May 3, 1999                 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLIV  No. 16


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has much to offer a tourist. From learning about the Basque Whaling Site in Red Bay, Labrador, to taking in the musical and storytelling talents of the St. John's Folk Festival, one of the oldest folk festivals in the Province, to visiting L'Anse aux Meadows, the only authenticated Viking Site in North America, our Province is rich in its culture and heritage.

The Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is continuing to develop private and public partnerships in an effort to further advance the development of the Province's tourism product. One area where there is great potential is the investigation and interpretation of our shipwrecks. Our history derives from the ocean and as a result has experienced many sea diasters over hundreds of years. While always tragic, the shipwrecks have provided archaeologists and historians with valuable information on our marine heritage. Thousands of these sites lie off our shores.

Mr. Speaker, many of these shipwrecks are threatened through the passage of time, actions of the sea, and looting of artifacts. As a result, much of this valuable information is lost for all time, as is the opportunity to study, interpret and develop important aspects of our maritime heritage. One shipwreck which has tremendous development potential to increase public awareness of this heritage and become a major tourist attraction is the H.M.S. Saphire.

The H.M.S. Saphire sank in Bay Bulls Harbour during an engagement with a French squadron on September 11, 1696. This is one of Canada's earliest shipwrecks and is the only vessel of its size that sunk in Newfoundland during the English/French conflict over control of the cod fisheries. Thousands of artifacts were recovered from the shipwreck site during two archaeological investigations in the 1970s, providing us with knowledge of life on board a vessel during the 17th century and, indeed, adding to our knowledge of life in general during that time. The value of the H.M.S. Saphire to our cultural heritage has already been acknowledged through its designation as a Provincial Historic Site in 1975.

Mr. Speaker, because of the significance of this wreck, I am pleased to be able to inform hon. members that the government has committed $25,000 for the completion of a feasibility study relating to the establishment of an H.M.S. Saphire Interpretation Centre in the community of Bay Bulls. I am also pleased to inform hon. members that Mr. Cle Newhook and Mr. Don Beaubier have been elected as interim company principles for the H.M.S. Saphire Foundation, a not-for-profit foundation set up to oversee research and development pertaining to this shipwreck. Both gentleman, I think, are in the gallery today. I welcome them here and thank them for their contribution in this regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: This foundation has hired Axis Consulting to complete the feasibility study. It is expected that the study will take several months, at which time the findings will be presented to the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation - indeed, to the Cabinet of the Province - and the H.M.S. Saphire Foundation.

We very much look forward to this study being brought forward.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly my pleasure to pass on my thanks to the minister for seeing the importance of developing and preserving our history.

In Bay Bulls the Saphire, has great historical significance not only to the Bay Bulls area on the Southern Shore but, at the time, the Captain of that boat, Thomas Cleasby, set fire to the boat when he knew they were being overcome by the French. They headed to the woods, in hiding with other citizens of the area. They set fire to the boat and the boat exploded and sank. Even though there had been a recognition in 1975, this has been the first possible real effort to show that something on a more permanent basis can occur.

Up off the Southern Shore, as you are well aware, it is historic in terms of shipwrecks. It is really the graveyard of the Atlantic Ocean. There are hundreds and hundreds of boats. Books have been written on shipwrecks. In fact, a couple of businessmen in my district did a map just in the area north of Cape Race, down to Cape Ballard, in that area - several hundred - and they did a poster type map to show and locate each of these.

In fact, I invite people; there is a boat tour that goes out of Chance Cove to take people out to those shipwreck sites. Many people, particularly in Germany, are quite interested in exploring and developing this particular part that has great promise in the future in tourism.

We would certainly like to see this occur on a positive basis. It is, to my knowledge, the oldest, with the exception of the San Juan, in Red Bay. That is the only one that is probably known that is older, dating way back into 1696.

It certainly has great significance there. It is another opportunity, another anchor on which to build a tourism industry here to complement the fishing industry in the area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Once again, it is great to see it happening.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the Ministerial Statement. I think it is important that our history and our heritage, which are deeply rooted with the sea, are developed for the potential they have to increase the tourism industry in the Province. I think it is very important that we identify that and promote it for any tourists who come to the area.

I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope the artifacts that have already been removed from this site that are, it is my understanding, currently in Ottawa, will be returned eventually to their rightful place in the Province. I would also like to say, contrary to what the Premier might think, this is probably the first casualty of the cod war.

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

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

I take this opportunity today to announce National Forestry Week from May 3 to May 8. It is sponsored nationally by the Canadian Forestry Association and by the Newfoundland and Labrador Forest Protection Association in our Province.

In the early 1920s, Forest Fire Prevention Week began with the intention of encouraging greater public awareness about Canada's forests. At that time, there was no apparent shortage of trees for industrial expansion, and the greatest threat was from forest fires, mainly due to human causes.

National Forestry Week, as it is now known, was adopted in 1967. This was in response to more general recognition of the many needs - both human and environmental.

National Forestry Week emphasizes greater awareness of the nature and management of Canada's forests. Although special activities are promoted each year by a nation-wide network of cooperators, National Forest Week remains first and foremost a challenge to individual Canadians to learn more about the nation's forest heritage and to support greater recognition of it.

The theme for National Forestry Week is, "Forest Fires - Handle with Care." Forest fires can have devastating affects on human and ecological values. Wildfires can lead to loss of human life and cause enormous property damage by destroying infrastructure, recreational areas and timber. Fires can also destroy ecologically sensitive areas such as critical fish and wildlife habitat.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the number of human-caused fires is disturbing. The vast majority of the 192 fires recorded last year were caused by people. Only twenty-four were caused naturally, by lightning. The remaining 168 fires in the Province were caused by carelessness in the woods.

This province saw a greater than average number of fires in 1998. The total area burnt, over 40,000 hectares, was mostly non-productive forest land.

Our fire protection and management staff work hard to advocate fire prevention by visiting schools, youth organizations and service clubs, particularly during National Forest Week. Messages are aired through the media, signs are posted on public highways and in cabin development areas. "Beware and Prepare" public awareness kits are distributed to individuals, cottage associations and other concerned groups to educate the public about wildlife hazards, and provide information on property protection.

In addition, a Fire Order has been issued for the 1999 season. On the Island, there will be no open fires permitted after May 7, and May 14 in Labrador.

The Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods is dedicated to managing our Province's forest ecosystems, with a view to protecting and developing our valuable resources. We strive to integrate modern and traditional management strategies.

All Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should enjoy continued access to our forests for commercial and recreational activities with the confidence that they are maintained responsibly.

I encourage all Members of the House of Assembly, and the general public, to participate in National Forest Week and recognize the contribution of our forests to our economic and social well being.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the current debate on some forestry issues, I would also like to take the time to inform the Members of the House that our department will host a Round Table on Forest Resources and Forest Issues. Industry, labour, community representatives, along with other agencies, have been invited to participate in this round table to be held on June 1, 1999 in Stephenville. It will provide a mechanism for dialogue among various stakeholders on current and future forest policies and programs in the Province.

As our department prepares for the year 2000, it is important that we all understand the key issues and develop strategies to sustain our valuable forest resources.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Forestry and Agrifoods for the ministerial statement beforehand.

I support this very important week. I think our forestry is a very important part of our economy and our society in Newfoundland and Labrador today. I think that forest fires do have a devastating effect on our economy and our communities, particularly in the rural areas.

I am looking to the round table discussion that is coming up. I think a lot of the concerns and issues pertaining to the forestry certainly should come out in that round table discussion. I thank the minister for initiating that. I am looking forward to sitting in on that.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say, first of all, that I support National Forest Week, and the focus on the forest resources of Canada and particularly our Province.

I want to say that I think the minister's policies in the forest area in looking after the forests are a failure. They have failed to deal adequately with the issue of harvesters, to integrate that into the proper harvesting of the forest. They have not dealt properly with the issue of preservation. They were given a failure rate by the National Wildlife Fund for preservation of our natural resources. We are the lowest in Canada, next to one other province, in preservation of our natural areas. We have controversies over the use of biological agents and bacterial agents in the forest.

Mr. Speaker, this round table I hope will focus on some of these issues, and see if this minister starts listening to the people who know a lot about the forest industry of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and how it affects their lives and livelihood.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am really making two statements in one today, as I would like to update hon. members on two very successful trade missions which are set to yield dividends for Newfoundland and Labrador businesses.

From April 12 to April 15, eleven Newfoundland and Labrador companies took part in an intensive trade mission to New England. This was a well-structured initiative of the four Atlantic Provinces and the Government of Canada. It featured the Atlantic Premiers and forty-one companies from their provinces uniting to form the "Team Atlantic" trade mission.

Over a four-day period, our Newfoundland and Labrador companies took part in pre-arranged meetings in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.

These companies demonstrated their great energy and commitment to their ventures, and between them conducted ninety business meetings within the four-day mission.

This mission was representative of our dynamic economy, with its blend of both new and traditional sectors. Company products and services ranged from food production to clothing to information technology.

It was a pleasure to assist these companies in making their business contacts, and see the enthusiasm our New England trading partners have for Newfoundland and Labrador products and services.

Team Atlantic received significant financial support from the Canada/Atlantic Provinces COOPERATION Agreement on International Business Development.

Following the New England mission, fourteen companies took part in a business mission to Ireland organized by the St. John's Board of Trade and Ireland Business Partnerships, which ran from April 16 to April 23.

I should note that two of these companies also took part in the Team Atlantic mission to New England.

The mission to Ireland was also led by Premier Tobin, and stemmed directly from the Memorandum of Understanding on Economic Co-operation signed between Ireland and Newfoundland and Labrador in 1996.

Agreements linked to our cultural ties, exchanges in research and development and technology transfers all figured prominently in the Ireland business mission.

These two trade missions featured a total of twenty-three Newfoundland and Labrador companies with determination, vision and confidence in their products.

These companies made a significant commitment of their time and resources to join in these missions, and worked hard to make each an unqualified success.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Business community is a full partner in our efforts to maximize Newfoundland and Labrador's position in the global marketplace, and I look forward to their participation in future missions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize some of the participants of both trade missions, a few of whom are in the gallery this afternoon: Gary Follett from FGA Consulting Engineers; Hilda Pollard from the Tourism Training Institute; Randy Gillespie and Ron Newhook from the Canadian Centre for Marine Communications; Vince Withers and Kirk Tilley with Ireland Business Partnerships; Gail Ryan with the St. John's Board of Trade; John Drover with the Newfoundland Environmental Industries Association; Peter Austin, of Austin Advertising; Dianna Day and Bruce Day from Infomedia; and Kevin Bussey from True North Springs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: I would like to thank each of the trade mission participants for taking the time out of their busy schedules to be here this afternoon.

In the coming months, we will be intensifying our focus on these two key markets, Ireland and New England, and the very real opportunities that these areas represent.

For the information of hon. members, and the media, I am tabling a list of the twenty-three companies who took part in these missions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of her Ministerial Statement. I just say to the minister that we are very glad to see that there were eleven companies who went to New England and another fourteen who went off to Ireland. I would only hope that over the next week or several days you will find time to probably table in this House exactly what, if any, business ventures we were able to tie into in New England that will benefit the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As well, exactly what, if anything, we were able to do in Ireland which will again be of benefit to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We welcome such trade missions. At the end of the day, we certainly trust that there is a benefit for our Province in these particular ventures.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I want to go on record once again as being supportive of these efforts by the provincial government to diversify our economy and trade, in particular with those parts of the world that we have had historical trading relationships and involvements in culture and trade, in the New England states, in Ireland and in the Caribbean.

As well, I note that one of the companies that was on the Irish trip is called Rink Rat Productions. Despite its name, it is associated with a t.v. production and show called Dooley Gardens which many of you may have seen. This company is pursuing the doing of a movie in Ireland and in Newfoundland on the song Sonny's Dream, written by, of course, Ron Hynes. In Ireland they think it is an Irish song, and the efforts of these individuals will be trying to produce a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. HARRIS: They will try to put together a documentary musical showing the cultural connections, both then and now, between Ireland and Newfoundland. I look forward to these and other developments from these types of missions, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 5.4 of the Internal Economy Commission Act, I wish to advise the House with respect to the membership of the Commission of Internal Economy.

The members of the Commission are: the Member for Trinity North in his capacity as Deputy Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal in his capacity as Government House Leader, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice and the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods - both ministers have been appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council in their capacities as Ministers of the Crown -, the Member for Ferryland in his capacity as Opposition House Leader, the Member for Lewisporte as a member of the Opposition, and the Speaker who is Chair of the Commission.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In December 1998 there were a number of questions asked with respect to the Newfoundland Government Fund Limited which is owned and administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology.

When the Auditor General's document was tabled for 1998 it indicated in that document that the operating licence for the Newfoundland Government Fund Limited, commonly known as the Canada Immigration Investment Fund, had been suspended because of non-compliance with the rules and regulations associated with the Canada Immigration Investment Fund. Up until September 30 that licence or the suspension was still in effect.

Can the minister inform the House today, or elaborate on if that fund is now in a position where the federal department has given it permission to go ahead and continue to market itself? If not, why not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, the fund has been fully marketed even at the time that the federal government asked us to suspend marketing this fund. It was fully subscribed. As a matter of fact, I think it is oversubscribed knowing that, as you do the due diligence, some of the potential investors and potential immigrants may not meet all the criteria. Normally you would oversubscribe, and that was done in this case.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask the minister again. With respect to the fund, why was the licence suspended by the federal government, the arm responsible for immigration in Canada? Could she elaborate to the House on why the fund was suspended? Minister, could you tell the House that today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS KELLY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer that question.

The fund was suspended at the time that it was because we had not met the time lines of the investment fund. It is a private-public sector investment fund and we were seeking ways to implement it, both to government's advantage to build public infrastructure with. We were unable to meet the time lines because we were not satisfied that government was receiving the benefit it should from such an arrangement.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in the Auditor General's report there were more reasons given than that why the fund was suspended. I would like to refer directly to what was found by the Auditor General with respect to the consulting fees that the Auditor General was unable to determine. I will quote, from page 178 of her report:

"As indicated in Figure 1, $688,992 of the Corporation's expenditure... relates to consulting and professional fees. The Corporation has not developed any policies regarding the selection, monitoring and evaluation of consultants. Furthermore, the Corporation could not provide information as to how the various consultants were selected."

I would like to ask the minister: How were the consultants selected for this specific fund?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answer readily available in written form here, but if my memory serves me correctly, there was one consultant for all of the provinces for this fund. I think it may have been the CPP, if my memory serves me correctly. I have not seen the exact details of it now for some number of weeks but I can certainly find out the exact details. I know that the consultant who was doing this was for a set fee and was the one that was agreed to through the Memorandum of Understanding with the federal government, and well within the confines of the agreement that we had with the federal government. I can certainly get the details of the information and have it tabled in this House.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, the details of the question I'm asking were contained in the Auditor General's report, so let me refresh the minister's memory. Under consulting and professional fees there was a $64,183 consulting fee paid for auditing and accounting; there was an additional $22,111 for consulting generally; distribution, marketing and reporting was close to $500,000; and legal consulting was $147,810, for a total of $688,992.

The question is: How were these consultants selected? Based upon what? Was it based upon the criteria that we operate in the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador, or was it based on some other criteria only known to Cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS KELLY: No, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I should apologize that I have not memorized the total Auditor General's Report. I do not think it is reasonable to expect that I could give you every fact and figure in the report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: These funds that you outlined are perfectly acceptable - these amounts - when you consider this, if my memory serves me correctly again, is about a $30 million fund. These consultants and all of the hiring was done within the confines of the federal-provincial agreement that was put in place for this agreement. As I have said in my previous answer, I will be very willing to get you all of the details and have them tabled in this House.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister says that those are all perfectly legitimate, and that may very well be. The question is: For legal and other consulting work that was there, did everybody have a chance to bid?

She has indicated that it was legitimate. I find it passing strange that the minister responsible, on behalf of the Crown and on behalf of the people who own the investment fund - it is pretty clear here - said that all the expenses were legitimate, that the corporation, however, had not requested any support for marketing expenses and as a result the corporation cannot be assured that it has paid for legitimate marketing expenses.

I would like to ask the minister, with respect to that section: Has the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology, or the directors of the Newfoundland Investment Fund, taken into account what was in the Auditor General's Report? And has it now received the documentation for over $500,000 for consulting fees that this Province released to those consultants?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS KELLY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I have said, now twice, I will get the details. I am assured and, if I remember correctly, the letter was sent to the Auditor General outlining the questions that arose out of the report. They were all adequately answered, and I will ensure that the information is brought forward.

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

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

In the Budget of 1998, the government announced with much fanfare that $25 million of the Immigration Investment Fund - it would raise $25 million, and that $25 million would go towards the cost of constructing new health care facilities in the Province.

In December, under direct questioning to the Minister of Finance with respect to these projects, he indicated that there were some difficulties. I could quote Hansard for him, but I do not think there is any need. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance today - if he is the appropriate minister, of course - with respect to the financing of these hospitals: Has the Immigration Investment Fund been fully realized to what government wanted it to do? As of now, are all of those projects proceeding?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, first of all, all of the projects are proceeding.

The difficulty we had in implementing and using the fund was that Ottawa had fairly restrictive criteria as to how the money could be utilized. Essentially what they wanted were public-private partnerships. It took us some time because we were not keen on the idea of going into lease-back arrangements involving the private sector; so we received sign-off from Ottawa, if my memory serves me correctly, some time in January or so, which led to an announcement in the Budget that we used the fund for several hospitals.

I think my recollection is that we received sign-off from Ottawa as to the methodology of how we would use the money out of the fund some time in January, and in the Budget we announced we would use it for, I think, four hospitals.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, again, if he is the appropriate minister, because it seems that the Minister of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation has been involved in this, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, on behalf of the people, as owners of that fund, and obviously the Minister of Finance in terms of dispersement through which government's policies will be realized or not realized.

Is the minister saying today that the $25 million has been collected by the fund, and that all of the negotiations between Ottawa and the Province are concluded? He indicated early in December that the decision had not been made, he had hoped it would be made in the new year, that government was exploring a proper way to utilize the funds from this Immigration Investment Fund for public infrastructure such as hospitals. Have you concluded those discussions? Can you at least elaborate further to the House what made up (inaudible) those conclusions between you, on behalf of the Province, and Ottawa have been and will be for the people of the Province?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I mentioned in response to the earlier question, the issue was whether or not you would be able to spend the money directly or have a public-private partnership with buybacks at the end of some subscribed period, be it five years or twenty years.

If memory serves me correctly, the hon. member asked the question in the context of a call for proposal or tender that had occurred in December. There were some issues that we wanted to get resolved. I told him at the time that the government would review it, and if it were in the best interests of the Province we would not award the tenders because, of course, all tenders carry a proviso that the lowest or any tender is not accepted.

A committee of Cabinet, Treasury Board, met over a protracted period of time and came to the conclusion that we were not satisfied with the arrangement. We had ongoing meetings with Ottawa and some time in January or early February, in that time period, we resolved some concerns we had about the implementation and spending of the money.

As matters presently stand, I believe the Department of Works, Services and Transportation is calling for the planning of the hospitals and will be proceeding with the construction within due course.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary.

So, government has made a decision on how it will spend the money. Has it made a decision on whether it will be a leasing arrangement, that it will be done through a third party, which we talked about and you mentioned in this House before? If so, could you elaborate on that? Could you tell us directly what decision government has made on the financing of these health care facilities in the Province? Will it be a leasing arrangement? If so, how long? Who have you made the arrangements with? What is that third party? And any more details surrounding the expenditure of some $25 million of public money which, while used from the Immigration Investment Fund, ultimately is our responsibility as a Province to pay back.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take the question as notice and I will file a more complete answer - myself and the minister - tomorrow as to where we are with these matters. It was decided in the Budget to use it for hospitals. I say to the hon. member, the exact implementation, we do not have that information at hand. There is a normal process for calling for tenders for design and so on. We will update the House probably either later this afternoon - although it might be a little late, given that we have half an hour - or tomorrow, and give a fuller answer to his question.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Education.

Educational reform was intended to bring about better access to programming for our students to better prepare them for the coming century. Parents, students, and others expected this to happen and demand improved quality education.

I - as they - am finding out that in many areas, in many schools in our Province, students are getting less options or have been given less options in programming than they had prior to this school reform. This is not what the people of this Province voted for. Why, Minister, is this happening?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it certainly was not government's intention either, so if it is happening it certainly was not because of any direction taken by this government.

When we went through education reform, it was to consolidate where we could to make sure that at the end of the day we have best, efficient use of the resources available to us. From my understanding, that is exactly what the boards have done throughout this Province - these elected school boards.

As a government what we did, in fact, was: When you look at declining student enrolments, if we had, in fact, followed the formula that existed, that was put in place by the Progressive Conservative Administration several years ago, we would have in fact have seen over 400 teachers removed from the system. We chose not to do that. In fact, what we did was reinvest 236 positions at a cost of $11.4 million.

The decisions that were taken should have no impact on programming. However, let me state that if it is, what we have undertaken to do is to meet with every education director with each of the boards to try and determine the impact of our decisions based on the feedback we have been getting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again it is the programming and access to programming, and the programming limited choices that students are getting that is the problem. There are numerous examples out there of limited choices that students have in this current situation.

I have received many calls from around this Province from parents and students who are finding themselves very limited in looking at where they are going to go for at least next September.

I spoke to the principal of Lester Pearson Memorial High. I had e-mail from parents as well as students.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: They have to deal with six to eight less courses next September in core areas like science and social studies. Minister, why is this possible? Why is this possible, that students have to do with less coming up in the upcoming school year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, again let me say that it certainly is not this government's intention that there will be any impact on programming as a result of decisions taken through educational reform.

Let me give the hon. member an example in terms of access to programs in the school system today. Student access to Computer Technology 3200, for example, in the urban areas has gone from 71.2 per cent in 1996-1997 to 76.9 per cent in 1998-1999. In the rural areas it has gone from 27.5 per cent in 1996-1997 to 42.7 per cent in the rural areas in 1997-1998. Student access to biology, the same thing, and I could go on and on in terms of access to programming.

If it is having an impact, what I have asked is to have the education director show us the impact that it has had in terms of teacher allocations and the impact on programming throughout the school system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again it is interesting that the minister would bring up those types of examples. Let me give an example back, and that is the Chemistry 3000 Level at Lester Pearson Memorial High, where the principal has to go into a class of thirty-eight and ask for at least fifteen to twenty of them to drop the course so it can be offered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again I ask the minister: Will the minister act now to ensure that schools, especially in rural Newfoundland, are not decimated with regard to programming?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, Chemistry 3202, in 1996-1997 in the urban parts of this Province we had 91.3 per cent of our students accessing Chemistry 3202. Today, 1998-1999, we have 98.2 per cent of our student population.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: In the rural areas, in 1996-1997 we had 74.6 per cent of our student population accessing Chemistry 3202. Today, we have 77.6 per cent.

In every instance we have seen increased access to programming in both urban and rural areas of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, the question is: Those statistics, will they stand up for September of 1999? Can the minister ensure that the students of this Province, especially when it comes to high school courses like chemistry, will be able to continue on with the same program with which they started out in Level I? Yes or no?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the numbers I read out, in fact, were for 1998-1999. That takes into account September, 1999. So, yes, they can count on having the same access that they had prior.

Again, let me reiterate that I have undertaken to meet with the directors of education of every school board in this Province to try and determine what, if any, impact teacher reductions will have had on the programming for our students in the education system.

We put back in 236 teaching positions at a tune of $11.4 million. We could have removed 418 based on declining student enrolment; 4,000 fewer students in the system this coming school year. Again, let me say: We are listening but I want to be shown where the impact is. It is one thing to say it. What we are saying now is, show us. If you can show us there is an impact, then obviously we will have to look at that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Our health care system has reached a point where there are not enough specialist nurses available to provide the services needed. Recently we had cardiac surgery cancelled, we had the coronary care unit at the Grace Hospital shut down for several days because there are no specialist nurses in critical care.

Now nurses who are specialized in neonatology are not available this past weekend, and contingency measures were put in place to fly babies to the Isaac Walton Killam Hospital in Halifax should the need arise. We have one more baby this weekend required to be on a ventilator, and air ambulance would have to transfer that baby to Halifax requiring a specialist with them, a resident doctor, a transport nurse and a respiratory technologist along with that transportation crew.

This is not a cost-efficient way to run our health care system, especially when there are empty beds in those units. This is crisis management. What steps are you taking to ensure that this does not happen again?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know that the CEO of the Health Care Corporation addressed this issue. I think it was on Thursday or Friday of last week. We do know that, in particular, there are times during the year when we have peak admissions into the NICU, the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. At this particular time I know that the PICU, the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, is also experiencing difficulty because there are number of extremely difficult cases which I know require extra care to be provided. All those things to be considered I think are of importance, particularly that there are a number of periods during the year when you will get peak admissions into those particular units.

The contingency plan that has been put in place is one that is in place on a regular basis if the number of patients admitted to the unit exceeds the capacity. In this particular case there have been plans made with Halifax to transport babies and it is quite common. In fact, if there is an increase in the number of patients in the unit, particularly if the patient is from the West Coast, it is not unusual, in fact, to airlift that patient to Halifax.

It is true that at this particular point in time there is an added stress on that unit and it does happen, and in those cases there are contingency plans. Would we prefer it did not happen? Yes, we would. In fact, in many case we do have the staff from other units that can help out. In this particular case - and I am not sure if the member opposite is aware of it - there have been some extenuating circumstances, and I know it has been difficult to provide the extra staff to offset those particular needs at this time.

The contingency plan in place is one that we have had in place a number of times throughout the last number of years that I am aware of, and it will continue to be in place, if in fact the need arises for a bed and a bed is not available.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is trying to down play the incident. There are only three nurses cross-trained at the Grace to be able to go to the Janeway Hospital. The minister knows that as well as I do and she is down playing this. It has reached the worst point it has ever reached because nurses who are specialized in this area are now not available for the first time, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) is keeping an airplane pilot, a crew and all the medical staff on alert, with several empty beds in the unit? Minister, there is a very simple and non-expensive solution to this problem. If a nurse is trained in a specialty area and such nurses are in short supply, why not hire that nurse on a permanent rather than a casual basis?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member opposite knows, we are still in the process of having discussions with our boards looking at implementing the conversion of our casuals to permanent, and also in identifying and creating the new positions that will be required throughout the system. We have asked our boards to work with us on identifying the numbers. I know the boards have been working with the local branches to try to expedite and fast track the filling of those positions.

I am not down playing the situation. We have recognized and stated that there are issues, that there problems, particularly with respect with recruitment issues around specialty units and some of the other areas. We have acknowledged that. We are working with the boards to try to identify a fast-track approach to filling these positions as quickly as possible, granting as many of those nurses permanent positions as soon as possible. As I said earlier, those discussions are still ongoing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Crisis management at its highest. Minister, there are nurses in the system who have specialized in neonatology, and there are nurses in the system who have specialized in critical care, but because they were casual, many of them still wanting to work in their field have taken up permanent jobs in medicine and surgery and are now not available in those speciality areas.

I ask the minister: Will she move and halt this loss of specialist nurses in those areas and allow them to be hired permanently in their specialist area? It is a simple question, Minister. Just say yes.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of filling the positions, there is a process that you must follow. The process is that those positions have to be posted so that all people, whether they are permanent or casual, have an opportunity.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite is saying that they have not been posted. In fact, a number have been posted for quite a while. The process is that in order to fill the positions they have to be posted internally so all employees, whether they are permanent or casual, can have access to the posting. Once those positions are filled, and others become vacant from those positions, they are posted and they have to be filled from an internal process.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous question, the boards have been working at the local level to try to find and identify ways to fast-track that process, so that in fact we can capture those people before they decide to move on, we can capture the expertise before they actually apply for positions outside their area of speciality. That is what is in process right now, the process of trying to fast-track the filling of those positions as they are now and being posted and filled in all of the boards across the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Minister, at the opening of the House last Wednesday you read a ministerial statement outlining government's success in working out a solution to the problems that plagued S.C.B. Fisheries down in Bay d'Espoir. I ask the minister: Who is now in control of S.C.B. Fisheries? Is it your department, or is it the former owners?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not say last week that we had found a solution or an answer to the success of Bay d'Espoir aquaculture, S.C.B. Fisheries, in the future. What I did say, clearly, was that government had put its last dollar, the taxpayers' dollars, into S.C.B. Fisheries, that we had found out that there were major problems in the overall operations when we did an audit, and that we were backing off now, and the owners and the shareholders of S.C.B. Fisheries would be the operators when they met certain conditions: we would not release the securities unless they had new investors, they had a new manager, and that we had confidence that the new investors and new managers were going to be the operators of the S.C.B. Fisheries in the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain what I am hearing here. The minister is saying that government is not in control. the present shareholders of S.C.B. Fisheries is in control, but still the minister is saying that you, S.C.B. Fisheries, must put a new manager in control and you must create or have a new investor. I ask the minister: How can he bring about those requirements if he is not in control of the company?

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

MR. EFFORD: Oh man, where are you coming from? Mr. Speaker, it is simple. We put $6.4 million into a guaranteed loan last year for S.C.B. Fisheries. We went down there and we did an audit. We had an audit done of the operations of S.C.B. Fisheries and we found some problems. We corrected those problems.

We have said now to the shareholders of S.C.B. Fisheries: We will hold in place the securities on that loan until you reach certain conditions. One of those conditions is to find an appropriate manager. The other condition is to get an investor. If they do not meet those conditions we will maintain our securities. They can operate it, that is up to them, but unless they meet those conditions we will not release those securities. If the hon. member does not understand that, meet with me after Question Period and I will take you through the whole program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty.

I give further notice that I will on tomorrow move that this House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the guaranteeing of certain loans under the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957.

I give further notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills:

A bill, "An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act";

A bill, "An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act"; and,

A bill, "An Act to Amend the Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax Act."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act to Amend the Denturist Act."

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act to Amend the Securities Act."

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by in excess of 1,700 people who say:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in parliament assembled, that

WHEREAS throughout the issues of education reform both the provincial government and the Avalon East School Board assured parents of the district of an enhanced and more efficient education system; and

WHEREAS the Avalon East Board has been promised a sum of $15 million to carry out the necessary renovations to existing schools and provide for a smooth transition to the new school system; and

WHEREAS the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1560 has already provided their employer with viable alternatives to layoffs which would essentially negate any additional cost for the school year;

We the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to intervene in this dispute and have both parties sit down with a view to settling this matter within the framework of the Union proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the board made the decision last Thursday night which was not favourable to the position taken by the petitioners, but I think we have to understand that in this Province the unemployment rate, the lack of stable jobs, the lack of quality jobs which have a history, which have some seniority attached to them, which have a decent union agreement, is diminishing rapidly. We in public life, with public responsibilities, I believe have an obligation to preserve jobs where it is possible to do so.

In this particular case the $15 million that is being made available to the school board, some of which - and I don't know. All of it obviously is not going to be used between now and September, but much of it is being used between now and September to make schools ready to meet the different requirements of schools, depending on if a school is changing from a junior high to an elementary or vice versa. Obviously the facilities for washrooms, for many other facilities - lunchrooms, cafeterias - are all having to be renovated and changed.

Now there is a force here of tradespeople who are employed by the school board, many of whom have fifteen, sixteen, eighteen or more years of seniority who are available to do some of this work. What is happening, under the pretext of a shortfall for this particular fiscal year for the school board, is the lay-offs are taking place, despite the fact that the union has made available to the employer, through proposals that would see people take vacations early and other matters to prevent lay-offs. Despite that, the board has decided to go ahead and lay off these individuals.

I think there is a role here for government to play. If we do not amend the legislation or the act to ensure that decisions of this nature are made in a proper manner, surely the minister can get involved to see whether or not this is an appropriate approach to be taken by the school board in the case where jobs are able to be preserved, where money is being made available by the public through the minister's department, supervised to some extent - at least with contracts over $20,000 - by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

I think this is a situation where the minister's intervention, even now at this date, could provide support to the position taken by CUPE that they have these employees, that they are long-standing, loyal, long-service employees of the school board, that they are entitled to consideration for employment and to have their employment circumstances taken into consideration, and not be treated as mere assets of a board to be disposed of as they might dispose of equipment they no longer have a use for.

This is a very different matter. I think the minister has some responsibility here. I do not know whether the minister had taken any action as a result of a petition presented by me. The same petition, signed by hundreds of members, was presented in this House last week. The minister may have made some intervention. I have my doubts. I would like to ask her if she would reply to this petition and tell us what she has done to ensure that the Avalon East Board takes its responsibilities for its employees seriously and looks after them.

That is the petition. I hope that the minister has been listening and will respond to the wishes of the petitioners and assist the employees of the school board in preserving their employment and carrying out their duties to look after the schools, the some eighty schools of this board, Mr. Speaker, which they have been doing for many years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I rise today to present a petition to the hon. House of Assembly. It is from -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I thought the hon. member was responding.

MR. H. HODDER: This is a new petition, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: This is a new petition.

I guess we just have to move on to new petitions. Is the hon. minister going to speak?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I thought there would be someone supporting that petition.

To speak to the matter with the Avalon East School Board, and I spoke in the House of Assembly last week to this, clearly the decision that has been taken has been one that has been taken by the board in its entirety, again, looking at the personnel that they employ. I have to assume that when you take into account the safety of the children that the board has, in fact, taken that into account in making their decision. Having said that, that would be the area I would be most concerned with if, in fact, in laying off these employees at the end of the day there was some suggestion that safety would be an issue. That certainly has not been brought to my attention that that is in fact the case.

Whether or not the Avalon East reverses its decision is entirely up to the board. I certainly will not be interfering in that decision, but I do recognize the long-standing employees of that board and I recognize this is a serious matter for them. I would like to think that given the amount of work that is to be done and the $15 million that has been allocated, at the end of the day common sense will prevail and that at the end of the day both parties will come out of this winners.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I am hoping that the decision is not a final one by the board, but again I am not about to tell the board what to do.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some residents of Mount Pearl, St. John's, Makinsons and Hodgewater Line.

The prayer of the petition to the hon. House of Assembly is:

We the undersigned, as taxpayers of the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, Makinsons and Hodgewater Line, as cabin owners do petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade the Hodgewater Line with class A road gravel, or if possible to pave it.

Mr. Speaker, the petition has been signed by most of the residents of Makinsons, has been signed by the people who live along the Hodgewater Line. The prayer of the petition is that the roadway over there be upgraded.

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are asking the government to do something with the road. It is graded down now to bedrock and the culverts are broken. There is very little road gravel left, and when the department does grade the road there is nothing left there to grade at all.

The petitioners say that there are a large number of loaded dump trucks and heavy equipment travelling over the Hodgewater Line and using the road as a shortcut from coming west on the Trans-Canada Highway to go to Bay Roberts and surrounding areas. The petitioners, some of whom live there full time, also say that they are unable at times to get ambulance service to the area. I can read from the letter.

I say to the hon. Minister of Fisheries, it says here that there are also a great number of retirees living year round on Hodgewater Line, and they run into problems such as getting fuel oil delivered to their cabins and homes because of poor conditions of the road. They have also requested an ambulance on a couple of occasions due to medical conditions and have been refused, again because of the poor condition of the road.

Mr. Speaker, these people - who are a combination of residents, some of the them are part time in summer cabins and that kind of thing and some of them are full time - have asked the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs if he would look into this matter together, I guess, with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to see if that road can be upgraded to make it suitable for use. The total distance is about four miles long.

I say to the Government House Leader that these people have every right to have their petition presented. You may not agree with it, I say to the Government House Leader, but they have a right, like everybody else in this House, to have their petition presented. I say to the Government House Leader that his verbosity over there may indicate that he may disagree with the petition and petitioners but these petitioners also have a right to be heard. They are asking for the Hodgewater Line and area to be upgraded, and that is their right. In particular, I ask on behalf of the people who live there full time, for the residents of Makinsons who are living full time in the area, for the people of Hodgewater Line who live there full time. They have a right to make sure that their road is passable at all times.

I know there is some dialogue within the department as to the responsibility of cabin owners to maintain their own road, and that has been done in a great number of instances, but when you have people who live on a roadway that has been maintained by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation or its predecessor, the Department of Highways, when they say they want to have their road upgraded, they have a right to have their voice heard in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I present the petition signed, as I say again, by a great number of residents of Makinsons and by some of the people who live in St. John's, Mount Pearl and Conception Bay South who also own cottages in that area as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member presenting a new petition?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this opportunity go by without making a few comments about the petition just presented by the hon. member opposite.

I have listened over the last number of weeks to the Member for Baie Verte, the Member for Bonavista South -

MR. TULK: Me.

MR. EFFORD: - the Member for Bonavista North, talk about the condition of roads in their particular districts. In fact, the Member for Baie Verte on quite a number of occasions talked to me personally about it when I was Minister of Transportation, about the hundreds of kilometres that people living in his district - and the Member for Bonavista South - the condition of the roads, the school buses going over the roads day after day with children on the buses and the poor condition of the roads. Here we have an hon. member stand in this House of Assembly, presenting a petition -

MR. TULK: Supporting a petition.

MR. EFFORD: - supporting a petition to get a cabin road paved in this Province today when we have hundreds of kilometres of road that people need for transportation, for their own personal use, for school buses, or commercial. It is absolutely unbelievable.

He also made reference, in presenting the petition, about access to ambulances to people living in the community. The one thing that I have been criticised for by colleagues on both sides of the House is that everything in the District of Port de Grave is paved. Even the Mayor of St. John's said: Right up to the windows, in the back of the houses, roads were paved out in the district.

Here the hon. member is saying in the House of Assembly that people who need the health services, the roads are not good enough for the ambulance to drive over. It is absolutely unbelievable. The only people who use that road now are mostly people from St. John's who have cabins, and they want to go out for a leisurely weekend to spend a weekend in their cabin -

AN HON. MEMBER: Inside the overpass syndrome.

MR. EFFORD: Inside the overpass syndrome. That is absolutely right.

I just cannot imagine the member opposite, with his own colleagues, looking for roads to be paved - $35 million access road from Roaches Line going right down to Carbonear, when it is completed, $35 million; Conception Bay North road going right through the communities. Every road going through every community out there is paved - every single road going through every community - and the hon. member is saying there is a dire need to get that road paved because of access for ambulances going to the communities. It is absolutely wrong.

If you are going to St. John's, every road is paved. If you are going to Carbonear, every road is paved. There is absolutely no logic in what the hon. member is presenting to the House of Assembly. He should go back and check with Mr. Oliver and find out exactly what his point is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have another petition, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to present a petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned nurses of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asks for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, have honestly and openly conveyed our concerns about the failing health care system in this Province. In good faith, and under the collective bargaining process of this Province, we attempted to negotiate these issues with the Liberal government.

Premier Tobin and the Liberal government showed their lack of respect for nurses' concerns and made a mockery of this Province's collective bargaining process by legislating nurses back to work without binding arbitration.

If the Liberal government honestly wishes to pursue constructive dialogue with the nurses of this Province in an attempt to help solve the existing health care crisis, we wish to inform the House of Assembly this can be made possible only if the Liberal government admits they made a mistake in not acknowledging the depth and scope of the crisis facing health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and, secondly, the hon. House of Assembly repeals Bill 3 and the Liberal government resumes bargaining in good faith with the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador by using the collective bargaining process that existed before Bill 3.

This is, once again, indicative of the lack of respect for nurses here in our Province. Day after day I have raised issues of nursing concerns and other health concerns, even today in this House, for example, on the very nature of what this petition is about, that the government has failed to act in the best interest of the people of this Province.

Nurses go out at their own expense and train in specialty areas. They train in neonatology. A nurse in neonatology just this past little while, who was only casual, got a permanent job offer on a medicine floor. She took the permanent job in medicine as opposed to waiting by a beeper or a telephone to get a call to come in, under two minutes' notice, to get there as soon as possible.

There is a simply solution, I say to the minister today. It is the same thing; a lot of those problems can be resolved. Why do you have casual nurses in the specialty area when there are not enough of them? Why don't you put them on permanently?

We had a heart surgery cancelled the week before last. They shut down, lock, stock and barrel, the Coronary Care Unit at the Grace Hospital for several days. Why? Because there were no critical care nurses available to be called to come in.

They turned three patients away from the Health Sciences Centre. They said: We cannot accommodate them. We have no nurses to work. We are below the required number right now. We have calls in, trying to get someone to come in.

I know nurses who are out in the system who are called in - up to this weekend, up to Friday when I spoke to somebody - for twelve consecutive days there was a head nurse told by her supervisor to get into work, we cannot get nurses. This is not in critical care. This was not even in the neonatology. This was on a normal floor in the hospital. It is happening on medicine floors, on surgery floors; it is critical.

There is going to be even a greater shortage of nurses. There is only forty-two, I think, graduating this year, because we are going through a phase to phase out the different schools of nursing and in the centre for nursing excellence. The last group are graduating, the Memorial University crew of forty-two or forty-three, this year. Then we are going to have a shortage graduating. We used to have about 300 nurses, I think, from the different schools of nursing here; eighty, ninety and 100 from St. Clare's, the General, the Grace, and at Western out in Corner Brook. It was traditional to have large numbers. They are leaving the Province. They are going for better pay. We have a shortage in specialty areas, and we cannot act to solve some serious problems that are resulting in cancellation of heart surgery.

When you have twelve being diagnosed every week in heart surgery and less than ten people getting done each week, how can you possibly catch up?

It is not acceptable. If you could not get a surgeon to do the job, that is one thing, but we have a surgeon sitting there with no cases to do; a heart surgeon sitting there with no cases to do. There are less than ten getting done. Two already were here and no nurse to come in. They had to cancel the surgery because they could not get a critical care nurse. After going through all the trouble to recruit a third surgeon, it does not mean diddly-squat to the system because the two that are there can handle up to ten and it never goes over ten. It was supposed to be fixed; put in six extra beds in a Coronary Care Unit, a step down in Intensive Coronary Care at the Health Science to accommodate heart patients only. We solved some of the problems with anaesthetists and under the profusionists, and now nurses.

Look, it is one problem after another. It is crisis management. When a fire starts you try to put it out and there is another there. You are not looking at the whole picture. They are all intertwined. We have to have a staff ready to go to work. If one part of that particular cog in that wheel is not functioning, we do not get a result.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, just to finish up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to the petition by the Member for Ferryland, the Opposition House Leader. I thank you for the opportunity.

The member opposite knows full well, as all members of this House, when Bill 3 was brought to this House it was not done lightly. It was a very serious matter that this government took very seriously. It was not a matter that this government took any pleasure in, but yet we were to act on the responsibility of restoring health care to this Province.

What we need to look at now in going forward is not looking behind. We have an obligation coming out of the settlement to nurses, and that obligation is to process 325 new nursing positions. In doing so, in trying to process 325 new nursing positions, there is a difficulty and there is a time frame involved.

It is difficult to actually see the benefits of processing those new positions because it takes time to do that. There is a process in place by the nurses' collective bargaining agreement that requires that a posting be done in all health institutions. There is a system whereby the casuals apply for permanence, and there is bumping, and it continues on in that manner. It probably will take a course of time before all institutions in the Province can see the benefit of those new positions, but those new positions will cost $21 million. That is not $21 million forever; it is $21 million annually.

I want to say to nurses that it was a difficult decision to come forward with Bill 3. It is natural to find anger and frustration attached to it. That is a natural emotion. We found ourselves in a position to take control, to do the responsible thing. We wanted to restore our health care system in this Province and we were requested to do so by the Newfoundland and Labrador health care associations, but I want to say to nurses that Bill 3 is unique. It is meant to be a one contract only and it has no bearing on future contracts; nor does it have any bearing on existing collective agreements now in process.

Bill 3 is behind us and what we need now is the cooperation with nurses, with government, with health care, so we can go on with the business of improving our health care system. What is important today is working together, bringing in the new positions, working with nurses to see other issues that we can resolve as a team.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise in support of my colleague, the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Ferryland, in supporting the petition as just presented and to say to the minister that I am not so sure, Minister, that if you on that side of the House had this to do all over again, whether this petition or whatever, or this motion of returning to work, would ever have been presented in this House. I believe that you thoroughly misread the support of the nurses' union in this Province, the support of the public in this Province, and some day, Minister, it will be remembered.

The nurses of this Province are very upset, and rightly so. When we talk to different nurses day in and day out, some of them are working now triple time-and-a-half. That is what they are being paid. We have nurses who work in ICU today who are now being told they cannot take any leave, they cannot have any summer vacation. Minister, that is happening, whether we have our ears closed or we do not want to believe that is happening but that is happening.

We have all sorts of things going on at our hospitals but there does not seem to be a cure. Legislating nurses back to work will not cure the problems in health care in this Province. Saying to nurses in this Province that you cannot have a summer vacation will not cure the health care problems in this Province. By saying to people that we do ten heart surgeries a week but we are bringing in another twenty; and our waiting list, instead of decreasing, is increasing, then there is no cure. There is no cure.

It is little help to the people who lie in beds at the Health Sciences Centre and wait to be told: Yes, tomorrow morning it is your turn. Yes, tomorrow morning you will have the opportunity to go down and have your surgery performed.

I was in there last night, Minister, visiting somebody in my family, by marriage, who today - hopefully today - is being done. He was scheduled to go down at 7:00 a.m. for an operation that they told him could take anywhere from four to six hours. He was due to go down today. He has been at St. Clare's for two weeks, lying and waiting and waiting: You are going to be done tomorrow. You cannot be done tomorrow; you are going to be done the next day. You cannot be done the next day; you are going to be done the next day. You cannot be done the next day, and on and on it goes.

I talked last year about a phone call I had from a lady in Marystown whose father had been prepped seven times to go for open heart surgery, and the ninth time he finally got done. I don't know if anybody realizes the strain that has on the individuals, both men and women, who have to have this surgery performed; and not only on the individuals who await the surgery, I say to the minister, but to the families of those people. Go in and walk around the fifth floor. Go in and out of some of the rooms, and take the time to talk to the individuals who are in there. You do not have to go to the Health Sciences. You can go to St. Clare's, you can go to the Grace, and you can talk to people who are waiting to have this surgery performed.

So, it was no great shakes to legislate the nurses in this Province back to work. I believe that if the polling was done on this one, Minister, it was done wrong, because the support for the nurses' union in this Province is still there today by the general public. The support is still there today and, I say to the minister, they will not ever, ever forget this particular piece of legislation.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition to the House of Assembly. It reads:

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

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago; and

WHEREAS this section of roadway, Route 235, is in such a terrible condition that vehicles are being damaged, including the school buses serving 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 five kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of many petitions that come almost on a daily basis, I say to members opposite, where you have a group of schoolchildren who have to travel - I suppose the whole trip is probably about eight or nine kilometres. Some of the road is in very good condition and has held up very well, but five kilometres of the road is in terrible condition.

If you drive over it, you will find the shoulders have all broken away. You will find huge potholes. The Department of Works, Services and Transportation has to go down on a continuous basis to patch the potholes.

When that happens in the wintertime, they use a form of coal mix, and once the water gets under that, and once the frost starts to move again, you will find the hole becomes even bigger and worse than it was in the beginning.

A couple of weeks ago, we had the Deputy Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and the assistant deputy minister out there, who drove over this section of road. They know full well the need to have this piece of roadway upgraded and repaved.

Mr. Speaker, part of the roadway, even though it is five kilometres, two-and-a-half kilometres are worse than the other two-and-a-half.

People have been very reasonable. They have said to the deputy minister: Look, Deputy Minister, if you could look after two-and-a-half kilometres of roadway, the worst part, then that would make a big difference to us and to our children.

Mr. Speaker, as those petitions come in, you find that the names attached to them are not only from Birchy Cove, Newmans Cove, and Upper, Middle, and Lower Amherst Cove. You find that most of those names come from people outside the area who drive over it almost on a daily basis as well, either to go to work at Bonavista or to access government services such as the hospital and the HRDC offices there, as well the fisheries offices.

You find that people who have only driven over the road once or twice have seen firsthand and have come forward and presented petitions on behalf of the students there.

I remember the school principal coming and standing in the back of the room, along with the bus operators, and putting up the plea for the school children. They are saying: This is the worst section of road that we have to drive over. We are asking you, Deputy Minister, if you would be kind enough to allow at least the worst sections of roadway to be done.

It is wonderful when you stand up here and see the Minister of Finance present a Budget and say that we are going to have a surplus in this year's Budget - we are going to have a surplus the second time since back in 1950-something - but what price are we paying for it, I say to members opposite? Is it so important to have a surplus in a budget and to leave work like this undone, I say to members opposite?

Mr. Speaker, we have to maintain our infrastructure. While we are happy to see roadwork announced for Labrador, and we are happy to see other new roads being built, I think the commitment also has to be there to maintain the roads and the inventory that we presently own. That is not being done. Most of those roads were built in the days when inspections were something unheard of. A lot of it was done almost as an election ploy. You could accuse politicians, probably, of doing it for votes. You have enough money to do one kilometre, and then the pressure comes that you need three kilometres done and the payment is stretched and spread out to accommodate as many people as you can, and today we are paying the price. Today we are paying the price for it.

When I hear the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture talk about the $30-something million spent on a bypass road in his district -

MR. EFFORD: Access (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: An access road. A bypass road is what it is, I say to the minister. Fair enough, the people need it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: The people travelling to Carbonear and Harbour Grace need a suitable access. It needs to be done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I make the plea, listening to your command to sit down, once again to ask government to look favourably on this simple request so that those students and people's wishes might be adhered to.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion 1, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1. The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley adjourned the debate.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: I rise again today to continue my introductory comments. On Thursday I gave the preamble, on Friday I gave the introduction, and sometime before the day is out I may get into the body of the address.

I wanted to first of all commend my colleague, the Member for Ferryland, for today almost persuading the President of Treasury Board to admit that Bill 3 was a mistake on the part of the government. When she rose, I was expecting her to say that the government had reconsidered and now they were admitting that Bill 3, that draconian piece of legislation to force the nurses back into their workplaces, would be reconsidered by the government and that binding arbitration would be the order of the day.

I do believe, after a few more days of progressive questioning by the Member for Ferryland, that the President of Treasury Board will come around to the viewpoint that Bill 3 was a dire mistake, an abominable mistake, and that the government - she will say, I hope, in the next few days - has seen the light and that they will now treat nurses fairly.

We on this side have a commitment to collective bargaining, and although people like Peter Fenwick and others may be saying that collective bargaining is dead, I do believe that this government will in the next few days be willing to try a new course to try to open up a reasonable dialogue based on the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act and the provisions that are contained therein.

I wanted today to continue where I left off the other day. I was talking about the process of government accountability. Government accountability is a very large issue. I draw to members' attention that in this Province we do not seem to have accountability legislation. Other provinces have gone much further than we have in Newfoundland and Labrador. In the Province of Alberta, for example, there is a piece of legislation called the Government Accountability Act. We, in this Province, do not have any such piece of legislation; however, the Auditor General has raised very serious questions about the accountability proceedings and processes followed by this particular government.

In the Province of Alberta it is mandatory that there be a quarterly statement presented by the Minister of Finance, who they call a Treasurer in Alberta, and that be presented within sixty days or thereabouts, at the end of each fiscal quarter. In this Province we have no such accountability legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly comment on the Alberta legislation for a moment because the Alberta legislation makes it mandatory that the Treasurer, their President of Treasury Board - just a different name but the same functions - that every quarter there be a comparison prepared between the results budgeted for and the actual results of the expenditure allocations.

In that particular act, the act reads: This act and any other made under it, operate notwithstanding any other act except the Alberta Bill of Rights, Human Rights, Citizenship and Multicultural Act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, whether enacted before or after commencement of this act, unless (inaudible) is declared in this act or any other act.

In other words, the Government of Alberta is saying that the government accountability act overrides all other legislation. Therefore, government departments have to present actual documents and have to present timely information to the Treasurer based on the requirements of this particular piece of legislation.

In Newfoundland and Labrador we do not have that kind of legislation in place. One of the things that the Progressive Conservative Party is saying in Newfoundland and Labrador today is that we believe that government accountability should be examined. The Auditor General has indicated that - and I will get to that part very shortly - but the government accountability requires that the Minister of Finance or the President of Treasury Board make sure that at the end of every quarter there is an up-to-date accurate piece of information.

Let me, just for a moment, remind hon. members that in Newfoundland and Labrador, where we do not have such an act, as late as January 14 the Minister of Finance was putting out this kind of statement. He said, and I will quote the entire paragraph: Through careful fiscal management, the deficit in 1996-1997 was $18.6 million rather than the projected $45 million. In 1997-1998 it was $6.7 million rather than the projected $20 million. This year we expect our deficit will rise to about $30 million, up about $20 million from our original $10 million target. The combined deficit for the three-year period, having been budgeted at $75 million, will come in at $55 million, which is an improvement of $20 million over the period.

Mr. Speaker, what that is really saying is that the Minister of Finance, as late as January 14, was saying that we would have a $30 million deficit in this year. At that point in time the Minister of Finance either knew or should have known about the windfall that would accrue from the federal government.

When the federal Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, stood in his place on February 16 and began to tell us the changes in the formula calculation to effect equalization payments and the CHST, the Minister of Finance, the Premier, and the Minister of Health and Community Services, all said that they were not knowledgeable of the changes. A few days later, of course, after the Prime Minister came down to Newfoundland and went to Corner Brook and took the Premier aside for some discussion, the Premier then said, well, as far as he was concerned, the issue was closed; because at that point in time the Premier of this Province was told by the Prime Minister that indeed there had been consultations all along.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) woodshed.

MR. H. HODDER: He was taken out to the woodshed. My colleague, the Member for Ferryland who is very good with words, said that Prime Minister Chrétien took the provincial minister and the Premier out to the woodshed, gave him a lesson, read to him his documents that he himself had been party to while he sat in the federal Cabinet, quoted him the federal policy and said to him: Look, Brian, there is something wrong with your memory. You have selective amnesia.

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you know what I heard, Harvey? I heard he came down, gave him a speech, and said: Here, read that and keep quiet.

MR. H. HODDER: While the Leader of the Opposition graphically makes a presentation here in which he says that the Prime Minister said to the Premier: Here is what you said; here is the federal policy. You know that in 1993 this was part of our program. We have to do this to satisfy the 101 Liberals that we have in Ontario. We hope to get re-elected. We have got to cater to Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we examine that because, you see, back in December what was the Prime Minister of Canada saying about Atlantic Canada? In Maclean's, an article that was printed in Maclean's in December of 1998 talks about the attitude of the federal Liberal Party toward Atlantic Canada. The article was entitled: Slim Pickings. The headline said: Once a Liberal stronghold, Atlantic Canada is now a wasteland for the government.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the federal Liberal Party is no longer committed to Atlantic Canada. The article here says, and I quote: Laments one worried Chrétien advisor, we are on the verge of writing off Atlantic Canada for generations to come.

I will repeat that. A senior Liberal advisor to Prime Minister Chrétien is quoted in Maclean's magazine as saying: We are on the verge of writing off Atlantic Canada for generations to come.

That was in Maclean's magazine in December, about five months ago. That tells the attitude of the federal government, how the Liberals are now being so dominated by Central Canada that they have lost their understanding and their knowledge of Atlantic Canada.

Let me quote another sentence from that same article. It says: These days, a minister from Atlantic Canada finds his word nearly weightless in a government with 127 of its 156 seats in Central Canada.

So the federal Liberal government, with 127 of their 156 seats now cloistered in Central Canada -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you support the (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: What I am saying is that the Liberals in Ottawa have now lost all interest in Atlantic Canada and, as the article says here, it is now a wasteland for Liberalism.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, in one of his speeches here in this House, got up and said - and I remember him saying - how it was so difficult to get the people now in control in Ottawa to understand Newfoundland and Labrador; that you go up there and you have difficulty getting appropriate hearings. You have to knock on doors twice as hard.

We know that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is indeed a sincere Newfoundlander. We know that he understands how difficult it is to get the federal government to understand Newfoundland's viewpoint.

Therefore this government on the other side of this House, which prides itself on its Liberal roots, should be listening and paying attention to what is being said in leading Canadian magazines, when leading Canadian magazines are printing information quoting senior Chrétien advisors as saying that Atlantic Canada is now a wasteland for Liberalism, and also saying that we are on the verge of writing off Atlantic Canada for generations to come.

That is why, when the Premier of this Province went to Corner Brook after the federal Budget, when the Premier said: I was not advised of the changes in the calculation formulas -

MR. E. BYRNE: What did the Minister of Finance say?

MR. H. HODDER: Well, the Minister of Finance said that he had been -

MR. E. BYRNE: Hoodwinked.

MR. H. HODDER: Hoodwinked.

MR. E. BYRNE: Laughable.

MR. H. HODDER: It was laughable.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) Minister of Health.

MR. H. HODDER: The hon. Minister of Health and Community Services said this was going to be a tragedy for health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. E. BYRNE: They all got taken to the woodshed, too, didn't they? They must have.

MR. H. HODDER: They all got taken to the woodshed and they were told emphatically: You had better listen to what we are saying because we are in control, Atlantic Canada rules this country, and you should be grateful for what you get.

So the Premier of this Province essentially goes to Ottawa with his cap in his hand. That is what is happening in Canada today. Then we come back and we have this big announcement during the election of what we are going to do for health care, because suddenly we found out we would have some extra money. The Premier stated he was going to have all this extra money, but then when he looked at the changes in the federal income tax and what that meant, and subtracted that, and when he looked at the other changes in the formula, he found out that his $35 million was dribbling down. At some point the real effect was more like $8 million or $9 million.

Mr. Speaker, therefore we do have a lack of sensitivity in Ottawa to the nature of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the nature of Atlantic Canada. They do not seem to understand that when we talk about health care in this Province we are not a small area the size of Winnipeg, that we are spread out over I suppose many thousands of miles of road, and with other factors that would make the provision of services very difficult in a sparsely populated province like Newfoundland and Labrador.

The people that live in all parts of this Province deserve adequate health care, they deserve adequate educational services. It is unfortunate that the group that are now in Ottawa seem to have lost faith with Newfoundland and Labrador.

I wanted to return now to the accountability act of the Province of Alberta and to move into that, and to say that if we had that kind of legislation we would not have all of this wishy-washy kind of uncertainty that the Minister of Finance was getting on with last fall when he was saying at some point that we were going to have $10 million in deficit, we were going to have $30 million, $40 million.

We know that if we had not gotten the package from Ottawa of $195 million or thereabouts that we would have had a massive deficit last year. Because of equalization, of one-time payments, and because we also brought down our money from the harmonization of HST and GST, and because we drew down the Term 29 payments, all of these things combining together meant we were able to get through the year with some semblance of order. It certainly does give us some great concerns for the future when we have the uncertainty of the equalization formula, we have expended all the money that we are supposed to get through harmonization tax arrangements, and we have now drawn down the very last dollar from the Term 29 money we arranged and was part of our entrance into Confederation.

I want to, for the moment, make some reference to the Auditor General's Report. It is not without significance that the Auditor General begins her comments on page 7 with "Comments on Public Sector Accountability." Then she gets into the whole framework of accountability. The Auditor General says, and I will be quoting extensively, "Full accountability requires that Government, its departments and agencies of the Crown, and Memorial University be held accountable for their use of public money and the delivery of their programs." She also says that "...government and its entities be held accountable for the performance of its specific programs compared to their approved objectives."

The Auditor General also says on page 8 that "...the lack of information being provided to the House of Assembly on Crown agencies which are funded primarily by the public purse" is totally inadequate.

The Auditor General makes note to say: "While considerable attention is given to the Government's budget, there is a lack of emphasis on receiving and reviewing information on how agencies actually spend the monies which were approved in the budget process."

The Auditor General makes this note: "Of the 92 entities receiving government operating grants of $1.512 billion in 1996-97, only 4 entities receiving $163 million, had their reports tabled in the House of Assembly."

What the Auditor General is saying is that many of these Crown agencies - she mentions here ninety-two agencies, and only four of them had their reports tabled in the House of Assembly. Let's have a look at those who did not table their reports.

We look at the health care boards. I make note that this is for 1996-1997. In 1996-1997 the health care boards in this Province spent $605 million. There were twenty such entries in that year. Not one single health care board had its financial statements tabled in the House of Assembly, not one.

Let me go to the school boards and related entities.

MR. E. BYRNE: Ask him where the Atkinson report is? The Minister of Finance said he was going to release it in December. (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: My colleague the Member for Kilbride, the Leader of the Opposition, said we referred to the Atkinson report. It is crucial that information be provided, and the Atkinson report says that - well, we assume that it gives a financial accounting of what happened in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, by contrast let me talk about what we on this side of the House believe in. This is our party policy. We say that a PC government will release to the public, within thirty days of receiving it, every government commissioned report by a panel, by a review committee, by a task force, by a consultation process, or by a commission, and we will indicate at that point our course of action on the recommendation. That is the policy of this party on this side.

We have done a considerable lot of research on government accountability. We believe that if the public pays for the report the public has a right to know what is in the report and to know it on a timely basis. That is what we on this side of the House believe is the direction this government should be following.

It is totally unacceptable that a government should commission a report like the Atkinson Report and then sit on it for week after week, month after month, year after year. Now we find the Minister of Health standing in her place several days ago and saying: Boys, it is now not relevant. We have addressed many of the issues. How do we know? How does the public know that the Atkinson report recommendations have been addressed when the report itself has not been released?

Therefore, we are saying to the government that they should look at what is happening in other provinces. In the Province of Alberta, if the government pays for the report the government has the responsibility to release it. In this Province we can only ask questions about why would a government commission a report on something like the Western Newfoundland Hospital and then say: No, we are going to sit on it? There is only one reason why you would sit on it. It is too embarrassing to release it.

Let me continue on. There were twenty health care boards in 1996-1997 spending $605 million. Not a single one, not one health care board, ever had their financial statements tabled in the House of Assembly, not one.

Then there were school boards. Before we had the consolidation of twenty-seven school boards down to ten, there were thirty-nine school boards and related entities in 1996-1997. They spent $479 million. I would ask my colleague for Bonavista: How many school boards had their financial statements tabled here in the House of Assembly? The answer is not one. Not one school board had their financial statements tabled in the House of Assembly. Thirty-nine such reports should have been tabled in the House but they were not tabled by this government, in spite of the fact there was $479 million spent by those school boards.

Memorial University spent $134 million in 1996-1997 and they would only have one financial statement, one financial report. Was that financial report received in this House? No. The answer is that they spent $134 million and not a single report was tabled in the House from Memorial University.

Now, to community health boards. In 1996-1997 there were four such entities and they spent $44 million. Again, not a single report was tabled in the House of Assembly.

The colleges in Newfoundland and Labrador. In 1996-1997 there were five such colleges. They spent $47 million but not one report was tabled here in the House of Assembly. There were other Crown agencies receiving government operating grants. There were twenty-three of them spending $203 million. Of that number, four of the twenty-three had their reports tabled here in the House of Assembly.

So what it means is that in 1996-1997 there were ninety-two such agencies, and only four of them - spending $163 million - had their reports tabled in the House of Assembly. What the Auditor General is saying - and the whole section here is on government accountability - is that there were no reports tabled in the House of Assembly which related to $1.349 billion. How can we say we have government accountability when we can spend $1.349 billion and not have a single report tabled in the House of Assembly?

If we go back to the previous year, 1995-1996, there were eighty-five entries receiving a government operating grant. Again, only four in that year as well had the reports tabled here. Then the Auditor General goes even further. Of the four that had the reports tabled, she said: Most of the end reports which are tabled in the House of Assembly do not provide adequate accountability information. What we have here is the Auditor General of this Province - the chief financial watchdog for Newfoundland and Labrador, the person who is going to be out there making sure government does what is right according to the law and the legislation - saying that the information that is provided is not adequate. What she says is the reports do not provide information on the objectives of the entity or what was actually achieved during the year.

The Auditor General also makes a point of the government's need to develop a framework of accountability for all public sector entities in the Province, including government departments, agencies of the Crown, and Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now we know that it was this government or its predecessor that changed the laws of this Province that said Memorial University would not have to table its information in this House.

One of the things that a PC government will do is they will change the law that says that. Memorial University, if it wants to spend the public's money, is going to have to give the Auditor General access to the information. You are going to have to bring back the accountability that that university should have for the expenditure of public dollars, and that the reports should be tabled right in the House of Assembly. That is what this party stands for, and we believe that that is the right direction. We believe it was a great error when the government of Clyde Wells made the move to exclude the university from having to be subject to the questions from -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am saying to the government that Memorial University should be included and should be subject to the requirements of the Auditor General. When the PC party was in office they were answerable to the Auditor General. This government changed the rules. We on this side are saying that when we transpose ourselves to the other side we will make sure that Memorial University will be subject to the same requirements as all other agencies and that they will -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) change the House of Assembly Act to exempt the Auditor General from (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Exactly. It was the government of Clyde Wells in one December that changed the Memorial University Act. Before that the Auditor General could potentially have gotten into the university, but the Liberal government of Wells and Roberts brought legislation in here - I think it was in 1995 - to change the law and to make sure that the university would not be subject to the accountability provision that other institutions are in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General makes note, I should say, that in June 1997 the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board was directed by Cabinet to proceed with implementation of a new authority and accountability framework for government departments.

It is interesting that that was a directive by Cabinet in June 1997. It has taken until March 1999 and the Budget Speech for the Minister of Finance to say that they are going to make some movement on it. It has taken two years to move the thing from a concept stage to any kind of strategy for implementation.

In the fall of 1997, for the first time, government departments in Newfoundland and Labrador were required to submit a department plan which addresses the strategic direction of the department.

The Auditor General does say that there is some movement being made, very slowly, in October 1998. The Cabinet Secretariat issued guidelines for departmental planning, 1999 to 2000, 2001 to 2002, to assist departments with planning.

I do note that the Auditor General says that there is supposed to be a progress plan for 1998-1999 to be completed by May 31. We are wondering what the progress is. How far are we along in addressing the issues of accountability for government departments?

I do admit that the Auditor General does say that there is some gradual movement to making departments more accountable for their expenditures. However, when she addresses the issues of Crown agencies, she then comes and says: This certainly is not the case for Crown agencies.

While the Auditor General admits some progress towards accountability regime for government departments is being considered as a consequence of a Cabinet decision in June 1997 and one in October 1998, the Auditor General also says there are approximately 156 Crown agencies in the Province as of March 31, 1998, and of these eighty-five are required to prepare an annual financial statement, while seventy-one were considered non-financial.

When it comes to Crown agencies the Auditor General is not a very happy person. Of the eighty-five entities required to prepare annual financial statements, twenty-nine were audited by the Auditor General's office. The remaining fifty-six were audited by private-sector auditors.

Section 14 of the Auditor General Act requires all private sector auditing firms to submit to the Auditor General's office a copy of the audited financial statements and any management letters for all Crown agencies for whom they audit.

It is interesting that as of December 11, 1998 - remember, there were supposed to be fifty-six Crown agencies audited by private auditors - the Auditor General herself had completed audits on twenty-nine of those Crown agencies. That meant there would have been a fair number that would have been audited by private auditors.

She says in her letter: As of December 11, 1998, the required information had been received from private sector audits for thirty-eight of the fifty-six entries. In other words, eighteen Crown agencies in this Province had not submitted their audited statements for the previous year by December 11, 1998.

It is worthy to note the Crown agencies which had not sent in their audited statement on a timely basis. I will admit it is possible that between December 11, which was the deadline for this report, and today's date, some of these agencies may indeed have submitted their audits. It is interesting to note that they were then many months behind, because at the end of their financial year it is a standard practice that it takes about three months to complete an audit for some of those Crown agencies. It would take another three months for the information to go through the follow-up procedures and for them to be ready to be sent to the Auditor General. What we are saying is that as of December 11 these eighteen Crown agencies were substantially behind in their task of having their audits presented.

What Crown agencies did not have their audited statements in on time? They were months behind. While I say some of them may, at this date, actually have their audited statements in, we do not have that. We are only quoting what the Auditor General said as of December 11.

I am going to read into the record the eighteen agencies which did not have their audited statements presented to the Auditor General on December 11. There were eighteen agencies that did not have it done. Central Regional Health and Community Services Board did not have their audits done and presented to the minister on December 11. Grenfell Regional Health Services Board did not have their audit done and presented. The Health Labrador Corporation did not have their audits done on time. This would have meant they would have been five to six months behind. They should have had them in like everybody else. They took the money, but they had not assured the Auditor General that the money was spent in the manner that it should have been spent. St. John's Nursing Home Board did not have their audits done and presented on or before December 11. Western Regional Health and Community Services Board did not have their audit done and presented to the minister on time. Then there are the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association, The College of the North Atlantic and Marystown Shipyard Limited. Then, the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board. I am not sure what department that would be under.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is under Environment.

MR. H. HODDER: That is under Environment, I learn from my learned colleague over here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: He is my colleague. To say "learned" here has a context of a former Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, Municipal Assessment Agency Inc. did not have its audit prepared on December 11. The Newco IV Corporation, I do not know what they do. The shipyard?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is the one that is set up temporarily. What was it for?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: For the shipyard. They did not have their audit done. Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation did not have their audit completed. Newfoundland Liquor Corporation did not have their audits completed on December 11. Newfoundland Ocean Enterprises Limited did not have their audits completed on December 11. Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board did not have their audits done. Vinland Industries -

MR. SULLIVAN: Who?

MR. H. HODDER: Vinland Industry, that is a limited partnership, and Vinland Industries Limited. There are two Vinland Industries. One is a limited partnership, the other one is simply called Vinland Industries Limited.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that two?

MR. H. HODDER: That is two.

Finally, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission did not have their audits done on December 11.

Mr. Speaker, the significance is we are talking here about accountability.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you want the efficient ministers now? In Health, there are five (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I am coming along to that very shortly. I say to my good colleague here, there are some paragraphs here that I want to note as well.

There were eighteen Crown corporations which took public money granted to them - they accepted the money - but when the audits were supposed to be done by private auditors, the year had been over... The Auditor General said it is reasonable to expect a private agency to complete an audit within three months - give them three more months to do their copying, do their processing internally - and by the end of six months they should have the financial statements ready. We find that in December, nearly six months late, these statements were not in.

Then the Auditor General goes on to make some other very interesting comments. She says, "We reported last year and report again this year that information is not being received from the private sector auditors on a timely basis."

If she reported it the year before, then why wasn't there something done about it? She says, "On average, audits are completed and the auditor's reports signed within three months after year end."

Then she says she likes to allow another four months from the audit report date and often she only gets the reports after aggressive telephone calls, follow-up, written correspondence, looking for the audits. She says this is not the way that things should go.

While the government might spin a good line on accountability, it certainly does not seem to be borne out by the comments of the Auditor General.

I want to read, as well - I will read a paragraph here. She says, "For the years ending between 1 April 1997 and 30 April 1998, our Office was responsible for auditing financial statements of 29 Crown entities. As at 11 December 1998, the audits of 4 of the 29 entities had not been completed for the year ended 31 March 1998. These included:..."

I say to my good friend, the Member for Ferryland, if he is doing his documentation now... He obviously is not. He is turned around and talking to one of his colleagues. Under the Department of Development and Rural Renewal - under that department - there were three entities that did not have their audits completed.

They were Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation, Farm Development Loan Board, and Fisheries Loan Board of Newfoundland. Under the Department of Justice, the Office of the High Sheriff did not have the audit completed.

I ask my colleague from Ferryland to pay particular attention, because three Crown agencies reporting directly to the Department of Development and Rural Renewal did not have their audits submitted by December 11.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that in addition to those eighteen?

MR. H. HODDER: That is in addition to those eighteen.

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation did not have their audits completed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Health has five not reported; ITT has five Crown agencies not reported; Labour - one; Environment - one; Education -two; Municipal Affairs - one; Fisheries - one; Professional Fish Harvesters Board did not have their statement in, according to them. (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: The Farm Development Loan Board, the Fisheries Loan Board of Newfoundland.

I want to read it into the record, the paragraph of the Auditor General relative to the Department of Development and Rural Renewal, page 14, and I quote; I will read the entire paragraph, "As indicated, three of the four entities are the responsibility of the Department of Development and Rural Renewal. We note that the Department did not have timely financial statements prepared for us to audit for these three entities last year either. In addition to the reduced accountability by not having financial statements prepared, the Department is not providing the financial information necessary for Government to prepare the most accurate and complete financial statements for inclusion in the Public Accounts."

Mr. Speaker, what that means is that the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal has not being doing his job. Because what we are saying here is that the minister has been saying for two years in a row that the Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation, the Farm Development Loan Board, the Fisheries Loan Board of Newfoundland and Labrador, did not have the documentation ready to present to the Auditor General on a timely basis.

All of that means, of course, is that the Auditor General is unable to complete the job. It is incumbent upon the ministers of the Crown to make sure that there is absolute cooperation with the Auditor General. That is incumbent upon every minister.

Then the Auditor General goes into the management letters, and she mentions weakness in the management letters. In essence, the Auditor General is very concerned that the accountability provisions that are in practice by this government need to have major changes.

While I note that there have been some directives following from the June of 1997 Cabinet decisions, and more directives coming from the October of 1998 decisions, we note the Auditor General still believes that there is an inadequate accountability process in place in this Province.

I want to move on now to another area of accountability, and that area deals with Special Warrants. Special Warrants are processed under the Financial Administration Act, under section 28. That act lays down the criteria under which Special Warrants would ordinarily be issued.

Section 28 states that: The sum appropriated by the Legislature for a continuing service is insufficient to meet requirements. If there is no countervailing savings available and the necessity is urgent, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may order that a Special Warrant be prepared for the Lieutenant-Governor's signature.

The financial accountability act is very precise. It says, if you want to have a Special Warrant, you have to have the documentation in place; it has to be an emergency; there cannot be any countervailing monies available from other sources; and you have no choice but to process the expenditure under the emergency provisions under the Financial Administration Act, and it is the responsibility of Cabinet to be satisfied that such an emergency does exist.

Mr. Speaker, for the Special Warrants issued by the department for the year ending March 31, 1997, in that year there were thirteen Special Warrants issued, totalling $88.6 million, of which $34.6 million were issued in March of 1998 alone.

We admit, on this side of the House, that there will be occasions when it will be necessary for government to use Special Warrants. In that year, government felt there were thirteen such occasions.

Some years, government can get along without issuing very many Special Warrants. For example, when Clyde Wells was Premier, in 1993, there were seven Special Warrants for the year. In 1994, there were two Special Warrants for the year, but in 1998 there were thirteen Special Warrants issued totalling $88.6 million. That was the highest number of dollars ever included under Special Warrant provisions.

The comment that I want to make is that the Auditor General was not satisfied that all of that expenditure met the requirements of the Financial Administration Act. For example, she said: Of the $88.6 million of Special Warrants issued in 1997-1998, $30.9 million were issued although it appears there was not an urgent requirement for the funding.

What that means is that the Auditor General is saying that the Cabinet approved an expenditure of $88.6 million in thirteen Special Warrants in 1997 but that she could not find adequate documentation to assure her that an emergency existed under the requirements of the Financial Administration Act for such an expenditure. That means that somebody in government, some Cabinet minister, must have gone to Cabinet, must have prepared a Cabinet paper, looking for money that was not necessary.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, I say to the Member for Humber East, pretty soon he will be leaving as well. As a matter of fact, after the next election he is going to be leaving permanently. He is going to be out of here altogether.

Mr. Speaker, continuing on with what the Auditor General is saying about Special Warrants, the Auditor General has said that, of the thirteen Special Warrants, not all of them met the requirements of the Financial Administration Act criteria. In fact, she said that $30.9 million were unnecessary to be approved under Special Warrants.

Specifically, if I could just mention the expenditures that did not meet her approval or did not meet her requirements in that they should have been urgent and necessary: For example, the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation was incorporated on 27 March 1998. The affairs of the corporation are managed by a Board of Directors appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and all board members are full-time employees of the Province. The objective of the corporation is to provide funds to school boards and others for construction, renovation, extension and equipping of educational facilities in the Province. The corporation did not issue its first cheque until 6 July, and at 30 November 1998 they still had $14.7 million in investments.

What the Auditor General is asking is: Why did the Education Investment Corporation require $21.8 million - and they required it on 13 March - but they never had any expenditures until 6 July? Why would you draw down $21.8 million on March 13, and then you did not need it. There was a budget coming down a few days late, you could have put it in the budget; but on 13 March the Minister of Education, having gone to Cabinet, having persuaded his colleagues that he needed this money immediately, had gotten a Special Warrant and then the money stayed there and the first cheque was drawn on that on 6 July. In fact, at the end of November, 30 November, there was still $14.7 million left in that account.

Again, we look at the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. That department had three allocations, and one of them dealt with the infrastructure money. What the Auditor General found in that department again, there were Special Warrants drawn down but it was not necessary because - again, I will read from the Auditor General's Report: Our review of the $6.5 million Special Warrant for the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, dated 22 May 1997 disclosed this amount was to be added to the amount approved for subdivision 3.2.02 Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program. The original estimate for that subdivision was $14,167,400 (inaudible) of approval of $20,667,400. In the public accounts of the Province disclosed for the year ending March 31, 1998, the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs spent $12,009,049 for that subdivision and transferred $900,000 to Municipal Finance Special Assistance and $1,650,000 to Engineering Services, Industrial Services, while the remaining $6,108,351 lapsed. In other words, the department got approval for over $6 million that it did not need on an emergency basis.

Likewise, there was $7.5 million in the Newfoundland Municipal Financial Corporation that did not meet the Auditor General's requirements either.

The third phase of the accountability process deals with the controls over microcomputer hardware and software. Here is where you find government being kind of slack. The breakdown by the departments is here. The Auditor General's report says: "Government has made a significant investment in microcomputer hardware and software in recent years and relies heavily on information technology to deliver programs, manage resources and account for what it does." It says the total expenditure for last year was $27.1 million, "of which $9.8 million relates to hardware and software."

What the Auditor General found was that there were no controls in place to monitor and manage the inventory of microcomputer hardware or microcomputer software.

The Auditor General found some very interesting information. She does admit that she only reviewed three departments in detail. On page 32 she said:

"We completed our review of controls over microcomputer hardware and software in three Government departments in September 1998." They were the Departments of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Justice, and Human Resources and Employment. Her comments include the following. She says:

"This assessment included determining:

whether the departments maintain adequate physical and accounting controls over microcomputer hardware, software and peripherals; and

whether the departments' documented policies and procedures were clearly defined and communicated to staff."

What did the Auditor General find? She found that "The Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs does not maintain an inventory of its computer hardware and software." At that point in time they did not have any inventory kept whatsoever.

In the Department of Justice and the Department of Human Resources "which did maintain an inventory of hardware and software, we determined that their systems were not accurate. For example, we identified 323 items of computer hardware and 176 pieces of software at the Department of Human Resources and Employment that were not in the inventory records. There were 45 pieces of software at the Department of Justice that were not in the inventory records. We also found 113 items of computer hardware which were included in inventory but which could not be located by the Department of Human Resources and Employment. We identified 10 pieces of software which were not present at the assigned location at the Department of Justice."

What this shows is the control over computer inventory, hardware and software, in these departments to be woefully inadequate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: She says: "There were 38 -"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Keep her going, Harvey!

MR. H. HODDER: My colleagues on this side are giving me such great encouragement that I am persuaded to continue on for some hours yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: I have the consolation, I tell the Government House Leader, that I know he has to maintain a minimum audience of fourteen, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: We would do that, wouldn't we?

Mr. Speaker, returning to the accountability process, the Auditor General found "38 instances of software on computers for which the departments could not provide proof of ownership."

That is serious stuff, when you have government offices using computer software that the government cannot prove it owns. In addition, there was one instance identifying the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs "where the same copy of software, authorized for single use only, was found on 4 microcomputers reviewed." The Auditor General found "8 instances where microcomputer equipment purchased by the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs could not be located."

Thirdly, she said: "Government does not know the cost of their current investment in computer hardware and software. Similarly, the three departments reviewed do not know their current investment in computer hardware and software."

The point to be made is that policies over safeguarding and control of computer hardware and software need to be improved and need to be communicated and staffed.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: It is not a point of order, really, but I do have to ask the hon. gentleman if his colours really came out and he went out and bought himself a new red van. Is that correct? Come on. Get up and tell us something. Give us a piece of information. Don't get on with that trash you are getting out here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is interested in the colour of my van. I did not buy a new red van.

AN HON. MEMBER: You leased a new red van.

MR. H. HODDER: I have answered the member's question.

Mr. Speaker, relative to the Auditor General comments, there is so much here that I am only now on page 42. There happens to be 288 pages.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: At this rate, Mr. Speaker, we shall be here for awhile. I promise you that today, knowing the level of absorption, I know the members opposite will need me to get off the financial data and on to some other issue, because there is only so much of this data - I know that the Minister of Government Services is over there taking meticulous notes so that he can carry out the appropriate investigations.

There is also an issue here that I wanted to bring to members attention as well, and that is the Auditor General talking about accounts and loans receivable by government. During the last six years this government has written off $198.3 million in accounts receivable owing to it. There is a list here of the firms that have had their accounts written off. I am not going to read into the record those many firms that have had their accounts written off.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we could read into the record the accounts written off in the last six years. One hundred and ninety-eight point three million dollars have been written off by this government. What we couldn't do with $198.3 million! Here we are today, and we don't have enough money to pay for health care.

There is a list here of big firms that have had their accounts written off, and they are from big amounts to small amounts. It is an extensive list. It is all on pages 43 and 44. It takes over a page for the Auditor General to list out the accounts.

It says here, "In addition to the $198.3 million..." written off from corporations, this government "...wrote off $11.2 million in tax forgiveness and $17.6 million in tax remissions."

That is a lot of money, these write-offs that were approved, I am sure, by the Minister of Finance, these tax write-offs: $198.3 million in accounts receivable, $11.2 million in tax forgiveness, and $17.6 million in tax remissions.

In addition to that, the Auditor General states, "As at 31 March 1998, Government anticipated that $211.8 million or 45.9 per cent of the $461.6 million amount owed to it will likely not be collected."

What the Auditor General is saying is that government is saying, in addition to that, there is another $211.8 million that the government may not be able to collect.

We acknowledge that there will be cases when government will be required to write off accounts - we are not saying that there will never be cases - but let's look at what the Auditor General says about the policies of the government. I want to read into the record the Auditor General's statement on page 44 where she says: "There is no Government-wide system to record, control and collect total amounts owed to Government. Departmental systems range from manual year-end listings and other manual records, to computerized systems and there is little consistency among these systems."

What that is saying is that the Auditor General is not satisfied with the measures taken by government to be consistent across government departments on its collections. What that means is that there will need to be a consistent government-wide policy. The minister has to be more cognizant of the requirements to collect the monies that are due to their respective departments. It is not that we should not write off some money. It is that we should have a consistent policy on the matter. The Auditor General is clearly saying that there is no consistent policy in this government on the ways in which monies are written off. Here we are today with great need for more money, and at the same time we write off $198.3 million.

There is an extensive section here on monitoring of regional economic development boards, but I understand that one of my colleagues is going to be spending some time on that when he speaks in the House on the Budget so I am going to leave that matter to the critic.

Going to the school boards - I have some difficulty with some of the controls over school board expenditures. In reference to school board expenditures - an extensive commentary here of the various school boards. In particular, they talk about the way in which assets were transferred from one school board to another. There was inadequate control over trust funds and ancillary funds. There was inadequate control over capital assets. Compensation was paid to some school board members.

Mr. Speaker, there is no provision -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: She would probably have paved the western side of Commonwealth Avenue since that would be in her district and the eastern side would be in my district.

The Auditor General, in commenting on the compensation to school board members, there is no provision in any legislation that school board members should be paid. Yet, the Schools Act in 1997, although it is very clear, and its predecessor act, state that school members shall serve without remuneration, yet, in District #1 school board members were reimbursed for a total for $7,800 in lost wages from February of 1997 to February of 1998. In other words, in District #1 there was $7,800 expended to compensate school board members for lost wages that did not have any legislative authority granted to it under the Schools Act.

There is also a question that the Auditor General mentions, in operating a school board, redundancy pay is not within the government policy. For example, in various school boards there was redundancy paid out to school board employees that was inappropriate. For example, in District #6 did not reduce employees' salaries when the employees accepted voluntary demotion after their positions were made redundant. Government policy requires that employee salaries be reduced in instances where they accept voluntary demotions. The board has acknowledged this as a plan to reduce the employee salaries over a five-year term. The cost to the board will be $29,814.

The Auditor General also found difficulties in that the unused vacation pay was not properly applied by the school boards in accordance with directions of government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: The Auditor General also found that vehicle allowances were not within government policy. For example, the Schools Act of 1996 required boards to adopt personnel policies consistent with government policy. Government policy provides for a monthly car allowance of $85. School boards paid in excess of car allowances totalling $55,000.

What it means is that in three school districts in this Province, the vehicle allowances were paid in excess of what government policy would have allowed.

It also mentions that the school boards with their board dinners and gifts, making particular note of one school board, District #10, the former board spent approximately $60,000 from July 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996. The current boards examined spent approximately $37,000 from January 1, 1997 to June 30, 1997.

Mr. Speaker, what that means is that is money that has not been expended in accordance with the act. It may be good, it may be nice to go out and give a retirement dinner for your retirees, but to have to do what is within the law. The law does not provide for that kind of expenditure.

Then there are the schools boards that have money owed to them by staff.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I say to my colleague from Ferryland, it is not that you should be able to have a dinner at the end of your career. It is a matter that the law does not provide for it. We can argue that it should, but it does not. The Auditor General makes note of that.

There are cases in school boards where the Auditor General found credit cards that were not used properly. For example, "For the period of January 1997 to June of 1998, District #10 paid $30,529 charged to two employee corporate credit cards of which only $4,491 was supported by receipts."

In other words, the school board spent $30,000 on credit cards and the school board employees only brought back $4,500, approximately, that was receipted. Mr. Speaker, it is not that these expenditures were wrong. It is just that the school board did not operate in a proper manner.

Then there is the matter of overpay staff. In recent time we have heard a great deal of comment about the overpay to some former school board officials in this Province. The Auditor General says:

"We are very concerned over the lack of control and accountability by the current Board and the Department of Education over various types of ancillary funds including canteen sales, fund raising events, donations and scholarships."

What she also says is that the current board - which in this case would be Board #10 - "paid severance packages of $269,224 to two employees..." That is not bad, when two employees can get a total of $269,000 in severance packages "which were $110,599 in excess of" what was provided for under government rules.

Recently in the paper we have seen commentary by the Chair of the Avalon East School Board which basically says to the Minister of Education that they can take her to court. What she is saying is that the Avalon East School Board is not going to listen to the directives of the Minister of Education, that she is not going to abide by the policies, and that she is going to challenge the Minister of Education's regulation of that department in court.

The paper a few weeks ago gave commentary by the Chair of the Board saying they believe their salary scales were fair. That is not the issue. The issue for the Auditor General and the issue before this House is not whether or not the members who received the extra money were indeed worthy and should have been paid the extra money; the issue is that there is no statutory provision to give them that extra money.

The Minister of Education has either to change her rules and make it retroactive, or she can turn a blind eye to it, or she can aggressively take the Avalon East School Board to court and make them become compliant with legislation. We cannot have two laws in this Province, one for the Avalon East School Board and one for the rest of the school boards in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are many more things in the Auditor General's report, but because of the shortage of time I wanted to move on to another section.

In conclusion, on accountability, I want to point out to the Minister of Finance and to the President of Treasury Board that there are great concerns by the Auditor General over the way in which this government is taking control over and monitoring the way in which money is spent. Crown agencies take money but their reports do not appear in the House. We want to mention that.

Because I am not going to be in the House on Wednesday, I wanted to have a commentary about the way in which this government has treated Marystown Shipyard. I know that on Wednesday the private member's resolution I expect to come forward from the government will be from my good friend and colleague the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: I wanted to get a chance to speak on that particular motion before the House, because of my connection to Marystown Shipyard and because, I suppose, my family members have been employed in the Marystown Shipyard. In fact, my late father was one of the few people that could say he worked at all three shipyards in Marystown: the one in the 1930s, the one in the 1960s, and the one that is there now, at various times. Having been a master boat builder he was very much in demand for his unique skills.

I refer members to this particular issue because I do believe that Marystown Shipyard is an issue that should be addressed, not only in this Legislature, but the way we are looking at the policies on ship building should be addressed in the Parliament of Canada as well. I note that the resolution for Wednesday will call upon the federal government to do more for the enhancement of the shipbuilding policies in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I wanted to bring to the House's attention today the situation at Marystown. A year or so ago we had over 1,100 people employed in Marystown Shipyard. It was the hub of the Burin Peninsula. The Yard today is under great stress. Just a little while ago the marine workers' local union were told that the Marystown Shipyard owners, Friede Goldman, were going to move to consolidate their operations into one facility, going to move it from what we call the Yard itself and going to move their operations to the Cow Head fabrication facility.

I have had great discussions with the president of the local union and other members of that union, and members of my own family in Marystown. I have been told that this move of the Yard to Cow Head is causing great anxiety, great fear, great apprehension. People are concerned about the future of that facility. The move may cause the original Yard to become nothing more than a repair facility at best. Jerome Walsh, the president of the union, was quoted in a recent article in The Southern Post as saying: The consolidation is just another word for job loss.

We question the commitment of Friede Goldman to Marystown Shipyard. The president of the union, Jerome Walsh, has said that he has met with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the hon. Sandra Kelly, and he was not at all impressed with the response he got from this government. In fact, I am quoting from the article: Walsh said the union is shocked at the manner in which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology downplayed the effect of the consolidation.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology should not be perceived as downplaying the impact of this consolidation in Marystown. This has a tremendous potential for wrong in that part of the Province.

The president of the shipyard, Bob Sheppard, said that they have not moved from their original position and that their move now is nothing more than a temporary measure. He argues that this is a temporary measure, but we know from experience in that part of the Province that if the Yard moves from its present location to the fabrication centre at Cow Head, it signals a tremendous change.

What is happening is that workers are being forced to leave Marystown. I know the Minister of Education should be concerned about what is happening at Marystown. There is a crisis in the Marystown Shipyard. It has to be addressed by this government.

A few months ago, we had over 1,000 people employed there. Today we are down under 300. What is happening is that people who have skills, and people who are not now laid off, are indeed looking for jobs. This very day I know of instances where people are leaving that yard, not because they themselves have been laid off but because they know the writing is on the wall. They want to now leave and get a job elsewhere before it gets too late.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, it being 4:53 p.m., I think I have finished my introduction. Before I move to the main body of my address, I have to seek guidance from the Government House Leader and wonder if we now want to -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: In that case - the Government House Leader is anxious. He has been making meticulous notes. Although I voluntarily agree that we will stop now, I have lots of energy left and can certainly continue on. However, in the interest of the House being able to close on time, I would move the adjournment of the debate for today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Harvey, do you mean you are not finished?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Well, thank God for that. I thought you were finished. I really thought you were finished. I was over here in deep sorrow and regret that you were finished.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m., at which time -

Will you be back tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes.

MR. TULK: Okay, if he is back tomorrow we will start at the Budget Speech. Otherwise, we would not dare start without him.

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