March 23, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 5


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to inform hon. members of a special event that is under way in St. John's today, and continues tomorrow. I am referring to the "Y Entrepreneurship conference."

This conference is a joint effort of the YM-YWCA Enterprise Centre and the Department of Development and Rural Renewal, as part of its mandate to foster the development of small businesses.

The conference is designed for those who want to start their own business, especially young people. They are people who recognize that the best opportunities are the ones we create ourselves. They may have a good idea for a business, but want additional information or assistance to help them get that business of the ground.

The conference will help them do that. The agenda sessions are devoted to such topics as researching a business concept, developing a sound business plan, understanding how marketing works, the basics of financial statements, and financing options for starting a business.

Mr. Speaker, through business speakers, group work and other activities, this high-energy conference will take participants through all the steps required to produce a top-notch business plan. It will help them empower aspiring entrepreneurs to get their business idea kick-started.

Newfoundland Labrador is a great place to do business, and the Department of Development and Rural Renewal is proud to be a partner in stimulating economic growth and job creation in the Province.

Close to 100 people have registered for the two-day conference, being held at the Battery Hotel.

I commend the staff of the Y Enterprise Centre and the Avalon Region of my department for helping prepare people to start up and operate their own small business.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I stand today to compliment the entrepreneurs in this Province who have survived and succeeded in spite of government legislated regimes and regulatory regimes.

The reality is that most entrepreneurs in the first year of business find it difficult for a number of reasons: not enough marketing assistance being provided; not enough research and development being provided.

I compliment the Y Enterprise Centre for continuing to hold this special event. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, I hope. Most of the money is coming from the federal government, with some coming from the provincial government.

I will say to the minister that your department is temporarily yours, that the Premier has other designs, Sir, for Mr. Efford, and that department may not be in your hands very long, Sir.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to support the efforts to develop an entrepreneurial spirit and provide some training to young people in particular, with the idea of starting their own businesses. Unfortunately, once people take up that job there is very little assistance for small businesses in this Province and that is reflected in the incomes that self-employed people have as compared to people in employment. So I would encourage young people (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and also encourage government to start more programs.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to provide the Members of the House of Assembly with some of the details concerning the Agriculture Income Disaster Assistance Program. This federal-provincial program is designed to provide assistance to farmers who face dramatic declines in net income as a result of factors beyond their control and for which existing programs cannot provide assurance of continuing the farm business. Up to $1.5 million will be spent over the next two years, with a contribution by the federal government of $600,000.

Mr. Speaker, this program will be implemented over two years and is open to all bona fide farmers. To be eligible for assistance, farm income must fall below 70 per cent of the average income for the previous three years. Farm income will be based on income tax returns, and take all farm income sources into consideration. This whole farm program is designed to be both compatible and complementary to existing federal-provincial safety net programs, which include the National Income Stabilization Account and Crop Insurance programs.

The NISA program is designed to help stabilize the net incomes of farm operations across Canada, through a sharing of risk with producers. The program allows producers to make limited deposits to individual NISA accounts and provides a certain level of matching funds from both federal and provincial governments. Producers own these accounts and all the funds contained in them, including the government share.

These funds can be withdrawn if triggered by either lower than average incomes or a minimum income threshold. Upon retirement from agriculture, producers can withdraw any remaining funds in their accounts.

Participation in the NISA program in Newfoundland and Labrador has increased over the last few years with eighty-seven producers holding accounts, up over an average of sixty to seventy producers in the recent past. A concentrated effort by the Agriculture Branch to educate producers on the benefits of the program seems to have revitalized interest in this program. Newfoundland and Labrador farmers now have about $1 million on deposit with the NISA program.

Mr. Speaker, additionally, crop insurance is offered to vegetable farmers to provide a comprehensive all-risk crop insurance, which in years of crop losses will provide compensation to help minimize the financial loss due to crop failure. This crop insurance is free to all farmers that apply and covers up to 60 per cent of the crop failure.

Our government encourages those farmers affected, to participate in the Agriculture Income Disaster Assistance Program. The details of the program will be announced over the coming weeks and applications will be available in all the regional offices by the end of March.

Mr. Speaker, there will be a series of workshops throughout the Province in April and May to assist staff and producers in participating in the program.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for forwarding this statement to me in advance.

This is a good program and it obviously has merit. If the minister is serious about the agrifood industry, his department would be doing more to ensure the industry locally is competing on a level playing field.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: For example, we import 90 per cent of what we consume in this Province, largely because we have not encouraged the industry to grow properly over time. The minister and his department should begin by investing in cold storage facilities for our root crops. This would add to production and increase growth, which means more jobs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know there has been a difficult time working out a program for the Newfoundland farmers who have suffered from crop loses and weren't covered by insurance. I'm glad to see that this is finally taking place.

Some of the other programs that are there, such as the NISA program, are available if you have income to put into it. What we really have to do, Mr. Speaker, is aggressively pursue on all fronts an agricultural strategy that is going to result in higher incomes and more food being produced locally.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I invite all members of the House and all members of the general public to skip a lunch tomorrow, March 24, and donate the money that they would have spent to the St. John's School Lunch Association.

This is the second annual SKIP-a-LUNCH event held by The School Lunch Association to raise awareness of the issue of child poverty and its affect on children's education, and to raise funds in support of the Hot Lunch Program operated by the association in city schools.

This event is endorsed by the hon. Premier and Mrs. Tobin, the entire Liberal caucus, the Department of Education, and many prominent figures from political, business, arts, entertainment and media communities. I am well aware that hon. members opposite endorse this program as well.

Founded in 1989 by a small committee of individuals who recognized the correlation between hunger and a child's ability to learn, The School Lunch Association helps children take full advantage of their educational opportunities by operating a non-stigmatizing program that provides hot, nutritious lunches to children at school, regardless of their families' ability to pay. The organization is funded by corporate and community donations, the sale of meals in schools and 25 per cent of its budget comes from the Department of Education, in the form of a grant, which is currently $75,000 annually.

There are children in our city for whom, by necessity, skipping lunch is a daily reality. I encourage everyone to SKIP-a-LUNCH tomorrow, March 24, so that our children won't have too.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I certainly commend the St. John's Lunch Association for their efforts to address this very worthwhile cause. I have seen firsthand the affects of children coming to school hungry. I only wish that individuals would not have to be going around fundraising, that this could be taken care of with good, solid government programs to deal with this specific issue. I do not hesitate to endorse the SKIP-a-LUNCH. We have to certainly support these things because, again, hungry kids in school do not learn properly.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too commend the SKIP-a-LUNCH program. I think it is worthwhile. However, there are many people, many children across this Province in all areas, who are going to school hungry each day. In order for this program to be effective it has to be a universal program that is in place throughout the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: I might say to the other side of the House which is heckling that it is too bad that their social conscience was not in play when they were determining the amount of increase they were going to give to the seniors in this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

If this Province had an accountability act like other provinces - I am going to sit and wait for the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. If our Province, this government, had put in place an accountability act like ones that are in place in other provinces, such as Alberta, which demands full and honest reporting of the Province's fiscal situation on a quarterly basis, the people of this Province would have known this fall or last fall what was confirmed, what was not confirmed, and what government refused to confirm until yesterday: that the Province did not have a $55 million deficit, as the minister said one week; we did not have an $85 million deficit, as the minister said last week; we did not have a $40 million deficit when the fall came, or a $30 million dollar deficit as the minister said in January; but, in fact, that the budgetary surplus was known by this government in October.

The question is, why did -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Bonavista North, when you are the House Leader you can stand and interrupt. Right now I am asking the Minister of Finance a question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. TULK: For the information of the hon. gentleman, any member of this House can stand and interrupt any time they like.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

The question is: Why did the Premier and the minister blatantly - and I say blatantly - hide the true budget numbers from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador last fall, and withhold emergency health care funding despite desperate conditions for four months in order to save this information to further exploit and expedite their own political agenda? That is the question that must be answered today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that what he just said is a pile of nonsense.

The government cannot say with any certainty before year end what exactly the figures are. The reason is that we get about fifteen different updates on equalization entitlements and personal income tax, corporate income tax. We get them all through the year.

It is customary, and it is a custom I frankly dislike, at mid-year to give a report of what direction the Province is headed. In any given time those will be up and those will down, your monitoring expenditures; government takes corrective action.

The government knew, frankly, in January, when we got first reports, that our position at year-end probably would result in a surplus. We were getting some indications toward the end of January that the amount would be greater. We did not know what exactly the amount would be, and we are always concerned that there might be downward fluctuations as well, so we do the prudent thing. We do not do like the hon. member does: one week claim a deficit of $60 million, next month claim a deficit of $150 million.

If we listen to the hon. member, or if we did what the hon. member suggests, we would be aping him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal with that in a second, because his own numbers confirm what I said last fall. In fact, will he confirm that the department was advised in October by the federal government that they would be in receipt of an additional $128 million; in October, previous to your statements?

We were told yesterday by officials from the Department of Finance that early in October the Department of Finance and government was advised that the budgetary figures from federal transfers would be up by at least $128 million. Will he confirm that took place in October, and when he stood in his place and alluded that there would be a $40 million deficit that he was not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows that the statements he just made are totally unparliamentary and he has to withdraw them.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if I have made an unparliamentary remark I certainly withdraw it.

Let me rephrase the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked his question.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question. I heard a lot of commentary.

Let me say to the hon. member, and repeat what I said in answer to his first question -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: We will probably receive an update in June or July as to what they expect the amount would be, what it might be, what it will be, what it... We receive updates all the time.

What the position was in October, I, frankly, do not remember. I can tell the hon. member that at any given point during the year the picture is incomplete. The first solid news we had that we might have a surplus at year-end was towards the end of January. We received an update in February, we received an update on Budget night, and the next day it had gone up again.

I say to the hon. member that if his idea of running a government is to run out and make public estimates that the federal government gives him on a virtual monthly basis, he will have the Province in a panic very quickly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not sure about a panic, but at least the people of the Province would get some accountability and truth from a government, which they have come to expect. That is what we are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Budget proves that this Province would have had a massive deficit if not for the gift from God, from Ottawa. In fact, his own numbers...

He just alluded and said that my numbers were incorrect. Last year's statements, in his Budget statement, clearly show that this government overspent last year by $163 million. So, the numbers that we were putting out were correct, Minister; they were not false. The reality was that they were based upon your own Budget estimates, not our Budget estimates; yours, Sir.

The question is, that while confirming this on page 7 of the document, will you stand today and do what is required and apologize to the people of the Province for not putting health care on his priority list, for his overspending; despite, when he stood here last year and said that he could not find another $10 million, he knew that he had an additional - at least - $128 million last October, and told the people that he did not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Stand and apologize, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will apologize. I will apologize that, in bringing in a Budget, people have to listen to the tripe and the questions that the hon. member gets up on. I think the public deserves an apology for certain nonsense the hon. member is getting on with.

Mr. Speaker, now that I listen to him about all this stuff about the deficits last fall, that wasn't me who said it; that was him who said it. If I recall - I have to dig out the news release - I invite the press to. He was the one who was getting on all last fall: The deficit is this; it is not $50 million, it is $30 million, it is $100 million.

The hon. member is going down a very dangerous path; because if there is one thing I have avoided doing it is speculating about what the position will be at year-end inasmuch as we can. We try to give people a reasonable picture.

Let me answer the hon. member's question directly. Yes, we spent more. We said yesterday in the Budget, if he read it or if he listened to it, or if he certainly had occasion to refer to it since -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Exactly. We would have been precisely on budget. We would have been within about $5 million to $7 million of budget.

What we choose to do - we said yesterday in the Budget, if the hon. member remembers, there was a Budget deficit forecast of $10 million. Our net increase in revenues was $205 million. That leaves $195 million to be accounted for. We were $6 million down in revenues on current account. That gets you down to about $188.9 million. We deferred $51 million, which included $52 million of hydro revenues, which gets you down to $137.9 million. Our surplus was $4.3 million and we detailed in the Budget the $133 million. Forty-five million of that was spent to retire debt, a good investment of the Province. Another $41 million of that went to pre-pay expenses, and the other amounts were accounted for in the Budget as well. They are all listed.

As far as what the government did with the money, it is clearly set out. People see it. We invested $31.7 million. That is it. We were dead on the Budget. What we have done is we have deferred money to future years which is a prudent and wise thing to do. We prepaid expenses that could easily have been put to next year rather than taking it this year. Mr. Speaker, the member's problem is that he does not understand how to manage an economy and that is what is motivating these questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It is pretty clear that had they not received the additional $180 million they were not anticipating, this government would be standing here today trying to explain to people how their mismanagement, their spending sprees, went off the rails and that the federal government took them out of hot water. That is what is pretty clear!

Let me ask him this. The government spin doctors are telling people this is a health care budget. When you subtract the $40 million that has gone merely to cover past debt that the boards had to build up just to provide basic services, the reality is this. When you add it all up, where is the essential money that goes to address wait list backlogs, cancelled procedures, patients on stretchers, nurse, doctor and health care burnout, that are plaguing the system more now than ever, I say to the minister?

Won't you admit that you have done essentially nothing to address the crisis in front-line health care? We will be hearing more of the stories that this Member for Ferryland has brought to this House to shame that government into doing something. Won't you admit that over the next year we will be hearing even more of that coming to this Legislature, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is spouting pure argumentation that has no basis in logic or thought.

Now let me ask him this. We spent all this money. Isn't this terrible? He is citing shortages in hospitals, waiting time and so on. So let me ask him: Would he have not spent the $40 million to alleviate the debt in the regional health care boards? Would he not have spent $21 million on equipment for hospitals? In the same breath that he says it is terrible, that government is not managing the hospital system properly, he is faulting us for funding it. We have added $45 million to the hospital base budget.

The hon. member is just trying to be incendiary in this House and he is losing sight of all the important and wonderful things in this Budget. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, let me ask him: What would he not do? Would he not fund an additional $4.1 million to recruit salaried physicians? Would he not increase the dispensing fee? Would he not implement the new Child, Youth and Family Services Act? Would he not introduce a tobacco reduction strategy? If the member wants to talk about health, look at what we have done, and don't stand in his place and complain that there are problems in the system and then fault us for spending money to cure the very things he refers to. Pure hypocrisy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what I am not losing sight of is that this government, these ministers, are starting to believe their own malarkey. That is what is happening here!

The reality is this. Yesterday the minister stood in his place and said - when he said last year the government would suffer financial consequences, we talked about how the government would suffer financial consequences, that the Term 29 award was over, there would be declining compensation, actual dollars in revenue, coming in from HST compensation funds.

We now know that we were right. This year government has chosen four more one-time budgetary measures that it will not have next year: a greater Hydro dividend, a dividend from the Housing Corporation, an extra dividend from the Liquor Corporation, and a transfer from the sinking fund. Will the minister admit that his statements about no new taxes in this Budget are not quite so accurate, since Hydro, Housing and the Liquor Corporation will have to find new ways to finance the dollars that the finance department has just shuffled from their accounts into their revenue? It is all smoke and mirrors, isn't it, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. The dividends from Hydro are not one time. They are recurring dividends that come in each year. We did not take them into revenue because frankly we did not need them this year and we deferred them to a time when we would need them.

Secondly, none of the things that he mentioned will result in increases. The amount taken from Hydro will not result in increased electricity prices for consumers; neither will liquor fees go up because we are taking money. Part of that $5 million is cash on hand that we are taking. Neither will housing go up, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is flopping about trying to find something to criticize in what is a superb and magnificent budget, and certainly better than any of his predecessors were ever able to bring into this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, talk about deceit. During the election campaign public service pensioners were promised by this government, by this Premier, that they would pay attention to their concerns once they were elected. They were led to believe that there would be a serious readjustment with respect -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That's right. There was a gentleman who said last week in this House: Mr. Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: - you laid your hand on my shoulder and you said that it would be taken care of.

Will the Premier or will the Minister of Finance confirm -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

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

Will the Minister of Finance confirm that his new seniors benefit will put about $3.86 a week into the pockets of the poorer seniors, which will only represent about 10 per cent to 15 per cent of those poor seniors, and do little or nothing for most of the public service pensioners who have had no raise in benefits since 1989? Will he admit that he sold out the Province's public service pensioners, and what he said to them during the election is not what he delivered on in this Budget yesterday, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, neither the Premier or any member of this government made any promises to public servants. Quite the opposite. We had said we are prepared to negotiate indexing at the table and we are. If employees of this government are prepared to pay for indexation, they can have it. What people should expect out of a pension plan is the benefit they paid for, and not more than that.

Let me say that we did deliver on our promise. We promised that we would look at an equitable program for seniors that benefited not only retired public servants, but every person in the Province. If the hon. member's idea of governing in the best interest of the people of the Province is to confer special privileges on people who work for government, then I have to say we disagree with him. That is wrong in point of principle. It is wrong in point of equity to use general taxpayers' revenues to confer a benefit on a small group of people, including public service pensioners.

Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that government pensioners will benefit to exactly the same extent, in exactly the same manner, as every other retired senior in this Province. That is the way it should be.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services, or the acting minister, or anybody who cares to respond. Minister, yesterday in the Budget it was revealed that $40 million was to retire debt accumulated prior to 1998 by the hospital boards around this Province.

Just prior to February 9 election there was an announcement that they would retire the debt from the 1998-1999 year, of which that $20 million announcement by the minister indicated $15 million would go to retire that debt, plus $10 million they had already earmarked. There was a $25 million deficit announced back in January.

Where is the money that was promised during the election, I ask the minister? Will you tell this House how that extra $15 million that is here in the Budget this year for the upcoming fiscal year is going to enable boards in this Province to provide the same level of service as we had last year when they overspent their budgets by $25 million?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. Opposition House Leader that I do not know if he clearly understands or incorrectly explained -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DICKS: No. Look, I say the hon. Opposition House Leader asks an intelligent question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: I am delighted to have one to deal with. All I am asking him - and I am asking him because I want to make sure he understands it. We will answer whatever questions.

What the government announced yesterday was that we were paying off the debt accumulated to March 1998. That is $40 million, Mr. Speaker. What we said in January was that we would fund an additional $15 million to the institutions' base budget.

The hon. member may know that the institutions get in the vicinity of $600 million to $700 million. I do not have the exact figure with me. In 1996, our first year, we gave them an additional $10 million and $20 million, and we announced the additional $15 million. That is a total of $45 million for their operating budgets. We did not say that the $15 million we announced in January would go to retire any debt. I think he understands that distinction.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand it quite well. I understand the Premier huddling all the health care people out there in a room out in the lobby, and telling them that: We are overspent, this year's budget, by $25 million. The Minister of Health said: We held back $10 million we did not earmark to those boards. We are going to use that, and we are going to use another $15 million out of that new $20 million to help them meet their overruns for this year. The other $5 million is going to go for equipment.

It is loud and clear to me, Minister. Apparently you are confused on the money that is being spent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I have asked the question already. If you want me to ask the question again I will. I will ask it again. Minister, how is $50 million extra this year, going into a $700 million facilities budget around this Province, going to give us the same level of service this upcoming year as we got last year, when we overspent by $25 million last year? How is this going to fix the problem?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, we have varying boards around this Island who manage their affairs with varying degrees of ability. The $40 million has cleared up the debt to March 1998 of last year. Okay? The additional money that was voted in the current year's Budget 1998-1999, before we get into the new fiscal year, had $10 million to be distributed among the boards. The minister waited on doing that because we did an in-depth financial review of the institutions.

We announced another $15 million in January. The debt that the member is referring to is the current year's debt. We are not paying off all the debt of the boards, we are paying out to the end of March 1998. Now some of these boards, frankly, should and will do a better job of managing their affairs. Of the money we provided, of the $20 million, $21 million, $6 million of it is for better financial reporting information systems within the hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, the member is confusing two things. The debt we paid off is not in the current year, it is in prior years. Part of the money will be distributed among the boards in accordance with their needs and their ability to provide services. That is what the $25 million will go to.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, not at all. That is not what Mr. Peddle said, how he thanked them, that they are overspending $25 million this year and we are glad to have that $25 million, that $10 million and $15 million. It will really help the process.

I want to say this to the minister. Last week as I was leaving the Health Sciences Centre at 9:30 in the night I was stopped by an elderly man who received a call the day before to tell him and his wife to come in. They said: We have a bed now available for you. They rose and they drove for three hours from Bonavista Bay, got to the Health Sciences at 12:00. As I was going to the hospital that night at 9:30 they stopped me - and several other people before I got to the door - but this one individual one told me they were waiting all day long. The bed they were called in for is not there. I do not know if they ever got a bed that night or afterwards.

I am asking the minister this. Those problems are going on every single day in hospitals here, and I have names to go with them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask the minister: Is that any way to treat the sick and elderly? Where in this Budget is there provision to provide beds for such people whose medical experts have determined need surgery or other forms of treatment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me explain something to the hon. member. The $40 million that we are providing to pay off the debt, if you think about it, has a very beneficial effect. All these institutions are paying interest on that debt. When we pay off that $40 million worth of debt that will free up operating funds within the institution that is now being used to carry overdrafts and pay, in some cases, substantial amounts of interest on it.

Just let me say this to the hon. member. What I find interesting about his position, and that of his Leader, is he is detailing a particular health care problem. I accept it, and I understand that at times the health care system has problems coping with the demands placed on it. It varies from time to time and we try to deal with it.

We have put money in there. We have put an additional $25 million this year over last just in their operating budgets alone: the $10 million we announced in last year's budget plus $15 million. In the last two years it has been increased by $45 million. I mean, that is very substantial on a budget of $600 million to $700 million.

What I find most intriguing about the Opposition's questions here today is that his Leader is attacking us for spending money on the health care system, and the health critic is getting up and criticizing us for not spending enough. I do not mind answering questions, but I would like them to at least get together beforehand and give us a cohesive, coherent position for us to answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is the Minister of Finance's version of it. There is another version. It is called the true version, I say to the minister! That is the true version!

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance on a point of order.

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible) it is not my version of it, it is Hansard's version of it.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister that there are people waiting almost a year to see medical specialists in certain specialty areas. Almost a year in several I'm aware of, specialty areas you can't see a doctor.

It is a common occurrence to see people lined up - and anybody who wants to visit there, do so - in emergency departments here in the City. People want their health care needs addressed and improved. During this past election campaign they were given hope and promise that would happen. Even the Premier said the Minister of Health is a nurse -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: His Deputy Minister is a nurse. Every night he goes home to a nurse. He tells nurses: Trust us, we will handle your concerns. During this campaign it was told that there was $40 million on February 6 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will ask the minister this. In the Canada Health and Social Transfer, why is your Budget only showing $4.4 billion new dollars over last year under the Canada Health and Social Transfer? Where in this Budget are those problems and backlogs, that they promised would be met, being met?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We never said there would be $40 million available under the CHST. Quite the opposite. The hon. member must surely have heard the federal Budget and the pronouncements of myself and the Minister of Health and our colleagues here who are concerned (pause in tape) $15 million. As the hon. member says, it is far less than that.

In fact, we have made it very clear for well over a month what the unfortunate circumstances to the Province were as a result of changes in the CHST and we are not very happy about it. Nevertheless, and I answered the question in the House last week, we intend to go on and maintain a constructive relationship with the federal government.

Now he mentioned specifically what is happening with physicians, and there are physician shortages. I am sorry my colleague is not here. The recruitment efforts of the Department of Health are paying off. My recollection is that since this year they have recruited something in the order of twenty or so physicians. If the hon. member looks at the Budget details, we have also devoted $4.1 million to recruit another thirty-five. We are aware that there are physician shortages. This is what we are doing to answer it.

Having said that, there may never come a day when everybody will be able to see a physician right away. I agree with him that there are some circumstances and some specialities where there is a waiting list. We are in a very competitive environment in North America, trying to obtain specialists. We are spending money his leader does not want us to spend on the health care system. I'm sorry, I agree with him. I think we are making the right decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm telling you the Minister of Finance should check with the Premier to make sure they are singing out of the one page in a hymn book. That is what I should tell him, and I would give him a copy to prove that.

Minister, mental health in this Province is in a crisis. Out on the West Coast of this Province there were no psychiatrists, and then there was only one to serve the whole West Coast. I'm sure the minister's riding is very much aware of that.

Young children cannot get the psychiatric care they need. There is a long waiting list and they have been left there with only seven psychiatric beds here at the Janeway. The people are being denied care. We have reached unprecedented levels on waiting lists for cardiac surgery in the history of our Province, I say to the minister, and this Budget addresses none of those concerns.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his supplementary quickly.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will ask the minister this. Where is the solution? What is your solution to the concerns that we have expressed here today? What solution does government have? The Budget has not provided it. We would like to hear it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our solution is to do what the hon. member suggests, and that is to provide more money in the Budget. We are providing another $15 million in base operating budgets, another $20 million-odd in equipment. That is for reasons, as I have said, almost a $100 million extra to the health care system this year over two years ago. That is not including the other initiatives. We mentioned the physicians and the new hospitals we are building around the Province.

These are all necessary, Mr. Speaker, and I agree with him. I do not think that you could ever find enough money to completely satisfy all demands in the health care system. We agree, it is our priority, it is the public's priority and to the extent we can find and devote money to it we have been doing it. We believe we are doing it successfully. If he does not believe us he should check the election results on February 9.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. A little more than five months away from the start of the 1999 school year the education system in many parts of this Province is in chaos with parents, students and stakeholders of all natures not sure what is going to be going on, where they are going, what schools will be closing, and the quality of programming.

In this context the people were looking to this year's Budget to do something to address the chaos by holding a line on teacher allocations, at least for this difficult transitional year. We have seen, or I saw yesterday, the government's commitment to education, and it is 182 fewer teachers. Why? Why did this government back away from its commitment to make education a priority in this year's Budget? Why is it cutting so many teachers when it needs more to take care of the chaos that is going to be there for us in this coming school year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the hon. member's assertion that this government has contributed to the chaos in the education system, we have in fact reinvested $11.8 million by keeping in the system an additional 238 teachers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the reality of today in this Province is that we have a severe declining enrolment in our student population. In fact, we are seeing 4 per cent of our student population decline on an annual basis. If we were to follow the formula which has existed in this Province, 418 teachers would have come out of the system.

We recognize as a government that we are going through education reform. We realize we have to work with the school boards. We have to work with the NLTA. We want to make sure that at the end of the day we have a good, sound education system. We have done that, and what we are doing is ensuring that we have enough teachers in the system to deal with the student population.

We have not taken down the number of teachers according to the student population decline. If we had, today maybe the hon. member could stand and speak to the fact that there is declining student enrolment and not enough teachers. We have kept 238 in there instead of taking out 418.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with statutory requirement, I am pleased to table the annual report of the Pippy Park Commission for the year ending March 31, 1998.

I am also pleased to present, for the benefit of the House, the exemptions under the Public Tender Act for the months of October, November and December, 1998, and also for the month of January, 1999.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Select Committee appointed to draft a reply to the Speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, I am pleased to present the report of the Select Committee as follows:

To His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, the Honourable A.M. House, C.M., M.D., LL.D, FRCPC. May it please Your Honour: We, the Commons of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative session assembled, beg to thank Your Honour for the Gracious Speech which Your Honour has addressed to this House.

I have signed it, as well as the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, report received, debate to follow on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 32.4 of the Auditor General's Act, 1991, I hereby table the audit and financial statements of the Office of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 998.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of a number of individuals who are concerned about the fact that provincial government retirees have not received an increase to their pension benefits in ten years.

This is the same petition that has been presented before, and yesterday's Budget did not give them a pension increase either. What it did was ignore the requirement of government, in fairness to the pensioners, to address the issue of whether or not the government will continue to bring pensioners' benefits up to the level that they had a legitimate expectation to receive in the past when a general public sector wage increase was devised.

Mr. Speaker, what we have done instead is ignore that. The minister takes the position in this House, as he did during Question Period, that they have no intention of treating the public service pensioners fairly. This is not acceptable to the public service pensioners of this Province. It is a clear message that government does not care that throughout the whole period of the seventies and eighties, when these increases were adopted, that this became a method of dealing with pensions.

The minister continues to say that they are only getting what they paid for. That is a very simplistic response to a series of actions by government over a period of years: first of all, in ensuring that pensions are never on the bargaining table by refusing to negotiate them; secondly, by providing this increase on an ongoing basis over the years and leading pensioners into the expectation that they did not have to do anything about it because the increases were coming as a matter of course.

Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the government introducing the Low Income Seniors' Benefit. The Low Income Seniors' Benefit is obviously necessary when the minister himself indicates that 34,000 - 55 per cent - of the seniors in this Province will benefit from the seniors benefit. It is pretty obvious what a financial state the seniors are in this Province, over 65, when 34,000 of them will benefit as being in the $12,000-or-less family income bracket.

I do not have a problem with granting a Low Income Seniors' Benefit. It will improve the lot of a significant number of poor people in this Province, but it does not address the needs of the public service pensioners. It does not use any creativity whatsoever in doing that, such as was evident in Nova Scotia when they had to make changes to the hospital benefit plan for retired hospital workers. They used a very creative solution within that pension plan to ensure benefits to the lower end of the scale. Using a formula based on the old age supplement numbers, they were able to bring about substantial increases to those who are at the low end without providing a top-up to people who were on the other end of the scale, earning considerable amounts of money in pensions.

Mr. Speaker, this government has failed its own employees, its former employees. It has failed them just as it has failed the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association to date, just as it has to date failed the nurses of this Province who, within twenty-four hours, unless government meets their demands, will be forced on the street trying to fight for better health care for the citizens of this Province and a fair deal from this government.

These pensioners need the protection of an increase in their pension benefits and not have to wait until they are sixty-five to receive this Low Income Seniors' Benefit as a matter of general course. There are too many of them who are not sixty-five, it will not go near, and will not have any opportunity to benefit from this low income seniors program. Nothing at all, not one red cent, has been allocated to solve that problem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Yesterday we note that the Minister of Finance, in his Budget Speech, did make an initial step. We note that the Low Income Seniors' Benefit is just that; it is a beginning.

We note that the people will not be eligible to access this particular Low Income Seniors' Benefit until they reach age sixty-five, and the family income has to be less than $12,000. That means that the family would have to be, shall we say - in normal circumstances, families at that stage would be getting their old age pension, their old age supplements, and the aggregate of all of that, for a man and his wife, would have to be less than $12,000 for them to be able to get the maximum of $200.

We recognize that as a beginning; however, that is not going to satisfy the wishes of the retired public servants who have been promised new initiatives by the Premier.

Just a few days ago when we were here in the House - and we certainly do not, on this side, condone interruptions to the decorum of the House - we did note that a gentleman did stand in the gallery and, out of frustration, directed a comment to the Premier of the Province in which he said: The Premier placed his hand on my shoulder and said, we will look after you when the election is over.

We bring that gentleman's commentary to the floor of the House this afternoon. We say to the government, certainly that was the message that the seniors, the retired public servants that I talked to, had received from government during the election. They fully expected, in the Budget Speech yesterday, for there to be some delivery to them by the Premier. We know that they were participating aggressively in the election process and they were persuaded, either through direct or indirect commentary by government and the leadership of the government, to discontinue their participation in the election by stopping their protest, by stopping calling rallies, and these kinds of things, in efforts to put forward their opinion. They said: If we can be guaranteed that we can have sensible and meaningful negotiations with government, we will desist from participating directly in the election process.

So the Premier gave a commitment. When this was acknowledged, the Premier did nothing afterwards to say: No, that is not what I meant.

Therefore, these people certainly knew that there had been a commitment made by the Premier and his government to them.

Mr. Speaker, as noted by my colleague as well, during the 1970s and 1980s, the idea of indexing pensions was not on the bargaining table for retired public servants. It just was not there. In fact, very few of the collective bargaining units were able to talk of pensions at all because it had never been allowed to be part of the bargaining process by the governments.

Retired public servants deserve better than they are getting from this government. After all, this government was the employer and they have a responsibility to their former employees. They gave a commitment. We say, the time to act was yesterday. They should have done something more about it. They made an initial step, and we commend them for that, but there is a long ways to go yet.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland, in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland.

WHEREAS the road through the community of Lethbridge has not been upgraded since it was paved approximately thirty years ago; and

WHEREAS the road is in such terrible condition that vehicles are being damaged, including school buses serving three schools in the area, and schoolchildren are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the road through Lethbridge;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition put forward and signed by over 800 residents of the surrounding area. As I look through the petition, I see not only signatures from the Lethbridge area and from my District of Bonavista South, but, I say to the Member for Terra Nova, many residents from his district have signed this petition as well. They have signed it because they have seen first-hand how bad this particular road really is through this community.

This road was paved approximately thirty years ago. Since that time there has been absolutely no maintenance done to it, other than patching of the potholes. It is about five kilometres.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it a Liberal district or a Tory district?

MR. FITZGERALD: It was a Liberal district, I say to the minister, when he was the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and nothing was done about it then!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, rightly or wrongly, people expected this particular road to be upgraded and paved last year. They were led to believe that because it was common knowledge and, seeing some activity around the area where the engineers had moved in and done some surveys, done some cost estimates of what it would take to pave this road, they thought it was going to be done. They thought it was going to be done because they knew it needed to be done.

There is one particular section of this roadway where, at one time, the railway used to go by. The road is so bad now that the railway is part of the roadway. People have had to go around the paved section of the road going through Lethbridge and out into the railway section in order to access the road through the community. There are three schools that are serviced in this area with buses that travel over this particular road.

The people in Lethbridge pay the same price, I say to members opposite, for their gasoline, the same taxes, the same cost for insurance, the same cost to license their vehicles, as people here in St. John's. What is frustrating to them is when they see an Outer Ring Road, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, being built here in this city, and those people having to come forward and sign petitions on a regular basis in order to bring their plight to the House of Assembly and have some money spent on their own roadway.

If there are two areas where I agree with comments that the Premier made, one is in trying to take some money out of the Roads for Rail Agreement that is presently being spent on the Trans-Canada Highway and put it out into areas like Lethbridge, Winter Brook and Jamestown. That is certainly one of the areas where I certainly agree with him.

The other one, I guess, is the monarchy. I agree with him, that should be done away with as well; but that is removed from this argument that we are putting forward here today.

It is a simple request. People are not asking that you put in sidewalks or curb and gutter. In fact, at a public meeting that we had in Lethbridge just a couple of weeks ago, where many residents of the area showed up to express their views and concerns, the comment was brought forward: Look, we don't need you to come into Lethbridge and do away with the turns and do away with all the hills. All we are asking is that you come in, do some ditching, put in some culverts, build up the road where needed, and recap the road.

Part of the Lethbridge area is also serviced by a dirt road. There is approximately .8 of a kilometre, I think, where people have never, ever seen pavement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I plead to members opposite, and I plead to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to include this area in his works program this year and hopefully give the people of the area a decent road to drive over.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also rise today to present a petition from my district, from the community of Harry's Harbour.

The undersigned residents of Harry's Harbour, in the District of Baie Verte, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to upgrade and pave our roads. The deplorable and unfit conditions of the roads in our area make travelling to and from schools unsafe for our schoolchildren as well as jeopardize the safety of the travelling public, hurt economic growth opportunities, and betray a lack of commitment to rural areas of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is a real shame, in this day and age, that we have to stand with such petitions in this House of Assembly, when people are talking about gravel roads. They are not talking about recapping. They are not talking about doing it over again. They are talking about, in the 50th year of our Province being a part of Canada, standing in this House of Assembly to talk about gravel roads. It is a real shame.

What the people in these communities - not just Harry's Harbour but Silverdale, Langdon's Cove and Jackson's Cove - are all talking about, especially in the last couple of years as the roads... Of course, gravel roads deteriorate more and more all the time. They have said it over and over to me. It does not even make sense anymore that graders have to be sent out on a regular basis, over and over and over, to grade roads. Now there is not even enough left there to grade any more.

These people are still living in the rural parts of Newfoundland, still trying to eke out a living there. They still believe in rural Newfoundland, and are still driving over gravel roads in this day and age.

The Member for Bonavista South made a point about the priorities in spending. The one I always use as an example is in the District of Grand Falls. I got this from the people themselves who lived there when the whole charade started about a double-lane highway coming through Grand Falls, a place that I drive through every time I travel back to my district. Now, when I come into Grand Falls, I see this huge pillar - the Berlin Wall some people call it - going through Grand Falls. It is not like we have 80,000 or 90,000 or 100,000 people there. It is really a small Newfoundland community with a double-lane highway going through, with a median that is higher than the one that goes through the 401 in Toronto. Here we have a double-lane highway going through, that nobody wanted, that ruined businesses along the route. It did not make any sense whatsoever. Here we have the people in Grand Falls complaining that they did not want the double lanes, they did not want the concrete median going through there. They argued all that, and here we have people in Harry's Harbour and Silverdale who do not have a bit of pavement for the first time.

Here we are about to celebrate Soiree '99, talking about the great contribution that the country has given to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We should be ashamed that we have to stand here, any member in this House of Assembly - I speak for all members - who has to stand here today, as we head into the new millennium when we talk about space age and technology and so on, and we still have people who are travelling over gravel roads. It is not fit, it should not be.

The other point that many people in these communities say to me, especially with school reform today, where we have children, now six and seven years old who are getting on a bus - which is another issue altogether - sitting on one of those buses with no seat belts. As I told the House a few days ago, I sat in the back of that bus with the students just a short while ago to see what it would be like to get up 7:00 every morning to get on one of those buses that are unsafe. Never mind driving over pavement that was rough, they are driving over gravel roads.

That is a real shame. These people in these communities have every right to be complaining. They have every right when they see the priorities of the government spending, to look down as they drive over the road and lose tires and shocks in their car and they cannot get their roads paved. It is not right and it is not fair.

If the government talks about balance and fairness, they are going to have to live up to that commitment and show us first hand. Because the last part of that petition states it. If you want to see a commitment to rural Newfoundland it is people that are asking for decent water to drink and for a road to drive over. They are not talking for luxuries, they are not talking about multi-million dollar civic centres, they are not talking about golf courses. They are talking about the necessities of living, a decent road to travel over, and a decent drop of water to drink.

I support this petition again, as I have done many times in this House before. Hopefully that message is sinking in, but with the Budget that was brought down yesterday - and I've said this to the members across they way yesterday and got a response from it. The actual truth is I was quoting members in the Department of Transportation who said: If we get only $16 million again this year we do not know what we are going to do, because we have the need for $120 million. That is why I said yesterday it was shameful, I say to the Member for Bonavista North. That was an official, not just one, but several said it to me. I can see where they are coming from.

The Department of Transportation are going to try to spread out that $16 million over this Province that needs so much upgrading and paving of roads and also gravel roads, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: So that is why I support the minister in looking for more monies for his department, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

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

I rise in my place today to support the petition presented by the Member for Baie Verte on behalf of people from Harry's Harbour, Langdon's Cove, Jackson's Cove, Silverdale and whatever.

Is it any wonder that the Member for Baie Verte was re-elected to this House of Assembly? I have been here with him now almost six years and the man is continually fighting, supporting, working hard, committed for the people of Baie Verte. He got re-elected this time. I understand they put a wave on to try to defeat the Member for Baie Verte, but no, he went back in because of what he is doing in this House of Assembly today, speaking up for the people of the District of Baie Verte. That is what he is at.

I support the petition, of course. To say that in this day and age in this Province with Soiree '99 on the go, fifty years after, that there are still roads in this Province that are not paved, is shameful. This Administration - basically a Liberal government that has been in power since 1989 -, this term they can start counting their days, because after this term they are going to be finished. You can mark that down, that in the House of Assembly on March 23, 1999 the Member for Cape St. Francis said the days are numbered for that the government on that side of the House.

Because they are not doing for the people of the Province what they said they would do, what they promised they would do, over the past number of years. That is where I am coming from with respect to this petition. I think, as I said earlier, that it is shameful that people today have to drive over gravel roads, dust flying all over the place in the summer time, unsafe for buses to travel over in the Province.

We heard in the Budget that the government is going to spend $118 million on the roads in the Province this year, up from $110 million. I believe the Province is putting in maybe $16 million; the rest is coming from Ottawa. Thank God, as I said before in this House of Assembly, for John Crosbie and Brian Peckford who in years gone by worked the Roads for Rail Agreement. Again, we need to get the work done in this Province that the people deserve. We need to have safe roads, we have to have safe infrastructure.

Speaking of infrastructure, if you go throughout the Province today and look at the municipalities, see the condition of a lot of the infrastructure in this Province with water and sewer falling apart, manholes falling down and caving in, it is not safe anymore in the Province.

The Premier and the ministers on the other side of this House of Assembly can stand in their place and try to say that everything is hunky-dory in the Province, with a Budget that was brought down in the House of Assembly yesterday that was laughable.

There are so many questions going to be asked in this House of Assembly in the days to come with respect to the Budget, as the Minister of Finance today saw. His head was spinning. It was almost like looking at the movie that was on a number of years ago, The Exorcist.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is on a petition.

MR. J. BYRNE: Just in conclusion, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to support the petition presented by the Member for Baie Verte.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here today sent to me by residents of Trepassey. This petition is regarding government's decision to allow IOC to process Newfoundland and Labrador resources in the Province of Quebec.

The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS we the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador condemn the provincial government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision to process Labrador resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse this decision immediately and support a policy of secondary processing within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this decision to allow these resources to go to Quebec is contradictory to the stand they took on Voisey's Bay. I am sure the Minister of Mines and Energy, who has been the point man on all controversial things for this government, cannot truthfully stand in his place and tell us that the Premier is not speaking out of both sides of his mouth when he talks about saying: Voisey's Bay ore must be processed here, and allowing the company to find favour with Quebec to bolster him on his prime ministerial search, to go and bend over and allow resources to have a detrimental affect on the future of people in Labrador, and importantly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Minister of Mines and Energy at the time said - can you imagine a mines and energy minister of this Province when he announced the pellet plant in Sept-Iles, stand in his place and say: This decision secures the future of Labrador West and is a solid base for growth and economic security for the area?

What type of medication was the minister on to make that statement? What type of medication was that former Minister of Mines and Energy on when he made that statement? People said: the audacity.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He wasn't on seal oil capsules, I will say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. He should have rattled the cage, I tell you, a lot more than he is rattling that pill bottle. Because I disagree with the stand. It is going to sound a death knell in the long term for Labrador because it is allowing pellets to be made in Sept-Iles, Quebec. When future conditions require a certain type pellet, where do you think they are going to be obtaining them? It will result in layoffs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I did, sure, no wonder I did. To come in and try to straighten out those politicians who make bad business decisions. That is why I got into politics, to try to convince politicians to look at the economics and the people who elected them in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What agenda? Why would we want to support economic prosperity in Quebec at the expense of our Province? I want to see Quebec prosperous but not at the expense of resources that are obtained in our Province. There is a long future in Labrador West if we ensure that these resources were processed there.

They can play with figures all they like. Government are experts in juggling figures to suit what they want to hear. Why? There are not many people here who would doubt that it is more economically feasible to process Voisey's Bay nickel in Sudbury where the capacity is, or in Thompson. No one doubts that. It is still economically feasible to do it here in this Province, and no one will convince me it is not economically feasible to pelletize in Labrador West.

It may be more, maybe it is. So what if it is a bit more expensive to do it there, as long as it is economically feasible and we know it is? You cannot play both sides. The Premier cannot jump up and down and take on big Inco, and bow down to Lucien and IOC on those decisions that are important for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Labrador has always been a prosperous area. I spoke with the member actually today. He said to me: In Labrador West most people had the perception that unemployment levels, really high, and they are, and their incomes are fairly well, but there is a lot of social issues too that are starting to surface. That is a sign of things to come.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of the petition. I thank the people who submitted the petition to show their support for the people of Labrador West, people who I am proud to represent in this House. I would like to speak to the petition a bit if I may.

Following this election there was a meeting held between the committee which was trying to stop the processing of ore outside the Province and governmental officials and company officials in Sept-Iles, Quebec. That meeting, I am regretfully saying, would not have gone ahead if I had insisted on attending. The people from the government said that if an MHA attends this meeting the meeting will not go ahead. I did not attend the meeting because I felt the government was looking for a way out, and if I insisted on being there that was their way out. I would not grant them that and the meeting went ahead.

This government not only agreed with the decision of the Iron Ore Company of Canada to put that plant in Sept-Iles, they were the ones who made the announcement for this government. They were the ones who released it. The security that could have been provided for Labrador West in terms of 600 construction jobs for a period of three years is gone down the drain with the help from this government. I can tell you that the security of Labrador West as a community is threatened by this decision, because that means that for the next four to five years people who retire will not be replaced. No new people will be hired, and that causes people as they retire to leave the area because their children are not growing up, graduating from schools and finding employment.

I would like to address, too, one of the things that the Premier of this Province said when the deal was signed between the workers in Sept-Iles and the Iron Ore Company of Canada. Let me tell you, and let me tell this House, that if somebody from New Brunswick said they were sending 4.5 million cords of wood to be turned into paper, we would not argue about that. We would gladly accept it as a province and as workers. The people in New Brunswick would have a problem and so they should, the same as we do now. For the Premier to suggest that during the election I knew about this deal and kept it from the people of Labrador West shows how naive this Premier is concerning the steelworkers' union; the same naivety that he has expressed time and time again about the realities that are going on in this Province.

The Premier accused me of negotiating the deal for the people and the workers in Sept-Iles. As I said in a news interview following that, I do not speak French, I'm not studying French, unlike the Premier.

This decision was not, in our opinion, a business decision, it was a political decision. The people of Labrador West are not stupid. They look at the Premier of Quebec, Premier Bouchard, and the discussions he is having with Premier Tobin. They can tie, and they are tying, the pellet plant decision, the Lower Churchill deal, and other aspects that are going on in Labrador, as part of one package. They really believe, and I agree, that the Premier of this Province really let the people of Labrador West down, and I think they expressed that in their vote on February 9.

Mr. Speaker, in order for Labrador West to prosper and grow, every ounce of iron ore that is dug out of the ground has to be processed there. Right now the committee that has been formed, of which I was a part, are still working hard to try and have that decision reversed. The committee has hired a consulting firm, and the government has said to us: If you find anything, come back and let us know and we will have another look at it. In other words, what the government is saying to us is, you do our work for us. We commissioned the study. All they did was add up the same numbers that the people from Bechtel, who did the original study, did. The study that the government commissioned simply added their numbers and got the same total.

We are not quite doing it that way. We are picking it apart the way the government should have done, or the people they had commissioned should have done. That report will soon be finalized, and I am sure we will be hearing from the committee. The gap, I can assure you, will not be as great as the one the government had commissioned and listened to.

Mr. Speaker, when that commission from the government was released, the government called myself and the president of the local union in Labrador, Mr. George Kean, and invited us to St. John's. They would have released that report to us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Their intent was for us to come back to Labrador and release that report, because we would not have had any choice. We would be the bearer of bad news, taking them off the hook.

Again, I wholly support the people who presented this petition today and we are looking forward to much more support on this issue throughout the Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted that the issue has been raised again briefly, and delighted to hear the commentary from the newly elected Member for Labrador West.

There are a couple of things with respect to this issue that bear repeating. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had one of the most reputed firms in the whole of the mining sector, in the whole of the world, conduct an assessment of the options for a pellet plant in Labrador West, which North IOC was looking at, versus the activation of an already existing pellet plant in Sept-Iles.

Hatch Associates did the study on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and concluded that the work done for North IOC by another well-reputed and well-respected mining industry sector analyst group in Bechtel, that they had done good work, and the analysis showed that there was no case to demand, as the government, that there be an expansion and an extension to the pellet plant in Labrador West, rather than have the company invest in the reactivation of the existing pellet plant in Sept-Iles.

Mr. Speaker, that work has been done. We did say to the committee from Labrador West, which has gone and hired another consultant to study the results of two other consultants that have already done the work, that if they can find something different we would be glad to hear it and glad to entertain it. I am waiting to hear back from them with respect to that.

It shows that when you cannot deal with a particular issue with a sound argument, the oldest trick in the book is to resort to the conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory that the member just espoused again is that there is a connection between the Premier's so-called wish to become Prime Minister, and the Lower Churchill hydro project, and giving something to Quebec - the biggest pile of nonsense that has ever been spread in the land.

If they choose to want to make themselves believe it, I guess there is not much we can do about people who do not have an argument, who have not been able to present an argument based on any fact, so they resort to a conspiracy theory, one of the oldest tricks in the book.

I respect the hon. Member for Labrador West in his representation, and I have known him for his work as an international representative in the union with the steelworkers for many, many years. It is the first time ever that I have heard him suggest that there was something going on inside the international union that he did not know about; because every other time that I have met the man, in over twenty years, he would be proud to tell the world: I am an international rep. I am not just the local in Labrador West. I know about what we are doing in New Brunswick. I know about what the union is doing in Quebec. I know about what we are doing in Western Canada, because I am an international rep and I know what is going on with the locals in every part of the country.

Conveniently, while he was up there with the committee and running in an election - and had some success, which is why he is seated here in this Legislature - conveniently, all of a sudden, he knew nothing about a negotiation going along very nicely in Sept-Iles that came to a conclusion about a week before the election was held. He knew nothing about it all of a sudden. The man that knows everything, and always knew everything about what goes on with every single local of the steelworkers in Canada conveniently did not know that they were striking a deal in Sept-Iles for the very people they were supposed to be fighting against. You talk about a nice lapse of memory and no involvement for a person who has prided himself, in over twenty years in the labour movement, of knowing what was going on because of his position as an international rep.

Mr. Speaker, from there on I guess we will take some of the things he says with a little bit of a grain of salt because I really have not seen - you talk about a flip-flop. We had a few flip-flops from the Official Opposition there a few years ago; now we have the Member for Labrador West all of sudden flip-flopping from having the best memory in the world to having no memory, all of a sudden, because it is inconvenient - not to know about what is going on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

The minister is engaging in two things that are unparliamentary. He is engaging in a personal attack on the new Member for Labrador West, distorting the facts himself, and accusing the member of misleading the people of this House and the people of this Province. I object to that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. FUREY: Order 1, Mr. Speaker. I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to continue our comments on the Interim Supply motion that has been before the House, Bill 1. Yesterday in the House we -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Good for you. I would say to the hon. Minister of Fisheries that he has been asleep for years. It is a case of where we would be surprised if he ever woke up.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the House that in Question Period today we saw an interesting exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Finance. If you were to listen to the Budget Speech yesterday, one would believe that we are going to have all kinds of money now put into health care. We listened to the government during the election, and they said: Health care is our number one priority.

Yesterday, if you listened to what the Minister of Finance said, you would have believed that we were going to have new beds open, we were going to have new procedures made possible, and the waiting list would be cut back. We would be led to believe that those people who have been waiting for a long, long time for various procedures would be called very soon to say we are going to be able to facilitate early treatment.

We learned that is not going to happen because, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, and the health critic has said, there isn't anything in this Budget that is going to give people who are sick and need help in this Province any great deal of comfort. As a matter of fact, the great majority of the spending on health care is going to be to straighten out the deficits that have already been incurred.

Today in Question Period we listened to the questions being asked so ably by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Member for Ferryland, but we did not get any answers. We were expecting the Minister of Finance would say that, yes, he was going to make extra money available.

For people who need health care in this Province, there certainly wasn't anything in yesterday's Budget that would give them any great deal of comfort. Yet, we hear the spin doctors - and read what is written by the spin doctors for the government - talking about $40 million to cover the extra expenses in health care. Again, we know that is all going to go toward looking after the deficits that have been incurred up to March 31, 1998. It does not say anything about the deficits that have been incurred in the Budget year that we are now finishing in the next four or five days.

Therefore, it is to be assumed that the deficits, the operating expenses, of health care in this Province will continue at the same levels they were last year. If that is an assumption, therefore there is not enough money in this year's Budget to be able to carry on the current level of service, let alone give people who need service any hope they will be able to get more readily available health care.

Then we have the announcement of the new hospitals. We note that they were already announced. In fact, they were announced one year ago, on March 26, 1998. Again, we had them all listed out. We have to ask the question: How many times? How many times would we have to have things announced before they are actually built?

We say to the government that it is wonderful for you to announce these new hospitals; however, if we are going to have better health care in the Province we need to do something beyond talking about it. We need to do something by way of action.

I note as well that there is a new accountability framework. In the health care section, on page 14, there is a statement that could have been written right out of the PC Party Blue Book in the election. It is exactly what we were talking about; talking about hospital boards and other agencies being more accountable for their expenditures.

We put that forward and we believe that is a good thing; however, we do point out to the government that they have been negligent in the performance of their duties by not having more controls over hospital expenditure before now.

We note here as well that it says, "Departments will take greater responsibility for monitoring the performance of boards and providing feedback to them." By implication, that says they are not doing it now. If they are going to take more responsibility, it would mean that it is not now being done. We have to ask the question: Why would the Department of Health not take greater responsibility for monitoring the performance of boards and providing feedback to the department? Obviously, in the Budget statement alone, the Minister of Finance is saying that officials and the Minister of Health are not doing a good job.

We believe that accountability should extend even further. We believe that this government should be giving more and more accountability to the people of the Province. For example, as the Leader of the Opposition said today, in some provinces they have an accountability act that requires the Minister of Finance to give updates on a quarterly basis on the finances of the province.

In Alberta, for example, the accountability act requires the treasurer to give a statement within sixty days of the end of the fiscal quarter. For example, it would mean that at the end of June the treasurer in Alberta would have to have a statement made publicly by the end of August.

Therefore, we say to the government, if you are going to talk about accountability, because you are going to say that health boards are going to be more accountable, then you should kind of follow your own advice and make the Minister of Finance and the government departments more accountable on a regular basis.

Today with modern computerization there is absolutely no reason why government cannot provide quarterly statements in a very timely manner to the people of this Province. That way we would avoid some of the confusion that existed between the Minister of Finance in his statements last fall, the Premier in his statements last fall, and what we were getting from officials in the department. Because if the Minister of Finance had been obliged to give a financial statement at the end of last August, another one at the end of November, another one at the end of February, to correspond with the various quarterlies sections of the fiscal year, then we would have had up-to-date information. Certainly, this government is telling the health care boards: You have got to be more accountable, while they themselves are not willing to be accountable.

Of course, we know what happened last year, (inaudible) last summer. We had the Premier going around the Province making all kinds of commitments from places like St. Lawrence, where he was going to play in big money to get the fluorspar mine going, all kinds of commitments in all parts of the Province. At that point in time we were being told that money was not a problem, that things would be okay. By October we were being told there was going to be a $30 million or $40 million deficit, and then by January 14 it had been up and down a little bit and then back to $30 million again. Then we find out in our consultations relative to the Budget that the Minister of Finance knew back in October that there was going to be a sizable infusion of money from the federal government through the equalization program.

We say to the Premier, we say to the government, if you are going to talk about accountability with the health care boards then I think it is fair for the people of this Province to say that the government itself must also be accountable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have a few other comments in my few moments this afternoon to talk about, as well, some of the issues brought up yesterday in the Budget. Some of them have already be alluded to this afternoon. In one of my earlier commentaries I was talking about the commitment given to our seniors. What it works out to is that the new low income seniors benefit comes out to be about $3.86 a week, something like that, $3.86 per week at best. Of course, if the income happens to be anything over $12,000 a year then it will go down.

I want to say that that is a beginning. It is not very much. I do not know where the people of this Province who are in serious financial difficulty are going to find comfort in their $3.86 a week but it is a beginning. It does not satisfy the public service pensioners' wishes in this Province, but certainly we say it is a start. Maybe in the next while the government will see the wisdom of its commitment to public service pensioners and they will see the wisdom of giving them the same kind of increases they have given to other public sector workers, and that we will be able to assure our retirees in the public service that the government cares for them and their families.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I will certainly rise in my place today and say a few words with respect to the interim supply, Bill 2. I am quite anxious to say a few words too, I tell you, about this Bill 2. I have here in my hands three documents that I received here in the past week or so: the Speech from the Throne, the Budget Speech and the Estimates. Celebrating 50 Years, that is the Estimates they are talking about.

I don't know which is worse. Last week I was sitting here listening to the Lieutenant-Governor reading the Throne Speech -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You will find out now, I say to the minister. What is he the minister of now, Government Services and Lands? You will find out what is wrong with it now shortly, and in the next week and in the next year, I would say, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Government Services and Lands. He will find out what is wrong with it.

I was actually pitying the Lieutenant-Governor for having to read the Speech from the Throne. I thought that was pretty bad, I would say to you. There was nothing in it really, nothing new, all kinds of stuff that we heard before. I'm here six years now and I've been hearing the same thing for the past six years. People that have been here twenty years, like the Member for Terra Nova, must have heard it, well, for the past ten years for sure from the same government.

Then we have the Budget Speech. The Minister of Finance was up yesterday going through the Budget Speech, basically saying what a wonderful place Newfoundland and Labrador is. I agree it is, but it is not seen through the eyes of the Minister of Finance, I can guarantee you that. Because I really don't know what province that man is living in, and the government actually, and the Premier. I was watching him on the news last night and he was getting all kinds of time talking about everything he is going to do for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are still waiting on the slogan he had in the last election. What was the slogan in the last election they had? It was: A Better Tomorrow. Three years later we are still waiting for a better tomorrow. In this last election it was: Our future, our time and our whatever. It is not what the Premier would like us to believe.

With respect to this Interim Supply, the government is looking for $1,057,878,300. Just imagine now, rounding it off to $300. They are getting pretty specific when they are talking about over $1 billion, I can tell you that. We need this by March 31. We get into the same thing every year. One billion dollars they want in interim supply. It is usually a couple of weeks before March 31 that they open up the House of Assembly. They try and put the pressure on us to get this interim supply through the House of Assembly so they can pay the bills of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The biggest concern of course is the salaries for the civil servants. Speaking of salaries for the civil servants, we have now in the Province a raise that was given to - not given, fought for, I suppose, by the various unions, of 7 per cent. The government is now saying that all the unions settled for 7 per cent; everyone has to settle for 7 per cent, because there is no money there. Last year we saw the government overspend by $160 million to $180 million. We can thank God in the Province today that they got a windfall from Ottawa to cover their recklessness in spending last year. Now they are saying we are going to have a $4 million surplus this year and a $33 million deficit next year. Only for Ottawa they would be having $150 million to $160 million deficit this year as was predicted and stated by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the minister of seals - no, sorry, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that I would not mind having his chequebook, I can guarantee you that. I would not mind having it.

Back to the salaries. We are on the eve of a possible strike tomorrow morning by the nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have seen the RNC going through all kinds of turmoil, out demonstrating and what have you, on the steps. It is something they should not have to be doing. We have the RNC in a situation where they are not allowed to strike. The government goes into negotiations with them, it costs them $60,000 or $70,000 for arbitration, and then they decide to ignore it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will say to the member for - I can stay up all afternoon, I can tell you. Because this one document here can keep me up all afternoon, this document here can keep me up all night, and this document here can keep me up all month, I say to the member. One of my newest constituents, the Minister of Education, said that she will listen. I say it is about time for somebody on that side of the House to start listening, and listening to this side of the House, because we are always right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: The Leader of the Opposition, last fall, told the people of this Province, told the Members of this House of Assembly, the state of this Province with respect to the finances of this Province. When the Minister of Finance got up and presented his speech yesterday - the Budget Speech - our numbers were right on, confirming everything that we had said, and confirmed that they had made a mess. Only for Ottawa, they would over there with their heads buried, trying to hide everywhere they could hide.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't break my heart, I say to the Minister of Education. She is going to have to leave, because I suppose the truth hurts. That is why the Minister of Education would have to leave.

Believe this now: I have to give the former Minister of Education - the Minister of Mines and Energy - a thank you. I have to give him a bit of credit because he stuck to his word. I was after him for three years for a new school in my district and we are finally going to get it, but that does not resolve the problem in my district. We need another new school. We need a new school in Torbay, to resolve the problems in the north zone. We need a new school in the Town of Torbay. Holy Trinity Elementary in Torbay is a school that was built in 1956. There have been four extensions on to that school since 1956. I remember, when I was thirteen years old, around that age, up in the woods cutting logs for the church down there at that time, and helping to carry the logs out of the woods so we could have the saw mill cut wood to build an extension on to that school. That was in the early 1960s. We need a new school down there.

I attended a meeting last night in the Town of Torbay, with over 300 people, about school reorganization. I have a meeting to attend tonight in the Town of Pouch Cove, concerning school reorganization. I have a meeting on Wednesday night with respect to school reorganization in the district of the north zone.

Basically, we have had many, many meetings over the past fall. We made a presentation to the Avalon East School Board - complete harmony, complete cooperation between the five schools - made a recommendation, and the school board decided to ignore it and come back with two other options; one that was so far-fetched, it was unreal.

We are here talking about $101 billion for Interim Supply. What is another $6 million or $7 million for the area down there? It is not a big deal to help straighten up the school reorganization in the north zone. We have been led to believe that to address the complete reorganization within the Avalon East boundaries and the metropolitan area of St. John's, the north zone has to be addressed first.

We have a school down there, Holy Trinity Elementary, as I said, in deplorable condition. It really, really is. The parents down there have actually taken a camera and gone through the school and taken pictures of some of the conditions in the school itself. They have had the fire department in, looking at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I did, for one; I need another one now. I only need two. That is no big deal.

Holy Trinity Elementary, basically one of the biggest elementary schools in the Avalon East Board, is probably in the worst condition. We need a major, major overhaul. Basically, some people are saying, if you go in and do a cost-benefit analysis with respect to upgrading the school, it may be cheaper to build a new school. That is all I am saying. That is what the people are saying. We are trying to get together in the area, as I said, to come up with solutions.

We had the government download to the school boards, we had the school boards download to the principals, lately, and ask the principals to go out and sell - in my area, anyway - basically sell education reform and reorganization. Not education reform, reorganization basically. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, that is just a sideline.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I have to take a break and get back up in due course. I am sure someone else is going to get up now and say a few words. I don't know who it may be.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Is it?

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I had not intended to get up this afternoon to make any comments. I was going to leave that for other colleagues and members opposite, but when I sat here and listened to the Member for Cape St. Francis make the comment that the Budget that was read by the Minister of Finance yesterday was exactly how he, how they, had predicted it...

Let's start off with how they predicted the Budget: the best fiscal performance since Confederation. That is exactly how the Tories said they predicted it. The 1998-1999 Budget projected a $10 million deficit. Approaching the fiscal year-end, there is a surplus of $136.9 million that they predicted. Who on the other side, including the Leader of the Opposition, said continuously, week after week, month after month, last fall and on into the new year, on into the election, there was going to be a $150 million deficit?

The Leader is saying $150 million deficit and the Member for Cape St. Francis is saying the Budget that was announced yesterday was exactly as they had predicted. Now they are saying there is no money in health care in the 1998-1999 Budget. The Budget makes strategic investments in health and community services.

Let's listen: $40 million to eliminate regional hospital boards accumulated deficits to March, 1998; $21 million in additional funding for hospital equipment; $15 million in additional funding for board budgets; $4.1 million to recruit salaried physicians; $1.8 million for new drug therapies; $1.3 million to implement the new Child Youth and Family Services Act; $.9 million over three years for the Tobacco Reduction Strategy.

Close to $90 million will be spent for hospital facilities in St. John's, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Gander, Harbour Breton, Stephenville, Old Perlican, Fogo, Bonne Bay, Grand Bank, Grand Falls-Windsor; and they said no money going into health care.

The Budget was exactly as they had predicted. You see, the comment that member just made is exactly the type of government that took place from the early days of the Tory right up to the end of the Tory regime. It is exactly what happened. When they took over power back in 1972, the total debt of the Province was about $800 million.

MR. TULK: Seven hundred and ninety.

MR. EFFORD: Seven hundred and ninety million, less than $1 billion. How many years later? Seventeen?

MR. TULK: Yes, seventeen.

MR. EFFORD: Seventeen years later, the debt of the Province was in excess of $7 billion.

MR. TULK: They increased it tenfold.

MR. EFFORD: They increased it tenfold. That is good fiscal management, to start off with an $800 million debt and increase it tenfold to in excess of $7 billion. Let me tell you, if you ran a business like that, what would happen to you in a very short time.

Let's talk about if we had the interest that we are paying on that debt on an annual basis; $585 million paid out every single year on interest on that debt was incurred by the Tories over a seventeen year government. They are hanging their heads up there, saying that this government is not doing anything for health care when we are spending well over $150 million this year in hospital construction, money put into decreasing the deficit, money put into buying new equipment, and money put in there for new doctors.

Let me talk about education. We are not doing anything for education. The Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, what did he say? That the education system is in total chaos. He just came out of the school, one of the best schools in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: One of our best schools in Newfoundland and Labrador, the best education for our students out there - of which he was principal - and he is saying that the education system is in total chaos.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Bishop O'Neill in Brigus.

I attended graduation after graduation when that part of the district was my responsibility, and they had the most awards per students than any other school in the whole region of Conception Bay North.

You said that the education system is in total chaos. You stood in the House of Assembly this afternoon and said that it was in total chaos. How can you have total chaos when you have an education system that is working as efficiently as that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: It is absolute nonsense, what you are saying out there. Not only that, he was the principal of the school. Well, that is chaos in itself! I never, ever heard the former principal of the school make a statement like that, out there in Brigus. When you went in there, there was no problem. It was only when you left, that you left a problem behind you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: One hundred and twenty-five million dollars is being invested in school construction and upgrades.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Declining enrolment normally, under the existing formula, would have resulted in a reduction of 418 teachers; however, this Minister of Education, this government, will add back 236 of these positions, and you call that chaos!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: The Province will continue to have the best pupil-teacher ratio in the country, in the whole country of Canada, with a declining enrolment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Max Smart.

MR. EFFORD: Max Smart with his shoe phone. That is exactly what it represents.

Let's go on to the fishing industry. It is total chaos in the fishing industry, too. Seven hundred million dollars worth of export value last year, 31,000 people employed in the industry, $200 million invested into the industry, and not one nickel of taxpayers' dollars.

Let me tell you what the Tory plan was in 1993. The Tory plan in 1993 was to build seventy-five new fish plants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the minister?

MR. EFFORD: Who was the Minister of Fisheries? The man who doesn't know Chile from Cuba was the minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Seventy-five new fish plants. How many did we have at that day? Two hundred and forty-five then, and he was going to put seventy-five more fish plants in the Province. Now, there is chaos.

I suggest the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador made a very wise decision in the most recent election, when they put back a government that is going to govern this Province responsibly. The first balanced Budget since 1949, is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: The first and only balanced Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: The first real balanced Budget.

MR. EFFORD: The first real balanced Budget.

Let me ask you the final question. What is the difference in a balanced Budget by this government and a government who took over with an $800 million debt in the Province, and when they finished it was $7 billion - a tenfold increase? There is chaos, and the hon. member should dwell on that for awhile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

He does not look one bit better, I might say.

The Member for Port de Grave, the minister of seals, is reflecting back to the past - education. If you want to talk about education in the school he attended, you would talk to the principal who oversees education in the school, not having the minister show up at a graduation. When you show up at a graduation, it does not tell you anything about what goes on inside the classroom of the school.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that anti-seal repellent? Well, it is not working. He should go back to the pharmaceutical company, or the manufacturing company, or the chemical company or whatever, and try to get something that is a little more effective, because the number increased over here so it is not working. I have to say to the minister, it is not working over here. He has to try something new. That anti-repellent is not working. The Tory caucus is growing rapidly, I might add. Even the NDP caucus is growing. That is even growing; that doubled.

Here today we have asked to give this government permission to go out and spend $1,057,878,300. That is what we are asking them to do; the same government that stands up and tells us - back in January and February and during the election - what they are going to do for health care in the Province. When you look at it, really, when you look at the Budget, here is what they are doing for health care: 50 per cent of what went in the Budget has gone to pay off services that people had prior to 1998. Prior to 1998! They were running deficits prior to 1998. Deficits for last year, admittedly - admitted just by the board end on the deficit of $25 million, and now we are going to give a new $15 million next year to solve the problems of $65 million in deficits.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, what I am saying is, don't tell us you are going to do it, and don't tell the people in the press you are going to do it, and turn around after February 9 and do something completely different.

The Premier said - and I have his comment here - he has a health minister who is a nurse and he goes home to a nurse. Basically he told us that he understands and they are going to fix the problem. That is what he said. They are going to solve the problem. He turns around after the election and what have they done? They have not done one thing to allow people who are out there today waiting for a call from a hospital - in fact, it has gotten so bad that the hospital in Gander now, when they call you to tell you to come into the hospital, we have a bed, they call you collect. That's right, they call you collect to tell you that we have a bed for you now, come in. Now that is pretty cheap.

That was a person, I believe, in the district of the Member for Terra Nova. I got a call a few months back. They call you collect. That would be worth checking out. They tell you to come in. You are sick, you have been waiting weeks or months for a bed, and they give you a collect call - a senior on low income - to tell you to come in. What have we come to in health care in our Province?

As I walked through the hospital the other day I was stopped several times. Everybody has a story; I could spend a week there. If anybody thinks that health care is going to be better in this Province because of that Budget, they are being completely misled.

There is not one area that it is going to address, not one aspect of that Budget that is going to address, more than an inflationary aspect of health care. Experts tell you that 2.2 per cent is the general inflation rate in the health care sector. The hospital budget, nursing homes and other facilities in this Province, is almost $700 million. We put $15 million in there; 2.2 per cent of that is $15.4 million. We are not putting in enough to keep pace with inflationary costs of health care.

The lineups, I can tell you - we will stand in this House next year and tell you that the lineups for health care, for cardiac surgery, are not the 100 they were four years ago. They are at 250 today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I would put a hospital on the centre of Fogo Island and not down in Fogo, I tell the member. That is where we would put it, because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell him! I have told him! I wrote a letter. I sent a release. I made a statement. Here is why I would do it: because the Minister of Municipal Affairs has talked about regionalization. They put the RCMP, the stadium, and the school there. All of the services have been centralized. Because a small few - 72.8 per cent of Fogo Island said put it there. It is only a seven or eight mile difference from where it is. That is why we should put it there, because you have been promoting regionalization. You have been pushing it. Everything else is there; and now to change that, after you promoted it. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

It is like the issue to tell you that it is okay for IOC to pelletize the iron ore in Sept-Iles because it is more economically feasible, but it is not okay for Inco to refine it in Sudbury and Thompson when it is more economically feasible. Everybody knows that a smelter and refinery, that $1.1 billion or whatever you spend, it is cheaper if the capacity is there to do it outside the Province, but we should not, and I agree with the Premier, allow Inco to get off the hump because it is still economically feasible.

You changed the Mineral Act, the former, former minister, to say that economically feasible is not interpreted to mean, or does not mean, the highest possible rate of return. Economically feasible means you can make a profit on it. That is what economically feasible is. You can make a profit on it in Argentia, you can make a profit on it in Labrador West, and it should go there. Because you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, because it is convenient and because you may want some benefits from Lucien and the Lower Churchill. Benefits, who knows, next year, the year after, whenever the calling comes from above, when he gets on that track. There was a train came back from Ottawa, even though the track is gone. The acting Government House Leader Acting said it was a big train coming. That big train might be going back again. It might have lost a few cars along the way, but will be heading back again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I could tell the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, forget it, you will never get in that seat. The closest you will be there is the seat you were in today, briefly.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are an expert at losing (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am an expert at it, I can tell you. I have lost my share. I have only lost one. That was by three votes. Almost lost my first election, too, I will tell him. (Inaudible) 125 votes I won it by, my first one. I have been there. You never enjoy the taste of victory until you have witnessed the agony of defeat, I would say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, won my share and lost my share. Won more than I lost. In spite of what the Premier indicated, that we were going to be devastated here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: All going to be wiped right out. I even got off the highways, I was afraid I was going to be run over. The best thing I had - if the Premier wanted to defeat me he should have left the Minister of Fisheries home. He spent four days, I think, up in the district, and every time he came up there were more people came to my side. I asked: Where is he gone?. When he did go back he left it so late after three-and-a-half hours at a meeting he went off the road on the Witless Bay Line.

They called the Department of Works, Services and Transportation up there and said the minister and the camera crew are in a ditch on the Witless Bay Line. I said: Leave them there. That is a fact. He said a camera crew. I did not see any camera crew when we were up there. That is what the minister said when he hauled out his little cell. He said: I am here with a camera crew, I have to get back to Port de Grave, send someone out. He called people in from all over. They called six different workers. They could not get trucks for him to drive to get in. They all rushed out to the Witless Bay Line. He spent an hour-and-a-half in a ditch. Ask him, he can stand up and confirm it. That was the highlight of the election in Ferryland district. We saw the Premier rushing off for the last time.

I wish you had to get there a week earlier because my margin would have been more than 2,340, 2,440, whatever it was. It would have been larger because every time you came up there were about another fifty who said: What have you done? The only area, Minister, that you have control over is the Loan Board, and look what you have done. All quotas and crab, that is all federal responsibility there. Anyway, he did show up, I must say. I will say one thing about him. He did not come up and try to tell them one thing basically and turn around after. I will admit that. I give him credit for that. It was all set up, up on the -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) negative.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he did not. I did not attack the member either. I talked about the issue of the Loan Board. I will agree with you. I can say that is an awful lot more than I can say for everybody else up there who ran the campaign, I can tell you, for the other party. It did not come. They staged it up in Fermeuse. The minister had big announcements on a plant opening.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: He is enjoying it.

CHAIR: Leave is denied.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave? I was going to say something good about you. I was going to say something good about him. By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. I will get back again and give you some more good news later.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to join in this very interesting debate this afternoon as we once again debate Bill 2 granting interim supply for our Province in excess of $1 billion- $1,057,000,000 -, an amount that this government obviously feels is necessary to simply tide things over to allow the wheels of government to turn, to do what it hopes and assumes is in the best interest of the people of this Province.

We heard yesterday a budget - all we have to do is go back to the questions that were raised today during Question Period by the Leader of the Opposition - which simply twists figures. One minute we are dealing with a deficit in this Province, the next minute we are not dealing with a deficit, we are dealing with a surplus, we are back to a deficit. The question many Newfoundlanders are asking after yesterday's presentation is: What is the state of the economy? What is the fiscal position of our Province? In fact, today, March 23, 1999, are we in a deficit or surplus position?

Quite frankly it is difficult to respond to that particular question. It is difficult to know exactly what the fiscal reality is of our Province today. That is because, particulary in the months prior to the election and during the election, we hear shifts with respect to the fiscal reality. The people of this Province are left shaking their heads, wondering from one day to the next what the actual situation is as it exists in our Province today.

That was certainly the thrust of the questions. We did not get answers that satisfied those particular questions from the Minister of Finance. All we got was more confusion and more rhetoric, and we got, in fact, nothing which helped to address the concerns by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as to the actual situation which exists in our Province today. Are we in a deficit? Are we in a surplus?

Also, when we look at yesterday's document there is one area which is being completely overlooked and that is the area of justice. There have been a number of issues with respect to the Department of Justice that have been raised in the past twelve months, issues that could have been attended to if in fact this government felt that situations and circumstances with respect to the system of justice in our Province warranted attention. Unfortunately, this was completely overlooked.

I am thinking, in particular, of areas of adequate counselling and adequate intervention and mediation as it relates to young children. We have seen a history of escapes. We have had tragedies, for example, in our Youth Centre in Whitbourne. We have a situation at our Youth Centre in Whitbourne which cries out for immediate attention. However, there is nothing in yesterday's announcement and presentation which does anything to help alleviate and take care of problems which young people face at a very early age.

There is no mention of intervention, there is no mention of monies or funds being given to mediation groups, professionals, counsellors and the like, the types of individuals with professional training whose education and expertise would go a long way, I would say, in dealing adequately with the concerns of young people. That has been completely ignored. There has been, unfortunately, no willingness at least being shown by this government to deal adequately with that particular problem.

Also in the area of victim support services, an issue that has been raised repeatedly over the past twelve months, nothing being addressed in yesterday's announcement, no directive by the Department of Justice to place any sense of urgency on the fact that we have in this Province a need for victim-offender mediation, for example, a need for restorative justice initiatives. No attention being given and even no desire, I would say, by this government to place attention and importance on an issue which cries out for such need.

With respect to the co-existence of our police forces, the fact that this Province, of course, contributes significantly to the provincial police force, namely the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, we have not seen a willingness by this government to pay attention where attention is due. Remember only approximately a year-and-a-half ago, when there was a sense of urgency in this Province from the point of view that our national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police - in fact, there were serious problems in this Province. The fact that this government was not willing to pay the piper and allow adequate police protection, resulting in a repeated cry by members of that particular force that it was being underfunded and not being given the attention it deserves.

Of course, today we know we have another situation with our provincial police force, but again government has done nothing to address a situation that I would say is outrageous, when we have an agreement in place, a negotiation scheme in place, but it is not being adhered to, it is not being followed, resulting in discontent and resulting in the positions that by necessity have had to be taken by the RNC Association.

Now to the situation with respect to legal aid in our Province. The management of legal aid, the administration of legal aid, keep saying to government in this Province and keep saying to all members, and indeed the public at large, that the legal aid system in this Province is completely underfunded, it is inadequate, and it is not their fault, I say. It is not the staff solicitors fault who work in that particular office. They can only do so much with the resources that they are allowed. They do not have the resources that are required. There are too many people in our Province who must resort to legal aid services. Again, we see a complete omission in yesterday's Budget presentation of the fact that there is any importance or recognition by this government with respect to legal aid and how, if it is to perform properly in our Province and if it is to deliver the services that the people in this Province require, it requires the necessary funding. That was not seen.

We have situations now where we have a conflicts office open where one legal aid lawyer, for example, is on one side of a particular case and another legal aid lawyer, simply in another physical office, essentially just down the street, acts for the other party. I say that is really unacceptable. If a particular client feels that he or she and his or her representation is in conflict, the onus is then on the provincial government to address the legal aid legislation, and to ensure that a person can feel that he or she is being represented freely and independently and without the threat of a conflict existing. Again, that is a funding issue, and that is an issue this government fails to realize is important. Obviously the attention it deserves was simply not given, and not only in yesterday's Speech but in our Throne Speech.

Other that the fact that there is a Remand Centre - which, incidentally, has been announced on three different occasions - in yesterday's speech -

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that three different centres now? Are they (inaudible)?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is one centre announced three times, I say to the Member for Ferryland. That is the same Remand Centre in Pleasantville here in the City of St. John's announced on three separate occasions, and of course we find it again as the single reference to justice in the Budget Speech that was delivered in this House yesterday.

We have a department that has been completely overlooked, I say, Mr. Chairman. We have the many facets and aspects of justice which are given no attention whatsoever. The people of this Province are asking why. The people of this Province are simply asking: Where is the sense of priority given to a department and given to an agency which affects their lives in a real way on a day to day basis? I can say that it simply was not there, and it is unfortunate that it was not there.

There was a glaring omission in addition to the areas of justice.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

CHAIR: Leave denied.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I got interrupted by the minister responsible for seals. I was telling him when the call came to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation the Minister and his camera crew on the Witless Bay Line, there were trucks going everywhere. Anybody (inaudible) in the district, get your head down or you would be covered with sand, that is what it was. Sand flying north, south, west and east, tow trucks going out there. Get the minister out of the ditch, get him back on the road, and get out there and see can he do some more damage out in Harbour Main-Whitbourne or wherever else he was going. It didn't work anyway. Did he help any? Did he help at all out there?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We only sent him out to torment you, that is all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, that is where (inaudible), and you wanted to get down and listen to him to find out all the good news of what was going on.

AN HON. MEMBER: He got a fright.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sir. He got a fright, I tell you.

I was saying one thing. I do not like saying anything too good about the minister. He had this big staged event, announced at bingos, and announced all over the community, that a big announcement on the plant in Fermeuse. The minister is going to be up with the Liberal candidate. They all go down, all the people on projects gather together, all fifty of them around gathered together. They are waiting for the big announcement, and the minister said: What announcement? This is the type of staged gatherings we saw throughout the district, big staged gatherings around. He did say at one point, he did indicate that he was not going to give any promises. I will give him credit for that. He did say that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not at all. The way I look at things, everybody in the Province is entitled to their fair share. We are all citizens of this Province, we all contribute to the Province, and we all should be treated fairly. If the minister does not espouse that philosophy, if he thinks a fisherperson in one part of the Province is any better than a fisherperson in another - look, I represent a district and I do not think they are any better or any worse than people in any other part of the Province. They deserve reasonable access.

His department's policies, what he brought in, are pretty flawed over all. I will leave that for another day. I am sure my colleague is eager to get up there and give government a bit of a rough ride on the money they are spending in a few pitiful areas of this Budget.

Tourism, for instance. I'm sure the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's is going to be telling you about all this money we see here. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is looking to receive $8,457,100. Is that the travel budget only for the minister? That is what they are looking for. They are looking for enough up front money for a few months to look after the travel budget of the minister, $8.4 million.

Industry, Trade and Technology, look, they still have not recovered. I was driving home one day and Open Line was on. We have the minister calling from Chile, sitting back in the back seat of a car on a cell phone. Eating Chilean grapes and drinking Chilean wine. I said to someone else, then the minister passed (inaudible) the telephone and said (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not like mentioning private names in the House of Assembly. It is not the place. I will tackle the minister on it, or anybody in my critic area I will not mind. I will not tread into that. Anyway, Newfoundland and Labrador were delighted to know that the minister was down in Chile. They had all those smelters for copper there, and all he did was taste wine and never went to a copper smelter.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Wasn't that on your trip a year or two ago?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I never make up things.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. Listen, if you did that is fine. Every minister needs a bit of rest and relaxation now and then, out away from home for a week or two. Sure you need a round of golf. What is wrong with it? There is nothing wrong with a round of golf. There is nothing wrong with having golf courses. Golf courses are important. So are hospitals and so are other services. It has to be in proportion, I might add.

I'm sure the Minister of Government Service and Lands is looking for almost $8 million. I say to our critic here, $8 million is what they want for Government Services and Lands, on top of all those fees they collected from us since the Budget the year before last. They crucified people. They are still trying to pay off the debts they earned on the fees that minister tacked on to people here who had little remote cottages. They are crucified on an indirect taxation. Actually, it is directly taxation. I would not call it an indirect taxation. It is a back door fee on services being provided there.

I am sure the Member for Placenta & St. Mary's is eager to jump up here now and to tear the hide off of those ministers here who are out looking for, between them, about $13 million to $15 million here for only a couple months in the Province.

I said there a few minutes ago, in a petition I presented, what the former Minister of Mines and Energy in a petition I presented here in the House - I would like to get his comments here just to make sure I am entirely accurate on what he said. I cannot even find the direct comments on that letter. I am sure I will find it. Anyway, I will sum up what he said. The former Minister of Mines and Energy when talked about a plant going to Sept-Iles, Quebec, they announced - can you imagine a pellet plant for Sept-Iles, Quebec, announced by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? They should (inaudible)! They shouldn't be anywhere near that announcement. Here it is, I found it!

Here is what the Minister of Mines and Energy said. Can you imagine, the decision to put a pellet plant in Sept-Iles, Quebec? I will quote the minister: This decision secures the future of Labrador West. Can you imagine, a pellet plant in Quebec? Why don't you give them the one that is there? Why don't you give them everything if it secures the future of Labrador West? Why don't you give it all to them? Why can't we move the Upper Churchill? Why can't we move that into Quebec? We will secure the future of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I will say to the minister.

I will read the full quote. I would never want to take the minister out of context. Here is what the quote states: This decision secures the future of Labrador West and is a solid base for growth and economic security for the area.

Can you imagine hundreds of Quebecers going to work every day in Sept-Iles, Quebec, securing the future for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Can you see that? The hundreds toddling off to work, going into their pellet plant and saying: We are working for Newfoundland and Labrador to secure your future, don't worry. We get the Premier and the minister - I do not know if the Premier went up there. No, he did not have the gall. He sent his minister. For the bad news announcements we see the minister. We want to secure the future of Newfoundland and Labrador and we are going to give a pellet plant to Quebec.

Why don't you secure the future of the rest of Newfoundland and give them a smelter and refinery in Sudbury and secure all our future? Is that what you want to do? That is not logic to me at all. That does not make very much sense.

Then the point man, before he became the Minister of Mines and Energy, jumps up to defend those irrational decisions with logic that behooves even the most philosophical of human beings, I would say. He stands and tries to convince people the logic behind securing our future. I beg to understand - maybe I am stupid and don't understand - but I cannot see the difference in those two statements. A smelter and refinery must go in Argentia or in this Province because it is economically feasible. But a smelter and refinery is not going in Labrador West because it is not most economically feasible.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I would say, Minister, I've taken it in (inaudible). I say to the minister that when the Premier sends the minister down - and do you know when they made the announcement on the Labrador highway, do you know what they did? They spent $50,000 or $60,000.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: They bought a big flatbed. They put a big flatbed: Labrador, Our Future. Big signs on the flatbed. They had seven politicians in -

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

CHAIR: No leave. Leave denied. I would ask the member to take his seat, please.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Chairman. I will only get up again and I will be worse. I'm going to let the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's just show you what an example of worse is.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: You are taking the hon. Member for Ferryland out of context again, I say to the Minister of Tourism.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to make a few comments on this Budget, or should I say an excuse for a budget. There are so many different aspects of the Budget that one could comment on. I look over at the Minister of Mines and Energy, and I want to go to a very interesting column in the paper today. I'm sure the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation had a look and checked out his travel budget for last year. Very interesting numbers, I say to the minister. I found you did a lot of travelling. You must have enough points now I would say to have season tickets.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, well, you never invited me yet, I say to the minister. Right?

I just want to touch on (inaudible). I say to the taxpayers that the former Minister of Mines and Energy had a budget of $365,100 for travelling in his portfolio last year. According to yesterday's Budget he spent $503,000. So I would say I'm looking forward to seeing the next Air Nova commercial and who is going to be singing the next song for Air Nova.

Yesterday in the Budget, Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to hear that the government in its wisdom has doubled the budget for marketing in the Province. I say it is an excellent move. I think that Newfoundland and Labrador needs to be marketed throughout the world and it is great. My only concern is this. How much of this 100 per cent increase in the marketing budget is going for travel for the new minister? That is what I would really like to be concerned about. I am wondering just how much will be spent on marketing the new minister for the new job that he hopes to have in a couple of years time. I am just wondering. When it comes to marketing there are a lot of things that need to be marketed on that side of the House.

I look back at some other expenditures that we had. Last year we had $5.4 million for office expenditures for the Premier's office and the minister's office. They actually spent $6.3 million, almost $1 million over budget on the minister's expenses alone. It is a shame for the people of this Province to be out there now trying to make ends meet when we have ministers in this government, and the Premier, who overspend $1 million on travelling around the globe trying to further their own political theories.

I found it very interesting also to see that the former Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, who is another fellow who is good to spend money, overspent his office expense. He had budgeted $289,500 and he actually spent $468,000. Now I say where in the name of God could the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs spend $484,000 in travel and expenses. I think it is a shame when we look over here in a province that is as hard hit as we are.

When I go out around my district of Placentia & St. Mary's and I see situations in Placentia, through the shutdown of the industrial development, the Argentia naval base, and with the close down of the fishery, we have hundreds of people who are forced on social assistance, and hundreds of others who are packing their bags. Instead of packing fish they are packing their suitcases and heading out of the Province. At the same time we have a bunch of highfalutin ministers across the House that are travelling all over God's globe and spending an extra $1 million on travel.

I say it is a shame. They all should put down their heads in shame. Over $1 million last year over budget in what the ministers on the other side of the House spent. For the people of this Province I find it very unsettling to have to go out and try to explain to the people who are out there looking for employment opportunities, who are out there trying to get work done with their homes through the RRAP, to the students out there that are covered in with debt, to explain to the senior citizens out there on fixed incomes, how we have a government that can spend over $1 million extra on travel and office expenses than what they budgeted for. I think it is a shame, and I think the ministers should certainly be called to task for it.

I also want, if I could, to touch on for a few moments this $200 announcement yesterday for seniors under the threshold of $12,000. It comes down to $3.86 a week, I say to the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I want more. I think you have found the lowest common denominator, Mr. Chairman, $3.86 that the government gave them for one week. I ask the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation: How much did your breakfast cost this morning? (Inaudible) You expect, I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, that $3.86 a week is going to make a big difference to the seniors and the poorest of the seniors who are living on an income below $12,000 a year, who are going to be forced now to accept a paltry $3.86 a week? This government then will stand up and try to say they are doing something for the seniors of this Province while they are giving them $3.86 a week.

I think it is a shame. I think it is really a slap in the face to the many seniors who frequent our galleries here looking for fair and equitable treatment. I say there are a lot of concerns out in our Province and I think that to give $3.86 a week to the seniors and to spread it out over in that regard is a disregard for the seniors in this Province.

I say that one of the largest concerns and the most important concern facing this Province today is out-migration.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the minister, pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I did not have breakfast either. I did not have lunch either. Mr. Chairman, I say to the hon. member I did not have lunch either. I have been sizing up this Budget over the past couple of days and I can't even get to eat on the head of it. It just turns me away from food. I cannot stomach it, I cannot even bring myself to sit down and eat. I've no appetite after listening to the Budget here yesterday and listening to what was going on in the House today during Question Period. How can anyone sit down and have a comfortable meal? I have lost an appetite to eat on the head of this.

I say I wanted to touch on a couple of things. One of the most important things that I found not addressed in the Budget yesterday, that was not even mentioned, was the major problem we have in this Province with out-migration. Even in my district, and I am sure in many other districts, we have a major problem with out-migration. Many hundreds of people are leaving on a continuous basis and I do not think that the present government takes it very seriously. I do not think that it was addressed in the Budget in a fair way. We have out-migration in numbers of 11,000 last year alone, 9,000 previous to that, 7,000 previous to that. Over 30,000 people have left this Province in the past years.

I listened to the minister talk about 7,100 new jobs this January compared to last January. I say the reason for that is because of the federal money that was put into the FRAM program. Seventy-one hundred jobs in January versus last January. That is what the minister spoke about the other day. I ask the minister: How many of those 7,100 were people who were on the Fisheries Restructuring and Adjustment Measures program in this Province? That is where the 7,100 came from, or the bulk of that. I ask the minister if he would take some statistics in April month to see how many people here, compared to last April, are going to be working in this Province this April. I would say he will get a more realistic picture of what is out there versus what is out there now in regards to comparing January with January, thanks to a major influx of federal money that put a lot of people - even though it is only short-term and part-time work - but it put a lot of people into work in this Province on make-work projects and community infrastructure.

I also want to touch on (inaudible) the fact of the announcement yesterday by the minister to try to give the impression he is putting more dollars into municipalities in this Province. I say it is very unfair that the Minister of Finance could get up in this House and try to tell us that he is putting more money into municipalities in this Province when, at the same time, from this year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Why, because you want to get up on it?

Mr. Chairman, in reality he took $3 million out of the municipalities this year that he had in it last year. Municipalities out in my home town of St. Bride's -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: - and throughout the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, there are a lot of municipalities hurting.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: I say to the minister that it is unfair that you would take a backhanded slap to the municipalities of this Province, instead of trying to help them out and trying to help them keep alive.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am going to speak on Interim Supply here today. There are a couple of areas that I want to raise that were missing in the Budget, that were mentioned in the Throne Speech. One of them is water export.

In the Throne Speech, on page 6, the government say that they are going to get "full and fair benefits from our resources". They say, "For too long we have accepted the label "have-not" province. We have a storehouse of natural resources. We have a skilled and committed workforce. Our story was never one of not having. Our story was one of not doing - a "did-not" province. We did not wait for the right deal. We did not stand firm and demand full and fair benefits for our people from the development of our resources."

It is ironic that this is in here, for a couple of reasons. Our colleague from Labrador West will tell you it is ironic because of the deal that they did with Sept-Iles for the Iron Ore Company of Canada; a very contradictory term here in the Budget Speech, a very contradictory paragraph. It is also ironic on our water resources because the only reason right now that our water resources have been saved is because the federal government had the foresight to see the impending implications through the NAFTA deal and the unfortunate consequences that could happen to our resources, if we were to export our water resources as a raw resource as opposed to doing the processing on our resources right here.

So it is very unfortunate that the Budget did not reflect what is happening in our water resources. It is very unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that we are not standing firm and demanding full and fair benefits from the development of our water resources or from the iron ore in Labrador City, in Labrador West. It is very unfortunate that we are not waiting for the right deal on our water exports, that we are not waiting for a company that is going to do the processing and the bottling and the labelling here in this Province before the water is exported. It is unfortunate that the government are prepared to speak from one side of their mouth, yet they are prepared to do something completely different.

Mr. Chairman, today and for the future our people are writing a new story. The Throne Speech goes on to say, "Never again will we accept less than full and fair benefits from our resources."

If we are to allow our water resources to be exported as a raw resource, then we have broken the promise made in the Throne Speech because we will be accepting less than our full and fair share from the benefits of that resource. We will be accepting less than the full amount of employment that could be created through that resource. We will be accepting less than the people of this Province deserve, because we will be setting a deal that will allow any and all companies in the United States or Mexico to come in and demand equal access to our water resources.

There are two reasons that deal would be wrong. One is because, under the NAFTA agreement, we would open up the access to our water resources. Most importantly, the very paragraph that is printed in the Throne Speech, that, "Never again will we accept less than full and fair benefits from our resources."

The Premier himself has said, after the moratorium was announced by the federal government on the export of water, that he will accept it as long as it is in place, but the minute that they remove that moratorium, he is going to proceed with the export of our water as a raw resource. The Premier himself sat in the House of Commons and fought against free trade with the United States. He fought against it for the very reason that he is now accepting the export of our water resources. Yet, when they formed government, the very same person stood up and fought for the NAFTA agreement, expanded on the Free Trade Agreement.

I asked questions just last week on the sewer treatment plant in St. Alban's, and the responses to the questions that I had asked were a little bit amazing. Again in the Throne Speech, it says that we are going to fully develop the potential of aquaculture in our Province. "We must continue to work toward fully developing the potential of aquaculture in our Province. My government will do so by assisting industry through such measures as $9 million for research and development, a $5 million working capital fund and $1 million for sectoral marketing strategies."

Yet, some of the aquaculture sites in Bay d'Espoir are only yards away from the outfall from the sewer treatment plant. That sewer treatment plant is operating at 40 per cent above the capacity recommended by the manufacturer, operating at 60 per cent above what the Department of Environment are prepared to accept.

Not only is it unfortunate because it is polluting our environment, but it is unfortunate because we have an aquaculture industry that this Province is trying to develop and promote and sell to the rest of the world. Less than 10 per cent of the product that comes from that aquaculture industry is sold within our own Province. The rest of it is sold abroad.

It is unfortunate that we are going to continue to permit the raw sewage that is entering that bay, at such a close proximity to the aquaculture sights in that bay, to continue when the town has been crying out for years to have improvements made to that facility. It is almost disgusting, when you think of it, that the aquaculture industry is only yards away from where this pollutant, this raw sewage, is entering the bay; and we are going to sell this to the rest of the world. Yet, we are being told that there is no harm, there is no damage, there are no harmful effects to the aquaculture industry from the raw sewage, even though it is in such very close proximity. I find that very difficult to believe. I find it very difficult to believe.

The minister is making very snide, arrogant and very rude remarks. Obviously he is agreeing with what is happening out there with the aquaculture industry. I challenge him now, if he does not agree with what is happening out there, to stand and say so. Obviously he agrees with what is happening out there: the raw sewage entering the bay at such close proximity to the aquaculture sites; the fact that we are going to export our water as a raw resource, even though the harmful effects through the NAFTA agreement will say that we are opening up our resource to any and all American and Mexican companies that want to come in and extract that resource. He obviously agrees with this or he would accept my challenge now to stand and say he does not, Mr. Chairman.

We see in the Budget that the payroll tax has been amended. We have increased the amount to $150,000 through a company's payroll now, and that any companies paying under $150,000 in payroll will be exempt. The payroll tax will be eliminated for those companies. That is a good move but it is not good enough. The Board of Trade in this Province says it is not good enough. The Association of Manufacturers say it is not good enough. It is good, but it is not good enough.

Mr. Chairman, this party has said for years - since the Liberal government, back in the early 1990s, implemented the payroll tax - that we disagree with the payroll tax, that it is a regressive tax, that it is a tax on jobs. While we applaud the decision of government to increase the payroll on any particular company to $150,000 -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow being Wednesday, it is Private Members' Day and it is the Opposition -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Right, and I think the resolution has to do with the sealing industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, if you can get control of my side.

Mr. Speaker, I move the House adjourn until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, 2:00 p.m.