Ontario alone, Mr. Speaker, in the month of November, 66,000 jobs were lost. Now, that is not to diminish the seriousness of what is happening in our Province. We are acutely aware of the difficulties that are faced in Grand Falls-Windsor, in Wabush and other parts of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the government, including the minister for Grand Falls-Windsor, was there yesterday. The Minister for ITRD was there. The Minister of Natural Resources is obviously on top of everything. If we have a company that is not investing in its facilities and is looking for an excuse to get out, which according to the letter I read in the Telegram yesterday from the president of the local union is what Abitibi Bowater wanted to do, then how can we change that? If we have a situation where a company as big as Rio Tinto decides that they are going to make world-wide cuts and that affects us, Mr. Speaker, we have to try to roll with that. We have to see what is going to happen with the economy.

When we have oil prices, Mr. Speaker, that go from $147 at one point to $38, again we have to be very cautious where so much of our revenues are based, 37 per cent in 2007-2008, on oil and mining royalties. Mr. Speaker, $1.7 billion was contributed to the 2008 coffers through oil royalties.

What can we do other than monitor the situation, Mr. Speaker, and consult with experts? Now, that is the key that the Opposition House Leader seemed to miss. If the Opposition House Leader - and I come back, Mr. Speaker, to the Private Member’s bill. The Private Member’s bill suggests that there be an all-party committee, I think he suggested: "…that the House of Assembly urges the Government to establish an All Party Summit on the Economy chaired by the Premier to bring together union leaders…"

Well, union leaders, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with them as we speak. We have, as we stated on numerous occasions, an extremely generous, the most generous, wage package in this country on the table right now. Business leaders, we are meeting with them. Municipal leaders -yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in relation to our fall update the Mayor of Labrador City, Mr. Graham Letto, indicated that he thought the fall update was very positive. We had the President of the St. John’s Board of Trade singing praises about the fall update. We have Bradley George of the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses - all saying that this is what the Province should be doing. Yet, what do we hear from across the way? The same thing that we have heard now, Mr. Speaker, since we have been here; negatively.

Do you know the problem, Mr. Speaker? They just cannot accept that they screwed this Province up so bad and we are putting it back on track, because that is what happened here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: "…to promote dialogue towards a shared vision …": well, we do not share the Liberals’ vision because we do not know what that is. We have a vision and that vision is being followed.

"…and to develop a plan to address the economic challenges facing our Province…": We have a plan. We have had a plan since 2003. We are implementing that plan and we will continue to implement that plan. We do not need the Opposition House Leader to share his vision for a plan because we do not know what plan he has.

"…to address the economic challenges facing our Province.": To bring together members of this House – I thought last week, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the Official Opposition could no longer sit on the Management Commission because they do not have time. Was I wrong on that, I say to the Minister of Transportation?

MR. TAYLOR: They couldn’t make it.

MR. KENT: They could not make it because they are too busy. Yet, all of a sudden they are going to provide us with their expertise.

I say to the Opposition House Leader: What expertise do you have here? If you want to send us a resume we will consider you putting on a committee, but until then, Sir, we do not see any expertise. In fact, what we see is an individual who was there when this Province was almost bankrupt. That is the reality of the situation, Mr. Speaker.

Is that the advice we want, how to go back to an $11.5 billion –

MR. T. MARSHALL: Bankrupt the Province.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, to bankrupt the Province. Thank you. Those are great words there from a former minister.

So what we have done, Mr. Speaker, is we are putting this Province on track to deal with what is a global economic crisis. What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is what the people of this Province elected us to do. There is no excuse for what we are doing. It is a plan that is well laid out. There is a reason that are forty-four of us sitting here and over there, and there are three Liberals, because the people of the Province chose to have us govern, and their confidence in us, Mr. Speaker, is being returned, with a fourth consecutive surplus, with a plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: So, with all due respect – and I really thank the members opposite for their offer, if you can call it that, to sit on a shared committee. With all due respect, I do not see what they can offer.

Now, I have not heard anything that the Opposition House Leader can offer, and I hear the Member for Port de Grave chirping in the background but I am not sure what he can offer, other than a petition every day. So what we have, Mr. Speaker -

MR. BUTLER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Oh, hear him again, chirping again. The chirper! The chirper!

So what we have, Mr. Speaker, is an ineffective Opposition, an ineffective Opposition. We have a Member for Port de Grave who absolutely has no power, cannot get anything done. So there you go -

MR. BUTLER: How would you know?

MR. KENNEDY: Look at what is being done over there, sir. You tell me.

So, what we have, Mr. Speaker, is a situation where we have a Liberal Leader who is playing politics every day. That is what she does, fair enough. We have an Opposition House Leader who sees the negativity in everything, and who else is over there?

What I say to the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, if they have a vision, if they have a plan, we are certainly willing to listen to them. We are certainly willing, but as long as we hear the negativity – the Opposition House Leader started out good today. Mr. Speaker, the plan we have in place is working. It is the business leaders of this Province and this country who are telling us this.

What else are we doing, Mr. Speaker? We are meeting with the – there has been a finance ministers’ meeting. The Premier has been to a First Ministers meeting, and I went with him, and there is another First Ministers meeting. We have met with economists, both local and national. There is another finance ministers’ meeting coming up next week, and while there I will meet in Toronto with some more of the economists. I have spoken to the individuals – or one company who specializes in oil pricing and analysis, and yesterday we met with a number of business leaders. Now these business leaders were a cross section of our society, and what was the message that they gave us? The message was stay the course; maintain the approach; pay down debt; deal with the situation as it arises and as it exists but continue to spend on infrastructure as we have been doing. It is a six-year, $4 million plan that by any standards can only be described as aggressive.

I really thank the Opposition for this opportunity today. This is a great motion, a great private member’s bill that gives us an opportunity to talk about the economy, to say to the people of this Province that we recognize the challenges ahead but we are on top of it. The $1.27 billion surplus that is projected for this year is not simply by accident. It is as a result of the prudent fiscal management of my predecessor and the Premier and this government. It is as a result of a vision, one that is shared by all of us on this side of the House and the people of this Province because they are the ones who put us here.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think when the - my only suspicion when the Opposition House Leader brought in this motion, I do not think he expected that the fall update would be as good as it is, because obviously, why would he bring in a motion to talk about the economy when things are as good as they can be? But, we have to enter the next year with caution because we do not know, having regard to the volatility of commodity prices and the volatility of the economy, where it is going.

Thank you very much, 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 very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to stand and to speak to the motion that was put before us by the Opposition House Leader: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urges the Government to establish an All Party Summit on the Economy chaired by the Premier to bring together union leaders, business leaders, municipal leaders and members of this House to promote dialogue towards a shared vision and to develop a plan to address the economic challenges facing our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the Minister of Justice say across the way, when he was talking about things that he has been hearing from this side of the House - I presume he means from the Opposition side of this side of the House because there is a whole group of us over on this side of the House. He said, after he named a couple of members of the Official Opposition, who else is over there? Well, I am over here, and I would like to speak to this motion that is on the floor today.

I would like to talk about some of the knowledge I have of the type of consultation that goes on in other countries around the world when it comes to how governments run. I do not know every country in the world, but I do know some of the work that is going on that is so progressive in countries that we might not even stop and think about as being progressive countries.

One of the ones I am aware of is Brazil. Brazil has a tremendous model where the government consults with people on the ground everywhere in the country, where the people of Brazil are considered to have the knowledge and to have the experience that is useful to government, to know how to work in the communities, how to make the economy work for everybody in Brazil.

Now, Brazil started from a pretty awful place when they started this process because you have a tremendous diversity of income in that country, tremendous diversity of people who have quite a bit and people who have very little, and you have quite a diversity in the country of urban and rural. It is an amazing country, but they have been successful in putting together a process that engages the people of Brazil in the political process on an ongoing basis, not just at the time of elections.

They have put together a process of education and involvement so that when people vote, they are voting coming out of their engagement in their communities and their engagement with government. When government meets, it just does not meet with groups by each group by themselves, different groups of people at different times, business leaders by themselves, union leaders by themselves, community leaders by themselves. They meet with people openly and they meet with them in a transparent way and an accountable way and ideas are shared from different sectors of the society. I do not think that when the minister meets with a group of business people from St. John’s or even from the Province in a room, that you have there a cross-section of our society. You have a cross-section of business people, but you do not have a cross-section of our society. What I like about the suggestion that is being put forward by the Opposition House Leader in his motion is that we are talking about a summit that would bring together all aspects of society.

I remember Prime Minister Brian Mulroney doing this once; I think it was 1988. He had an economic summit in Ottawa. I was actually at that economic summit. It was very interesting to spend two days in a room in the same group, because you stayed in the group that you were assigned to, and a group that really was a cross-section, a group that did have a community organizer and social activist like myself sitting with the CEO of a large corporation, sitting with union leaders, sitting with MPs, and talking together about what was needed for our economy in Canada.

This is not something to be afraid of. This is not something to run away from. I do not know why our government is afraid to have all of us sit and talk together.

Last spring, when we were dealing with the bill that was to put the new act in place for the Energy Corporation, we did something really good in this House. We dropped the rules for a few days, the rules of the House, so that we could all work together and try to thrash out together what the bill should look like, what the potential act would be. We talked about amendments. We looked at various amendments; we looked at the possibilities. The CEO and other top people from the Energy Corporation were off in another room. They were consulted with, lawyers were consulted with, and we were all working together to try to put that bill together and to come up with something we could all be satisfied with. I think, at the end of the day, we all felt we had done a good piece of work. That was an experience of even in this House, with some outside people, of our working together and doing a good piece of work.

What is wrong with having that kind of consultation happening, that kind of discussion happening, on a broader level? I would love to see it built into our system, as it is in Brazil now. I know that is a dream, and it is a dream I can work towards, but we could at least do it occasionally. We could at least, as is suggested here, at a time when we have a crisis on our hands, and a time when we are going into a recession, that we could take time to bring everybody together in a summit for a couple of days to have this kind of discussion; because there is the danger, when we are talking in silos, that we do not really hear what is being said in between those silos, that the silos are not talking to one another.

I guess I differ with the Minister of Finance when it comes to his interpretation of what is going on out there with regard to responses to this recession that is going on. There is not one position by economists with regard to what should happen. There is not one position by business people with regard to what should happen. There is not one position with academics. There are some varying positions, but the one consistent thing that I am hearing, and I am hearing it over and over – and I am reading reports from everywhere in the country. I am reading from all of our major newspapers. I am reading from all of the people who are thinking this through in our country. I do not know where the minister is coming from, but the one thing I am hearing consistently is that you do not take care of a recession by toeing the line, that you have to take care of a recession by sort of feeding the recession, by stimulating the economy.

There is an economics professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, and he puts it this way. He is frustrated with the whole thing of the fear of having a deficit budget. He says, and I quote: My God, you can run a deficit in your budget or a deficit in your economy.

As I have said in this House, or you can run a deficit in the social fabric of our community. Where is the best place to have a deficit, in our budget or in the social fabric of our community?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having some difficulty hearing the recognized speaker.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Where do we run a deficit? There are all kinds of opinions out there. We have various opinions here in our city. Some of the professors at Memorial, our economics people, are saying the same thing, that we have to put money into the economy. We have to come up with new jobs. We have to come up with more spending and infrastructure. We have to put more money in people’s hands. That is what we are being told.

I found it very interesting that the minister talked about Mayor Graham Letto. I have heard Graham Letto say more than what the minister heard him say, and I have seen it reported in The Telegram. What I heard Graham Letto say was: This is fantastic, that we have over $1 billion surplus.

It is fantastic, but Graham Letto did not say put it all down on the debt. Graham Letto said: Now is the time for us to put more money into the infrastructure that is needed in this Province in the municipalities.

He went on to say - and I have heard Graham say this at a meeting of the Municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador, as others in the House have - he went on to point out that the municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador need billions – that is with an s at the end – billions of dollars to meet their needs.

Just imagine if the government even took only half of this $1.27 billion and put it into the municipality infrastructure needs in our Province. Wouldn’t that we wonderful? We would have work happening out in the communities, and I am willing to bet we would find the workers out in those communities if all the sudden infrastructural needs were going to be met out in the rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. We would find that we would be sparking the economy out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador if we started meeting the needs.

What if we did bring everybody together into a room and really hear what the needs are? We heard Mayor Dennis O’Keefe say the same thing this week. He too said: it is great, it is wonderful, I am really excited, and now maybe we can get some infrastructural money both from Ottawa, where he is expecting in January they will make an announcement of infrastructural money, as well as from the Province.

It is funny how the minister could hear one part of what Mayor Letto said and not the other part of what Mayor Letto said. He accuses people on this side of the House of not telling the whole truth and not telling the whole story and not hearing. Well, he gave us an example today of his doing exactly the same thing. So, we cannot cherry pick when somebody says something, we have to get the whole story of what they are saying. It blows my mind when that kind of thing happens.

The other thing that we need to look at is how we get employment going. You know, we sit down as MHAs and we meet with department heads and we hear what is going on. We know that there are positions not filled in government. There is not a department that doesn’t have major numbers of positions not filled, and there are also departments that need new positions. Why wouldn’t government put a really aggressive plan in place for hiring more graduates out of the university and out of colleges here in our own Province and get them into the public service, get them working? Why wouldn’t it put much, much more into getting nurses into this Province to deal with the terrible lack we have of nurses in this Province? There is so much that can be done.

What is wrong with bringing everybody together and sharing the ideas? What is wrong with having our local economists talking in the same room with the business people, the academics talking with the community people, and government people and Opposition members all sitting in a room together? It is not unheard of. It is happening around the world. Why does this government think it is such a strange idea? I know some of my colleagues in the government well, some of them have been friends for many, many years. I know how some of you think. I think some of you are probably thinking inside, she is making sense right now. If it can happen elsewhere, why can it not happen here? What is wrong with this? If the government in Brazil can make itself do this kind of thing and say, this is the way to do it, why could we not do it here?

I remember in Nicaragua, after the revolution in Nicaragua, when they had so little in that country - and they still have so little in that country, because so many powers-that-be, like the United States of America, tried to keep them from moving ahead after the revolution. I remember after the revolution, with their new government, what did they do? They engaged the people in government. They engaged the people actively in government. They got their ideas; they tried to see how they could all together work on those ideas. This is not pie-in-the-sky, this is not a stupid concept, it is called democracy. This is what democracy is all about.

We wonder why people do not come to the box and vote. It is because they do not see a place for them in the democratic process. Just dropping a ballot in a box is not enough. If we were to engage people in the democratic process, number one in our school system, which some schools do very well, if we were to engage them at all levels in our democratic process, where people really thought their voice meant something, that their ideas were being listened to, they might bother to come to a box on election day and put a ballot in.

I would encourage my colleagues on the opposite side of the House, who think that this motion is a stupid idea, to actually sit down and think about it and say, you know what, this makes some sense. Why could we not all vote for this motion in the House here today? I fear it might not happen but I cannot see what is so awful about this motion that my colleagues on the government side of the House would not be able to vote for it. I am certainly going to support the Official Opposition –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the honourable member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS MICHAEL: Just to clue up, please, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MS MICHAEL: Two or three sentences, that is all. I will be supporting my colleagues in the Official Opposition, not because we are both in Opposition in the House but because I think it is a logical thing to do, as I said. It was done by the Progressive Conservative government of Canada under Brian Mulroney back in 1988. Surely to goodness, if Brian Mulroney did it, it cannot be that bad an idea, could it?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I leave it at that and I am glad to have had time to put my ideas on the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade & Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is my pleasure to take the next fifteen minutes or so and talk to the motion that was presented today.

As has been indicated, the THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED section of the motion indicates that we are being asked to have an all-party summit on the economy, chaired by the Premier, to bring together union leaders, business leaders, municipal leaders, and members of this House to develop a plan to address the economic challenges facing our Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is being done every day that we as a government are here sitting on this side of the House. This is not something we need to pull together. This is something that is being done. It has been indicated already by some of my colleagues, in numerous Question Periods, and as well here today, that we have engaged with the people, we have engaged with business, we have engaged with unions, we have engaged with municipal leaders, and we have engaged with the opposition. We have done it on the floor of the House of Assembly. We have done in it the board rooms. We have done it in the back rooms. We have done it in the community halls. We have done it in the drugstores and the supermarkets. We are constantly getting feedback from people. Every day that I go back to my office I have numerous phone messages and e-mail messages.

The opportunity to talk to the people, the opportunity to get together and hold a summit, is not something I believe we need to do, because we are doing it, we are doing it every day. The result of the summit, as I understand the motion, is to develop a plan to address the economic challenges. Well, Mr. Speaker, it was read here in the House of Assembly yesterday by my colleague, the Minister of Finance – it was called a financial update – we have, as a Province, in our financial update, delivered yesterday, December 9, we have $1.27 billion of surplus. I would suggest our economic planning is not too bad. I would suggest that the way we are conducting the business of the Province is going very well, if we are able to see that kind of result as a result of a financial update being presented by the Minister of Finance.

Now, what did he talk about? What did the Minister of Finance say that we are doing? He basically talked about a financial plan, an economic development plan that we have consistently been doing since the day we were elected. He talked about maintaining and accelerating infrastructure spending. I am going to come back to that in a few moments. He talked about creating employment. He talked about lowering taxes to free up more money for people to be able to spend in our Province. He talked about reducing our debt to lower our interest costs. I will come back to that as well. He talked about continuing with our prudent financial management.

Well, Mr. Speaker, those five points, if I could call them the five pillars of our economic plan, are the pillars that are being reiterated by the economists of not only the Province but the country. I have read numerous articles from leading publications, newspapers, magazines in this country and outside the country that are talking about doing the five things that we have done. They are saying that countries need to do this. They are saying that provinces need to do this. We have already been doing it. We have been doing it since 2003 when we formed the government. This is not new to us. This is not something that we need to start doing. This is something that we have begun five years ago. It is something that we have been consistent with and it is something that we are going to continue to do.

Why are we going to continue to do it? Because we have $1.2 billion surplus. We have paid down our debt. We have lowered corporate taxes. We have lowered personal taxes. We have increased infrastructure spending. We have increased social spending. We have turned this Province around. We have done the kinds of things we need to do to allow the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to be able to weather an economic storm, the kind of economic storm that the world is now facing.

Now, are we immune from the effects of that storm, Mr. Speaker? Not by a long shot. But are we in a better position today in 2008 than we were in 2003 to be able to buttress ourselves against that? We certainly are. That economic storm will have some impacts on this Province, we would be foolish to think otherwise, but we are in a position to be able to deal that. We are in the position to be able to fight that and to be able to support the people of this Province.

Now, some of the commentary based upon the financial update that was given yesterday, I think it is important that we talk about that. The President of the Board of Trade for St. John’s applauded the message from government. Over 600 businesses in the greater St. John’s area, as I understand it, are members of the St. John’s Board of Trade. Their president applauded the message from government. The five pillars that we have built our economic plan on are working.

The local representative for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, of which I for over twenty years was a member, by the way, Mr. Speaker, when I had a role in business, small business people, the backbone of our economy spread throughout the Province, every nook and cranny of the Province, what did he say? Here is his comment, Mr. Speaker: We were pretty pleased.

That is what the local representative for the CFIB said about the economic plan of this government.

Now, let’s talk about Mayor Graham Letto as was referred to by my hon. colleague from across the House. She referred to him in some of her comments. Besides being the mayor of a local municipality, he is also the president of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. What did he say? He said: Clearly, this government’s fiscal plan is working.

That is what he said. That sounds to me like we have the pulse of the municipalities. That sounds to me like we have the pulse of people who are out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It sounds to me we have the pulse of the business community. It sounds to me like we have the pulse of what needs to be done for this Province to continue to succeed and continue to be able to prosper.

The hon. colleague who introduced the motion indicated that he thought the main purpose of the motion was to find out if anything else can be done. Well, I would say if there is anything else that can be done we are certainly open to hearing about that. There is nothing stopping people from making suggestions to the government. There is nothing stopping people from making suggestions to any Member of this House of Assembly.

If you feel there is more that can be done, or something that has not been tried that you would like to see tried, by all means bring it forward. As I indicated, it happens every day. When I go back to my office now at 5:00 p.m. I will have a couple of dozen phone calls and e-mail messages from not only my own constituents but from people around the Province, from every area of the Province, every regional zone in this Province, giving me input into how they feel we are doing and what they feel we should be doing and what they would like to see us do more of.

I accept that. People have every right to do that. I expect that, in actual fact. I am glad that I am getting that kind of input because I believe it shows that people feel I am open enough to make a suggestion to, and hopefully I will listen to it and respond to it. When the calls stop coming, or the e-mails stop coming, is when I will be worried.

I am sure that every Member of this House of Assembly, when they go back to their office, will have similar things to respond to. People can do that, Mr. Speaker. People can certainly do that to us.

A little while ago, Mr. Speaker, two or three weeks ago, I attended what was called a Team Canada Atlantic mission, where a group of businesses and government officials from Atlantic Canada went to the United States - we actually went to Chicago - to promote the services and the products of Atlantic Canada, and I was fortunate enough to attend a meeting with the Mayor of Chicago, a gentleman by the name of Mayor Daly. He would be the young Mayor Daly, as people down there would refer to him, as his father, the old Mayor Daly, was mayor for about, I believe, twenty-three years.

The young Mayor Daly will pass his father’s record of service as the Mayor of Chicago in this term of office. He will actually serve more than twenty-three, twenty-four years, which is the record that his father held. So those two gentlemen, the father and son, will have almost half a century of being the Mayors of Chicago. That will tell you the kind of support that they have received down there. He is at about 70 per cent in the polls, as I understand it.

Here is what Mayor Daly said, when we asked him about the economy of the United States and what he felt needed to be done. He said: Invest in infrastructure. You need to invest in infrastructure. You need to keep your tax regime low.

I mentioned earlier about the five pillars that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, mentioned yesterday. Number one: What did he say we were doing, and were going to continue to do? Maintain and accelerate infrastructure spending.

Just for the purposes of pointing out the number, to give people some sense of how much money we are talking about, our infrastructure strategy, which is over a six-year period, Mr. Speaker, is valued at $4 billion. That is b as in billion. So we are investing, over the next six years, $4 billion dollars in our infrastructure strategy. Mayor Daly from Chicago, which is the hub of the Midwest of the United States, the Continental United States, when asked: What do you think we should be doing? said: Invest in infrastructure.

This past weekend I had the fortune of attending the Council of Atlantic Premiers’ meeting. Premier Graham from New Brunswick brought up the global crisis that he feels is going to impact Atlantic Canada and is, in fact, impacting Atlantic Canada. His number one priority was investing in infrastructure. We are already doing it. His government – New Brunswick, now, a much bigger province than ours – is investing $1.2 billion. We are investing $4 billion, almost four times, or three-and-a-half times as much as New Brunswick. That is what we are doing in this Province.

Premier Ghiz of Prince Edward Island talked about the same thing, and Premier MacDonald of Nova Scotia also indicated that infrastructure spending was important.

Now, what are we doing as well in terms of infrastructure spending? I was Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment; we invested in our infrastructure. We invested in housing. We put, if memory serves me correctly, and I don’t know if I have the numbers here in front of me, but when we did our housing investments we increased our M&I budget by $4 million per year, over a six-year period, $24 million in total. We started that in June 2007. We added an extra $4 million a year.

In our Provincial Home Repair Program, over $5 million a year, double the budget, effectively, we doubled the budget. Why did we do it? We did it to reduce the wait-list of people who wanted to repair their homes. We did it to get money out into the communities. Eighty per cent of the PHRP money is utilized in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That brought money to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It brought money out into the economies of rural Newfoundland and Labrador so that we could have economic activity, so that we could have people employed, employed in the areas of fixing up homes.

We did the tax cuts. We have done it on a corporate level; we have done it on a personal level. The Fraser Institute released a study that ranked Newfoundland and Labrador fourth among provinces for the best investment climate, placing us ahead of what they refer to as economic heavyweights Quebec and Ontario. We only trail the western provinces. Alberta was the best, followed by Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and then Newfoundland and Labrador. We are the fourth-best place in the country in terms of our investment climate.

What did the Fraser Institute look at, Mr. Speaker? They had an index that they compared the provinces on. It identified seven areas as being the most important for investment climates: Corporate income tax, we are working on that. Fiscal prudence, we have certainly done a great job with that. Our debt has gone from almost $12 billion down to under $10 billion. Personal income tax; transportation infrastructure - on transportation infrastructure alone, Mr. Speaker, we have gone from having $6 million a year being spent on our roads, highways and bridges, our transportation infrastructure, to over $70 million a year, over a tenfold increase, and you can see it when you drive the roads. I drove back last night from Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Speaker; it was a pleasure to drive the roads, much different than it used to be. Corporate capital tax, labour market regulation, and burden of regulation were the other indexes that they used.

Or ranking as fourth-best in the country was helped by the fact that for burden of regulation we ended up having the best ranking, meaning we have the least amount of regulation. Second-place ranking – we came in second – for fiscal prudence and labour market regulation.

The point I am making, Mr. Speaker - and I will clue up my remarks; I realize my time is running short - is that we believe the plan that we have is working. I appreciate the Opposition’s motion. It is appropriate at certain times that we do things like this, where we get people together. I have no difficulty with that on a personal level, but in this particular case, I would suggest to you, it is a redundant motion to bring forward simply because it has already been done. We have been doing it since 2003. We are continuing to do it, and the results speak for themselves.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to rise and second the motion put forward by my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and to support the motion.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate here in the House of Assembly and I am somewhat disappointed by the response from the government on this particular issue. This is a government who likes to pride themselves on being open and accountable, on being responsive to the people of the Province, but at the same time, when we have one of the most critical times in our economic history of this decade, they are refusing to call together the business minds and the leadership of this Province into one room to look at new ideas and new opportunities, and that is really what this motion is all about.

I sat and I listened to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, the Member for St. John’s Centre, and I cannot believe what I am hearing from this member. This is a member who has never thought himself to be an empire unto himself, to have all of the answers. He has always been an individual who has been open minded, who has been out there consulting with the people in his district. I know that because I have talked to them. All of a sudden today, he sits there as the Minister of Industry for the Province and says we have all the answers; we do not need to talk to anyone else.

MR. SKINNER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development on a point of order.

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two points, Mr. Speaker. The first point is that the portfolio is innovation, not industry, Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. The second point is that I never did say or hold myself out as having all the answers, although at times the hon. member might think so.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I only have fifteen minutes and I would like to ask members if they would keep their point of orders until I get my time finished and then they can all stand up on one because I am sure there are going to be many more.

Mr. Speaker, the minister, in essence, is saying today that we already have the answers, we have consulted, we do not need to be doing this any more, we have been doing this for years and we know now what needs to be done. Well, that is unacceptable and not good enough in my mind. What consultation that has been done was done in the context of a different economic climate, I say to hon. members. It was at a different time in our history. It was at a time when we were not suffering the financial setbacks that we are going to be looking at over the next two to three years. It was at a time when investments from the private sector were filling the gap of government investment into the local economy, and we all know that.

All we are asking, Mr. Speaker, is that some of those people out there in our Province be brought together in the one room so that we can all have the opportunity of dialogue together collectively. You look around the world today and every single government is leading, but they are leading in consultation with all of those around them; not only across Canada but even in the United States. Almost every single province that have announced a stimulus plan announced behind it a group or a board or a summit or a gathering in which they would talk about the economy of their provinces and where they need to go from here.

Mr. Speaker, we have those people in our Province. We have them. I look at people like Ches Penney who is the largest, private sector employer in Newfoundland and Labrador, a man who employs today 5,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, right from one end of this Province to the other; who operates businesses in every sector, from construction to the fish business to the car business. You name it, they are involved in it. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Why would we not ask to talk to these individuals? How their industry sectors are going to be affected, where they see the vision for the Province on a go-forward basis. I think those are the things that we should be doing.

I look at people like the Woodward Group of Companies in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker, a company who started business and operations in one of the most challenging areas in this Province; who grew a company over the last thirty years to be province-wide and national wide in some sectors that they operate in; who operates in every facet; who employs hundreds and hundreds of people in this Province; who has visions for the future. Why are we not asking these people to come together and to talk to us at a time when we see there is going to be a shift in our economy and we may not, as a government, have the kind of business opportunity that there was in the past, have the revenue to be able to invest like we had in the past and look at new ideas on a go-forward basis?

There are many other businessmen in this Province and women that I am sure their advice collectively could help the inner circles of the government there shape the agenda on a go-forward basis for the people of the Province. So, the fact that you close your mind to that has a strong message. The fact that you close your mind to the opportunity to leave something like that sends a strong message. Maybe the reason they are voting against it is because it was an idea that was put forward by the Opposition, but I certainly would not want to think that people who govern this Province could be so small as to think in that kind of a manner.

Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Premier in the House of Assembly, would they call together the business community, the leaders in this Province, and I talked about municipalities, zonal boards and so on to do this summit. We could have been out there asking the Federation of Municipalities, or the Board of Trade, or the Chamber of Commerce, or anyone to do this, but we feel that the appropriate people to do this is the government. We feel that the appropriate person to lead this is the Premier of the day, who leads the people in this Province. That is why we ask that government be the people.

If you look at this motion, there is no political partisan in this motion. It is a very respectable motion that is respectable of the position that the government holds, that holds them up as being the lead in this Province and asks them to do something on behalf of the people of the Province in their capacity, and they vote it down - or at least they are speaking against it. So we will see what happens.

Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Premier about consulting, this is what he said: Essentially, what we were told – and these are the leading businessmen in the city, or in the Province actually – is that there is nothing further we can put into infrastructure. We do not have the capacity.

Mr. Speaker, he was talking about the advisory council on business in the Province that was appointed by the government –

AN HON. MEMBER: That’s not true. That’s not what he said.

MS JONES: Well, that was what he said in his response, that they had consulted with the advisory committee on business in the Province, which we know the advisory committee on business is an appointed committee –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MS JONES: - appointed by the government and we also know that these individuals – I looked at the list and I said surely these individuals did not advise the government not to spend money in infrastructure in this Province. I cannot believe that these individuals would have said to the government: The economy is going to overheat. We do not have any workforce in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have no contractors left. We cannot spend any more money in infrastructure because there is no one to do the work.

I can guarantee you that Graham Letto, the president of the Federation of Municipalities, did not tell this government, don’t spend money in infrastructure. In fact, I would say the president of the Federation of Municipalities, instead, said to this government, what a great time to be spending more money in infrastructure. I bet that was what he said, but I looked at the people on the Business Advisory Board and I looked at Ron Ellsworth, a councillor here in the City of St. John’s, and I would like to know if Councillor Ellsworth actually advised the Premier and his government not to spend money on infrastructure in this Province because we do not have the capacity to be able to handle it.

Mr. Speaker, did Alec Snow, who sits on this board from Labrador City, the very town where IOC is downsizing, where Wabush Mines are laying off hundreds of people, did Alec Snow advise this government, do not spend more money in infrastructure in this Province, when he lives in an area where there are hundreds of people being laid off?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear that from Alec Snow’s mouth myself. I would like to know where Councillor Ellsworth stands on all of this, as a councillor in St. John’s, advising the government not to spend money in infrastructure in this Province because we do not have the workforce, we do not have the capacity, and we do not have the contractors. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not buy into the argument.

First of all, I do not buy into the argument that these individuals actually advised that. Secondly, I do not buy into the argument, Mr. Speaker, that we do not have the workforce and we do not have the contracting companies, because there are thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are losing their jobs today in this Province, and there are thousands more being sent home from Alberta, who do not have a job to go back to, so I beg to disagree with the government in terms of what our workforce abilities are going to be on a go-forward basis, Mr. Speaker.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I looked at the list and I see that Paul Hatcher’s name is there. He is on the Business Advisory Board. Now, he had no problem when the government put $15 million into a cable deal, as part of a company of which he was a part. He had no problem then, Mr. Speaker, with the government dishing out infrastructure money, when $15 million of it was going into a company that he was part of, to put infrastructure in this Province, but now I am hearing from the government today that he is advising them, don’t spend any more money in infrastructure in this Province because we cannot handle it. Well, I would like to hear what Mr. Hatcher has to say about that. Is that exactly how he feels?

Frank Coleman, on the West Coast of Newfoundland, Mr. Coleman, who spent money investing –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like to ask for the members’ co-operation so we can hear the member speak. I ask for members’ co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Business sits there and shouts from his chair. Maybe he should stand on his feet as a minister in this Province and tell the people how he is going to deal with the shift in the economy, Mr. Speaker, instead of twiddling his thumbs in the place that he is, and doing absolutely nothing for the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me get to this. Frank Coleman sits on the Business Advisory Board for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I would like to know if Mr. Coleman actually advised this government not to put any more money into infrastructure, not to give out any more contracts in this Province, because the economy was overheating.

Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. Coleman has spent a lifetime developing business on the West Coast of Newfoundland, employing people in this Province, and creating jobs in the area in which he lives, and I somehow find it unbelievable that he could be advising the government today that you should not be spending money in infrastructure, you should not be spending any more money to create jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, because there is no one to go to work.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, on a point of order.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is going to get up and debate what we should be doing or should not be doing for an economic stimulus in Newfoundland and Labrador, she should at least portray what was said by the business leaders of Newfoundland and Labrador in an accurate fashion.

She was not in the meeting. If she does not know what they said, fair enough, but it was clearly said that the people who attended the meeting with the Premier yesterday said: Stay the course. The plan that you have laid out from an infrastructure perspective is solid. Keep doing it. Don’t put any more money, any more than you have already identified, into the infrastructure strategy, because the capacity does not exist in the construction sector in Newfoundland and Labrador to handle any more than we have allocated presently, Mr. Speaker.

That is what the people said, and anything other than that is a misrepresentation of the facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The minister is entering into debate; it is not a point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The members opposite know that when they stand on a point of order they only interrupt the amount of time that I have to debate this particular motion on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, what I am talking about is, when I asked the government what they were going to do to consult with businesses in this Province, I was told in this House of Assembly, and it is in Hansard, that they had consulted with the Business Advisory Board in Newfoundland and Labrador. They said they had consulted with businesses, and businesses are telling them not to invest more money in infrastructure because we have no workforce to take the jobs, not to invest any more money because there are no contractors to do the work, so therefore it is status quo. As the Minister of Natural Resources would say, steady as she goes.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that the Business Advisory Board is considered and is made up of individuals that I talked about today, like Alec Snow in Labrador West, like Frank Coleman in Western Newfoundland, like Ron Ellsworth in St. John’s –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - and I would like to know if they are the people telling the government that they should not be investing money in infrastructure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member’s speaking time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a privilege for me to stand today and speak on the private member’s motion. I quietly listened to what some of the other members had to say here this evening, Mr. Speaker, and I have to say, of everything I heard today, one of the most telling items that comes out of this private member’s motion is that they want to form an all-party committee with the leaders, with the Premier as head, as chairman of the committee, the Liberals want to be a part of this committee, and the NDP want to be a part of this committee. I heard them here today talk about the economy and put words in people’s mouths. They talked about the Premier meeting with the business committee, which was wrong. He met with people from the business community, but certainly not the business committee that is struck by this government.

Mr. Speaker, the telling tale of it all, I did not hear one thing they thought we should be doing differently. I did not hear one suggestion, not one, not one suggestion. We talked about infrastructure. They never said one thing that we should do for infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note some of the things that we are doing in infrastructure. I heard the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi saying that all of the economists in the world differ. I have read a little bit about it as well, and I watch some of it on television when I get a minute, and they do differ but their themes are very much the same. I find that very few of them would say we should not spend money on infrastructure.

One of the things that the member has just referenced, and I would like to point out what we are doing in infrastructure. The Minister of Transportation and Works stood earlier and reminded people what was said in this House a couple of days ago. It is important to hear exactly what we are doing. Right now we are on a $4 billion plan, a six-year plan worth $4 billion over the next six years. This year alone, we should be in the $673 million in infrastructure. For a Province the size of Newfoundland, with a population of just over 500,000 people, it is significant; significant infrastructure, creating 6,500 person years of employment. Another significant initiative that world leaders will tell you is exactly what should happen to stimulate an economy in times of recession.

I have to continue on with this infrastructure. I did not plan to go down this road but because my colleagues here opposite seem to think we are spending nothing on infrastructure, I think it is important that we lay it out. We have $182 million in road improvements this year, included $73 million for our Provincial Roads Program, and every district in this Province benefits from that. I have heard members on this side of the House even get up and congratulate government. The Liberal members - the Liberal Member for Port de Grave, I believe, got up and actually congratulated government and thanked them last year for spending $2 million in his district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, there will be work in Port de Grave this year. There will be work in Port de Grave this year, even though this is not partisan. This is work being done in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There will be an annual investment of $84.3 million in new cost-sharing ratios to municipalities. Conception Bay South benefited $23 million this year to be spent over the next three years. What more could you want to stimulate an economy than municipal infrastructure? This is right across the Province. Everybody is taking part because of our new formula of seventy-thirty, eighty-twenty, ninety-ten, depending on the populations. So, this is significant, significant investments in this Province that will pay dividends and ride us through the waves of this recession. Like I said, if you listened to the members you would certainly think there was nothing happening. Not a thing, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that she did not see anything wrong with getting onboard and giving advice, even though she did not provide any at that time. I believe what they want to do is get aboard the train. Get aboard the train that we started rolling about three years ago when we started tackling some significant issues in this Province. I think, to be totally frank about it, I believe they are behind the eight ball. I believe they have all started late. I think the bell just went off when they watched CNN the other night and saw Barack Obama on laying out his plan. Oh, maybe we should bring this up this week. Maybe this is a good point. Mr. Speaker, we thought about this. We certainly did not see the recession coming as it is but what we did understand was the importance of sound financial management and putting us on a correct financial footing in case anything was to happen worldwide, nationally, or certainly provincially. That is something we have really worked on.

The messages - and my friend from Signal Hill–Quidi Vidi talked about it earlier. She said there were inconsistent messages when you talk to economists, and I mentioned it earlier, but the themes are very, very much the same. Sure, some people would say we should do this, some people would say we should do that, but really it comes down to a number of straight themes; a number of themes that we had to go by, and I would like to lay out those themes. A former member mentioned it earlier. Certainly, these themes are there to stimulate the economy and to help us, like I said, ride the waves through this current economic downturn. These five that we listed, and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board reiterated yesterday, and I think it is important that we touch on them again. First of all, maintaining and accelerating infrastructure spending; creating employment; lowering taxes to free up money to spend in the Province; reducing debt to lower interest costs; and, of course, continuing with prudent fiscal management.

Mr. Speaker, again, I remember just recently when the member who introduced the bill here earlier made a few comments. I have to say, it was very forthcoming. He said he was pleased with what was happening now. He was not against many of the decisions we made and he was in favour of the infrastructure. He was even in favour of putting money on the debt.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I remember a while back when we got a cheque for $2 billion because of some significant work by the Premier of the day in negotiating on the Atlantic Accord with Paul Martin, how we spent that money at the time. There was great debate in this Province how we should spend it, in particular from my colleagues here who sit alongside of me on the Opposition benches. They were not sure that we should put $1.953 million, I believe it was, on debt. That was something they were not so sure about. They thought that we should take money away from that. They thought we should go out and spend it differently. For us, as a government, it was very easy for us to do. Everyone of us - there is not a district in this House, certainly not on our side of the House, and I am sure that my colleagues on this side would feel the same, that could not have used an extra hundred feet or mile of pavement. There is not a district that could not have used another road done, and water and sewer. There is not a district that could not have used a water treatment facility, or another grant to do up the local recreation facilities.

There were many, many of us, Mr. Speaker, in this House who could have used the money to try to get ourselves re-elected, many of us. But, no, this government made the prudent decision that, no, we were not going to take this and blow it on an election campaign. We were not going to go out and steamroll everything and have a roller run someone over while they are out knocking on doors in their district. We decided that the fiscally prudent thing to do was pay that down on our debt. It is for that reason, I might add, that we are in the position that we are today and able to ride out this storm and rough seas.

Mr. Speaker, we have done all these things, the five items that I just read out, over the last couple of years, but one of the things I am proudest of, and like to talk about quite a bit, is while we did all this to secure us for the future, is our investing in our social programs. Certainly in our health and our education, and of course, our Poverty Reduction Strategy, which we see of the minister here today, recognized people who work for us here in government, public servants who have been recognized nationally for the efforts they have put in in our Poverty Reduction Strategy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is funny I should say that, because I recently attended a wellness conference in P.E.I. It had people there from all of Atlantic Canada. I happened to mention the Poverty Reduction Strategy, and two or three people from the crowd, after it was over came up and said: You know, your Province has it right. Your Province has it right. For wellness initiatives, the first thing you have to do is reduce poverty. I have to say, it was one of those moments when you are from Newfoundland and Labrador, you stick your chest out and say thank you very much, I appreciate the acknowledgement. Because we are doing things right, even though we are making the fiscally prudent moves like paying down the debt, we have something like a $100 million Poverty Reduction Strategy.

I know my friend from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi can never seem to get enough of that. I talked about it last year, that the Minister of Finance went around with a debt clock to remind everybody just how quickly the debt rolls up and how important it is to pay down on debt. Like I said at the time, I think the NDP should have NDP calculator, because every time they talk the number goes up and up and up. I guess there is a reason why Bob Rae almost drove Ontario into bankruptcy, because if that is the philosophy of that party, why would we want them on an all-party committee or a joint committee to help drive the finances of this Province?

Mr. Speaker, I just do not see it. I hope that the people on this side of the House continue to believe in Santa Claus, because they certainly have a better chance of seeing Santa Claus this year than they have of forming an all-party committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on a few of those initiatives that we have talked about. Of course, the infrastructure spending, I just went down through it. There is maintenance to roads, bridges, ferries, schools and health care facilities, as well as water and sewer. I mentioned the Town of Conception Bay South, a town I know probably better than many of the rest simply because I live there and I know what they have accessed over the last little while. Mr. Speaker, this year in excess of $500 million in infrastructure, if that is not going to stimulate the economy and do what we have set out.

The Premier touched on it the other day. He said these are the same items that Barack Obama has chosen, and made light, tongue-in-cheek, that maybe he was looking at our style. Mr. Speaker, you go anywhere around the world right now and you will find that the initiatives that we have taken over the last number of years are what countries are taking currently. Countries are taking these initiatives - they are very similar initiatives - currently to ride out the waves, and this is something I am proud to say that we did some time ago.

Job creation, Mr. Speaker, is a key initiative. Many of the economists will agree that job creation is certainly the way to go to ride out a recession. I guess this Province is certainly in good stead when it comes to creating employment. We have a number of projects that are happening over the next little while and coming on stream. We have the White Rose expansion, we have the Hebron and Vale Inco hydromet facility in Long Harbour, and we are certainly confident that these very high-value projects will proceed. We have the Hibernia South expansion.

Mr. Speaker, these projects alone will inject $2.1 billion into the economy in 2009 and $1.9 billion into the economy in 2010.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker - we are on the topic of employment - that will create 10,750 jobs and spin-off jobs next year. Talk about creating employment; that is certainly where it is. The following year we are looking at 13,800 jobs. Certainly, creating jobs is what we have been striving to do for the last number of years, what we are continuing to do, and what we are going to do, Mr. Speaker.

Lowering taxes, I guess in the last two years we have put certainly in excess of $340 million back into the pockets of people of this Province; $340 million that people can take out of their pockets and spend. Christmas is coming, Mr. Speaker. It gives people more disposal cash. More people can go out and purchase more items, whether it is cars, trucks, vehicles or smaller items. It is certainly good to see, Mr. Speaker.

We have done a number of things to put money back into people’s pockets. We have reduced the personal income tax, we have enhanced the seniors’ benefits, we have removed more businesses from the payroll tax, we reduced the motor vehicle licence registration fees, ferry rates have been reduced, and we have eliminated 15 per cent on the tax on insurance, so we have certainly put significant money back into the pockets of people in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, something again we can all be proud of is that right now we have the lowest tax rates in Atlantic Canada. That is certainly significant in times like this. In times of recession we are certainly well positioned to ride the waves.

Reducing debt, and I talked about this earlier, my colleagues were not so sure that we should place that on the unfunded pension liability. No, that might not be what we should do. Maybe we should take half of it. Maybe we should take a quarter of it. There were all kinds of debate from the people opposite me, Mr. Speaker, figuring what we should do with it; but, no, the decision was made by our government to put it on the debt and the unfunded liabilities. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, we have now taken our debt of $11.5 billion and by the end of next year we will be down to $9.2 billion. I should say by the end of this fiscal year, March 31, 2009, we will be down to $9.2 billion.

Mr. Speaker, we always heard the statistics; it always came out that each man, woman and child in Newfoundland and Labrador owed I think it was almost $23,000. Mr. Speaker, now we are down to $18,000 for every man, woman and child, which is a significant amount of reduction.

When we hear of our surpluses of $1.2 or $1.3 billion, we have to remember that the average in this country is $10,000 for every man, woman and child. We have to realize, Mr. Speaker, that even though we are making inroads -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. FRENCH: Just leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave to clue up?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, even though we have made inroads, even though we have made massive inroads, we still have a long way to go. We are still looking at a $9 billion debt in this Province. We are still looking at the national average of $10,000 for every man, woman and child, and we are still exceeding $18,000. We still have a long way to go, and certainly prudent fiscal management is another item. That is what we have to do at times like these, Mr. Speaker.

We talk about consultation, and I will just leave it on this, Mr. Speaker, we talk about consultation. I go to my district, and I heard the Member for St. John’s Centre, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, how much he consults with his district. Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House consult with residents of our district, and the idea of it is that we come together as a group and we make plans. That is what I am doing. I know that is what my forty-four other colleagues are doing in this House. We get together, we share our concerns and we come up with a plan. It is something that we did a couple of years ago and I am very, very proud of it, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the privilege of rising in this hon. House today to address the private member’s motion as put forth by the hon. Opposition.

They are asking today: What is wrong with consultation? Well, the first thing I would ask is: If it ain’t broke, why fix it?

No doubt, as a nation, a continent, and indeed the entire globe, we are facing tough economic times, with a recession that threatens to become much worse before it gets better. Thank goodness we have a Progressive Conservative government in place that will provide the leadership and governance to navigate us safely and successfully through these turbulent waters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: What is happening today throughout the world is really beyond our control, but the tools we use to deal with it are not.

Mr. Speaker, as referenced by our hon. Premier yesterday, we have had such sound fiscal policy throughout the last five years that we are probably one of only very few jurisdictions to be posting a surplus this year, let alone a surplus that exceeds $1.2 billion.

Mr. Speaker, it would be very naive to think we are not going to be impacted by this recession. In fact we already are, particularly in the mining and paper sectors, but this is a temporary situation and certainly not a case of the sky is falling - she is gone, boy, she is gone - as the hon. Opposition would like us to believe.

Reading Hansard on December 8, page 2415, they were quite depressing, the comments from the hon. Opposition. That is not the way we look at it. We believe our Province has great potential.

We are, and will continue to be, stimulating the economy with aggressive infrastructure spending, employment creation programs, maintaining our tax cuts, reducing debt, and continuing with the prudent fiscal management that has made us the envy of many governments across the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: In terms of infrastructure, we are spending as least $500 million for each of the next two years, as highlighted by my hon. colleague from CBS a little while ago. I would like to add that we are also investing in infrastructure that supports industrial development, such as the new fish health facility being built to enhance the growth and sustainability of the Province’s blossoming aquaculture industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: We believe that the benefits we introduce should help everyone in our Province, I say, Mr. Speaker, particularly those most in need.

In the last two years, $342 million has been passed back to the people of this Province through tax cuts, increasing the seniors’ benefit, payroll tax relief, the elimination of tax insurance, reducing fees and so on, as referred to again by my colleague.

Lee Iacocca, when he brought the Ford Motor Company back to life, once said: I do not need to know enough to be a good bean counter. I just need to know enough to surround myself with good bean counters. Well, Mr. Speaker, we are doubly blessed in this Province, I say, because not only do we have bright minds at our Cabinet table and all around the caucus table, we have the brightest Premier this Province has ever known.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: The poll results released last night clearly indicate that this is what the vast majority of our Province understands to be the case as well.

Back in 1995, I was invited to participate in the federal budget consultations. At that time I was appalled by our national debt. Back then we were paying $90,000 a minute servicing the national debt – interest payments, just to pay on the debt. At that time I felt, and still do feel, that such monies would be much better spent on services and infrastructure for the benefit of our people.

When the Progressive Conservatives took over government, we were paying about $200 million more in interest payments than what we are paying today. We intend to keep reducing our interest payments to free up more money in the long term to put back into programs, services in the hands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This, Mr. Speaker, is economic stimulation at its best.

The Opposition would like us to believe it is dire straits for us, but nothing could be further from the truth. Real GDP is forecast at 2.2 per cent at a time when most economies around the world are shrinking. Retail sales and housing starts are up by 17.4 per cent and we are seeing these housing starts not just in the more prosperous urban centres, I say, Mr. Speaker, but in rural Newfoundland and Labrador as well. My district of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune is clear evidence of this, with young families moving back home to raise their children and work in meaningful jobs that enable them to be back home each night with their family and loved ones.

We are expecting employment growth of 1.6 per cent this year, even after the very unfortunate job losses we are experiencing in the paper and mining sectors. Personal and disposable incomes are expected to rise by 5.2 per cent and 5.8 per cent respectively as a result of this government’s measures to increase employment, increase wage rates, and reduce taxes. It is funny that when there is good news, we do not often hear a lot about it. Ever since -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like to remind the hon. member that according to Standing Order 63, we now revert to the mover of the motion to close debate.

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Notwithstanding the Standing Orders, if the member would like a few extra minutes to clue up, we do not have an issue with that, by all means.

MR. SPEAKER: The member by leave.

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the Opposition.

It is funny that when there is good news we do not often hear a lot about it. Ever since I can remember, out-migration has been a major issue, but this year, for the first time in sixteen years, we have a net in-migration of 1,436 people. Again, Mr. Speaker, some of these people are moving back to live and work in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: With a net debt forecast of $9.2 billion by March of 2009, during a global economic recession, we have done an outstanding job governing this great Province. Ten short years ago our net debt to GDP ratio was 70.2 per cent. With Progressive Conservative leadership, governance and policies, this will soon be down to 27.5 per cent. Outstanding indeed!

Although we will not fully escape the global downturn, we are moving ahead. Again, using the Coast of Bays as an example, let’s take a look at aquaculture. The fish are already in the water swimming. By the time they are harvested, the global recession - we should be coming out of it. We are anticipating the announcement of new developments and investments in the near future, so great things are happening in my rural, remote district.

Our policies will provide economic stimulus through investing in information technology, innovation, research and development, aquaculture, and business attraction. However, we must all realize it is imperative for government to continue to be prudent and responsible with the public purse. While there is significant good news, we do recognize that all is not rosy.

I would like to say to the people of Labrador and Central Newfoundland, which includes some towns in my district which are going to be hard hit by the closure of the paper mill, that we know what you are going through. We experienced your pain and anguish in Harbour Breton a few short years ago, but today we see the plant back in full operation because we have adapted to the fishery of the future. You just do not know what is around the corner and we have to keep our hope.

If we adopt that attitude of doom and gloom, she is gone boys she is gone, that is what we are going to get, but we, Progressive Conservatives, are not prepared to let that happen. It is going to take some time, but eventually you will get to a better place.

Now back to today’s motion seeking a summit. Mr. Speaker, this government will act on interventions as they become necessary, and it will be in consultation with the greatest economic minds and expertise in the Province, the country, and within the G-20 nations. At this juncture we do not need to waste time, money and resources organizing a one-day blitz when the door is always open for input from the public at any time. We have many venues to consult, including the business caucus, economic development agencies, chambers of commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and the list goes on. We all have e-mail, too, and anyone with innovative ideas or advice is welcome to send it to us at any time, on any issue. Should our situation drastically worsen, perhaps this issue can be revisited, but for now staying the course is yielding the best results any jurisdiction can expect in a global recession. I would also challenge that an invited guest list to a summit is not as inclusive as the methods now in place.

Mr. Speaker, there is no one I would rather have as the captain of my ship than our hon. Premier, Danny Williams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: He has already brought our Province through a nasty storm and, no doubt, there will be more ahead, but we will reach our destination of self reliant prosperity with our Premier at the helm and a fine crew of Newfoundland and Labrador men and women at his side.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The Opposition House Leader to close the debate.

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

I appreciate the comments from the government benches today. In fact, it is very enlightening. It is Private Members’ Day, of course, and that is an opportunity to put a motion forward, as was done by myself as the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile. I appreciate the comments because, again, even the comments from the government members here, some of the comments are very legitimate, make sense. Nobody is certainly going to deny that, not this member.

I particularly appreciate the comments of the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. In the way that he does it, he is very gentlemanly about it, shall we say. He never gets personal. He does not make any personal attacks. He is certainly as far from arrogant as you can get. I am sure we cannot say that about all the ministers.

Mr. Speaker, back to the motion; we are under no illusion over here that this motion is going to fly and be passed here today. Let’s not kid ourselves. We understand the nature of the game. In fact, the Leader of the NDP, albeit she spoke in favour of it, she cannot be here to vote. We understand that. She had another commitment she had to go to. We know where she stands.

These have happened before, by the way. You talk about consultation. Here is a government who talked about openness. Part of being open is being inclusive. You talk about open. This government goes around, for example, every year and they have annual consultations on preparation of their budget, every year. Yet, we get a major potential calamity when it comes to the economy and we cannot organize a summit.

By the way, for those members who keep referring to it as an all-party committee, that is not in the motion, folks. There is nobody talking about striking an all-party committee. It said there would be a summit to which everyone – and I would think all forty-eight members in this House would benefit if you got together to have a chat. It would not be the first time. We had groups up on the Northern Peninsula, back in 2002, for example, who held an economic summit, and the Minister of Transportation was there. He spent two days there. We spent a Friday and a Saturday discussing the issues of the Northern Peninsula and it was certainly, in the minister’s own words, a very beneficial exercise. He was there. He saw that, and it was very open and it was inclusive. It brought the municipalities, it brought the zoning boards, it brought the hospital boards, it brought the school boards, and it brought people in the communities together from the Northern Peninsula. There is no reason you cannot do the same thing on a Province-wide basis.

We had the Fisheries Summit, which the Premier organized, touted by a lot of people, particularly the government, as being a good thing. We had one of our major industries in a serious situation, and what did the Premier think was wise? Let’s go out and consult. Let’s bring all these fishery people together. Let’s bring municipalities together, businesspersons together, and see what we can do for the fishery.

We have lots of precedents as to where it was done, and the benefits that you can derive from it, even from this government themselves, so let’s not kid ourselves that you do not need to do it. You obviously felt the need to do it when it came to fisheries, and I suggest there is a need to do it now when you talk about the economy.

For example, even as we speak, as time goes on, like the Minister of Natural Resources in Question Period today talking about this phone call, every day there is a phone call about layoffs. The minister got another one this afternoon. I had a press release sent in to me at 3:54 p.m. today, folks; there are seventeen more layoffs in Central Newfoundland at the Duck Pond Mine. That is as we speak.

Are we going to be so foolhardy as a government that – oh, no, just let all of this go and we will keep dealing with the phone calls. If this continues, folks, the Minister of Natural Resources is not going to want to answer her phone. It does not seem to be a lot of good news. All we are suggesting is, what is wrong with being open and inclusive?

This is not something to be driven by the Opposition, as suggested by the Minister of Finance. It should be driven by the Premier. That is who should drive it, and the purpose is to be open, to be inclusive, and to consult, and there have been names bandied back and forth here today as to a lot of reputable business people in this Province who could be consulted and should be consulted.

The Minister of Finance talked about labour relations. He has consultations all the time. Sure, that is the labour negotiation and consultation particularly dealing with collective agreements, not talking about the economic issues. As we see, it is ongoing between Finance and Treasury Board and the nurses’ union, but that is a different issue. That is a different quintal of fish. They are not talking about what the economic problems are that face the Province in that context. So, yes, there are always ongoing consultations.

When you feel that you have all the answers and you do not need to consult with anybody - and for the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape La Hune to say we do not need to waste the resources and the time to do it - how shallow to suggest that we cannot take twenty-four or forty-eight whatever hours it takes to bring people in this Province together to see what their ideas are. To suggest, leave it to e-mails. We have a phone, boy, you can pick up the phone any time you like and give us a call. How short-sighted is that of a government to say we know it all, we have all the answers, don’t bother to call. We do not need to get you together. There is not a possibility that somebody out there might know something, no possibility of that, that you might know something that we do not know. That is not in the cards. We know it all, folks. We don’t need to call any of you.

By the way, I think there need to be some phone calls made. We see all the phone calls coming the other way are not too productive. We have seventeen more bodies going home in Duck Pond today that were not going home at noontime, but they know now they are going home. They know now they are going home. We have 1,400 people in Central Newfoundland who are going home. We have 1,400; we don’t need to talk to any of them. We do not need to ask any of those people what they might need or what we could do for them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate you defending me.

Mr. Speaker, just to close off, I am not living under any illusion here that this motion is going to pass. The government members have been instructed what to do here. We know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: This is not lost, Mr. Speaker, on the public. They have heard their response here. We simply have a government who are saying we do not need to talk to anybody. We know it all.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to close out debate on this private member’s motion.

Thank you very much.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). Where is your leader?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member for his co-operation.

Is the House ready for the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the resolution as put forward by the hon. Opposition House Leader carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is lost.

Motion defeated.