March 27, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 7


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to advise members of a successful Internet company that is operating in Trinity North. It is promoting Newfoundland and Labrador merchandise in a global marketplace.

E-Commerce Solutions, a Shoal Harbour company owned by the partnership of Theresa Pittman and Susan Hollett, has launched DiscoveryGiftShop.com. It is a unique online gift shop -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This company is a unique gift shop that sells Newfoundland and Labrador products, and they sell it online. It offers very diverse items such as handmade quilts, prints from Newfoundland artists, books, cd's, jams and chocolates, and they are all produced here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The potential for this site is enormous and is reaching many customers who normally wouldn't be targeted.

I congratulate Theresa and Susan for their initiative and wish them all the success that their business deserves. I think it is a great way for citizens worldwide to buy Newfoundland products just by a click of a computer mouse.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate a resident of my district who is doing his part to conserve wildlife. Michael Fequet from Cartwright, a full-time conservation officer for the past eight years, has been given the distinction as outstanding Wildlife Officer of the Year for 1999 by the Shikar Safari Club International, which is a wildlife conservation group.

Mr. Fequet was selected for this prestigious award because of his outstanding performance in his duties and dedication to conservation. Many officers work diligently for conservation but rarely get the recognition and encouragement they deserve for preserving our valuable resources. I am pleased to congratulate Mr. Fequet on this award and thank him for the valuable job he does in protecting and managing our wildlife and forest resources.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is SKIP-A-LUNCH day. I invite my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House, and all members of the general public to support the School Lunch Association's SKIP-A-LUNCH campaign and donate the money they usually spend on lunch to the School Lunch Association.

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

The event is endorsed by the Premier and Mrs. Grimes, the entire Liberal Caucus, the Department of Education, and many prominent figures from the political, business, arts, entertainment, and media communities. I know that members opposite have also supported the SKIP-A-LUNCH program.

Government's support of school meal programs is evidenced by our investment of $2 million to the School Children's Food Foundation since 1998. As well, government gives an annual grant of $75,000 to the School Lunch Association.

The School Lunch Association was founded in 1989 by a small committee of individuals who recognized the correlation between hunger and a child's ability to learn. The association helps children take full advantage of their educational opportunities by operating a non-stigmatizing program that provides hot, nutritious lunches to children at school, regardless of their families' ability to pay.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to support SKIP-A-LUNCH.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I stand as well to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Skip-a-lunch.

MR. HEDDERSON: I stand to skip-a-lunch, maybe a couple. Although, I must admit we are a bit leaner on this side of the House than on the other side.

I say to the minister, you can be assured that the members on this side of the House certainly support a school lunch program for the children of Newfoundland and Labrador; basically needed. The only hope is that these programs that are established in any number of schools could be universal to make sure that every student in this Province is given a decent lunch during the school hours to make sure that the learning opportunities are there, that they have a full stomach and therefore, perhaps, can get a full mind.

Again, we encourage all the members and certainly the general public -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: - to SKIP-A-LUNCH in support of this worthwhile cause.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We support the SKIP-A-LUNCH program and the school meal program in the Province where one-third of the children in this Province, of school age, live below the poverty line and only 10 per cent have access to a school lunch program.

If I may quote from the Royal Commission on Education: "When children are not adequately fed they miss valuable instructional time, fail to keep up with work, and are very likely to drop out of school early. Whatever the cause of the hunger, it will affect children's health and educational achievement in the short term and their economic security -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. HARRIS: No leave to quote from the Royal Commission on Education? That is how serious you guys are.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Really?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, really, Minister of Mines and Energy. When I am finished with him, I am going to get to you too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Yesterday, I asked the Premier direct questions, direct questions related to the possible re-amalgamation or redesign of FPUS, and the Premier chose to sit on his hands. I was even further astonished today when I read the paper and the description - quoted the Premier himself when he said, " I thanked him" - meaning Mr. Risley - "for the information. I wasn't interested enough, quite frankly, to ask him any questions."

How can the Premier explain his indifference when thousands of fishermen who depend on this industry, thousands of plant workers who depend on this industry all over the Province, are worried about the implications of this takeover, worried about their jobs, worried about the survival of their community? The former Minister of Fisheries knows the difference. He indicated that on his feet yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Why weren't you, Premier, even interested enough to ask a couple of basic questions to this group?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As was made known publicly yesterday, I was visited by Mr. Risley - myself and the Minister of Fisheries. He came as a courtesy call and to give us a piece of information about a commercial activity that is going to occur at a shareholders' meeting, and I thanked him for the information.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: This is astonishing. Do you understand what your own job description should be as Premier of the Province? There were plenty of questions you could have asked him.

For example, Mr. Risley has said publicly today that he wants to get higher profits out of FPI, higher dividends for shareholders. Did the Premier even think to ask Mr. Risley what approach he will take to increase the dividends for his shareholders? One basic question you should have asked.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure we unfortunately will not have a circumstance where the Leader of the Opposition will ever be the Premier, because he is not interested in the job; he has given up the job he had now, actually.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: If anybody on that side were ever to become the Premier, they would decide, based upon a meeting at the time, whether or not they would ask questions. I saw no reason at that point in time to ask any questions of Mr. Risley. We are interested. We have talked with Mr. Young since. We are very interested in the issue, and it is something that may or may not unfold in five weeks' time, and we will be fully prepared as the government to deal with anything and everything that might come to pass in five weeks' time, if the first action comes to pass, which is the change in the board of directors of a publicly-traded company.

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in light of the situation and the seriousness and the position that all members in this Legislature took eight months ago, for their Premier to stand up and say, outside this House, that he was not even, quite frankly, interested enough to ask a question is an astonishing statement for the Premier to make.

We all know how companies like this increase shareholder dividends. They shut down marginal plants; they cut the workforce. Plant workers in fishing communities in this Province, particularly in rural Newfoundland, are concerned about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the Premier this question: Did it occur to you to ask Mr. Risley if he plans to do any of those things in his pursuit of higher profits?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier

.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was no discussion with me and Mr. Risley about any profits or lack of profits thereof. I was given some information that an individual is going to take an action at a shareholders' meeting to try to have new people placed as the board of directors. I am not interested, quite frankly, and I will say it again today, in speculating about what may or may not happen. I do not assume that the first action that he came to talk to us about, of changing the board of directors, is necessarily going to be successful.

Mr. Speaker, none of the other questions, quite frankly, will ever come to bear or have any meaning or relevance if the first action, which is a move to change the board of directors, does not occur in five weeks' time.

We are having every single question asked, because Mr. Young brought it to our attention and I spoke with him at great length and in great detail, because he is the current Chairman and CEO. He knows the operations of Fishery Products International. He is responsible for that company today. Mr. Risley has no responsibility whatsoever for Fishery Products International today. The person who is in charge, we have spent considerable time with and we are investigating whether or not something might come to pass should one event occur, which is a new board of directors getting put in place in five weeks' time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: I have felt no reason - none whatsoever - to ask Mr. Risley about what he might do, what his intention might be, what his motivation might be if he is ever to become successful in the first instance of having new directors and a new board of directors put in place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is interesting that the Premier talks about everyone else's responsibility while at the same time abdicating his. We have a statutory legal obligation for FPI because of the act of this Legislature.

Let me ask the Premier this. Another quick and easy route to higher profits is to dominate the market so that you can set the price for fish. That is how serious this issue is. The conglomerate of companies involved in this takeover will be able to dictate prices if they are successful. Fishermen in this Province are concerned about that. Did it occur to you that you should raise this concern about the effect this conglomerate could have on the incomes of fishermen in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have discussed all of those issues with Mr. Young, who is the current Chair and CEO of Fishery Products International. There is nobody in Newfoundland and Labrador, not a single soul, who can say today, with any degree of certainty, that anyone other than Mr. Young will still be the Chair and CEO of that company after May 1. If, in fact, the shareholders of that publicly-traded company decide at a shareholders' meeting in a democratic society that they are going to have a new CEO and a new Chair, then we will deal with that particular person and put forward all of the concerns with respect to the legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador and the future of the fishery and the role it has played in it by one company - that one company being Fishery Products International.

The Leader of the Opposition can protest all he like. The fact of the matter is, there is absolutely no way under which anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, or anybody in Canada, or anybody in the free world, can suggest that in a private business arrangement in a publicly-traded company on the stock exchange that the shareholders cannot, if they want to, suggest different people be nominated for the board of directors at a shareholders' meeting. That is something that the government cannot be involved in. We already know that. Everything else we can be involved in. We will wait and see if there is anything to be alarmed about or concerned about. I am not willing to suggest that we should all be up in arms and alarmed and concerned today about something that might not even happen in five weeks' time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary..

MR. E. BYRNE: So, here is the new strategy. We are going to sit on our political duffs, wait for the situation to occur, then deal with it when the fish have already left and the horse is out of the barn. That is the strategy of the Premier.

Did he hear CBC Radio Today when Mr. Risley was asked directly: Have you asked for the 15 per cent restriction as an act of this Legislature, an act which you have a statutory responsibility to protect and stand up to? When he was asked directly, did you ask for that to be removed, he said: not yet, we are not at that point, we don't want to deal with that right now.

Premier, are you concerned about the trust-me approach being put forward, and will you stand up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and, in particular, for rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to stand up when there is something to stand up to and stand up for.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask a question again of the Leader of the Opposition. Let me, Mr. Speaker, ask a question of the Leader of the Opposition who does not want to be the Premier, who does not want the job of being the Premier; but somebody over there might someday. If somebody visited you and you were the Premier and said at a shareholders' meeting, we might actually try to have a new board of directors put in place through the proper procedures of the land, what would you do about it? What would you suggest to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that you could actually do, if you were the Premier?

If you give an honest answer, you will answer that there is absolutely nothing you can do about that, absolutely zero that you can do about that. Not in Newfoundland and Labrador with the Fishery Products International Act, not anywhere in Canada, not anywhere in North America, not anywhere in the free world would anybody in a position of Premier anywhere else be able to say to somebody: you cannot come into my office and tell me that you are going to try to have a new board of directors appointed at a shareholders' meeting because there is nothing, Mr. Speaker - and to suggest that there is something that the Premier could be doing about it right now is absolutely false. It can't be done.

There is nothing to be alarmed about, Mr. Speaker. Everything that is being checked out will be known to the government well in advance of something that just might or might not happen in five weeks' time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would tell any potential developer that wants to fly in the face of legislation here, beware. This Legislature - and if I were the Premier, I would stand up and say: beware, that I will use whatever is in my power, whatever legislative lever is at my disposal, to protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what I would tell them, Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask you this question: Do you, as Premier, remember the sale of the Burgeo plant and the transfer of its quota to Nova Scotia? Do you think that this is a possibility with what is happening right now with this company?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I do understand that a well-known and successful Newfoundland businessman, Mr. Barry, who I understand in most of life supports the party opposite and is very well involved with them, is the person who did buy the Burgeo plant and who did, as a Newfoundlander and a Newfoundland-based businessman, decide to take a particular resource and move it out and have it processed in another plant in Nova Scotia. I do understand that, Mr. Speaker, and I do understand that there are people sitting very close to the Leader of the Opposition who are involved in business capacities, through other family members, with Mr. Barry, who make those kinds of decisions.

That does not mean that anybody in the office of Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador would automatically cast a whole web and view of suspicion over anyone who would come forward and say: we cannot let normal business practice occur in Newfoundland and Labrador because we automatically have to suspect that everybody's interest is to do in Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker. That is something that we will not tolerate, we will not allow to happen; but the Leader of the Opposition cannot stand and say that he could do anything about what Mr. Risley said to the government other than to thank Mr. Risley for the information as I did and let him go about his business and see whether or not it actually transpires.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if this Premier had the backbone to release who financially supported his leadership, we would find out who Mr. Barry and others really support. That is what I say to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask you this question: Do you recall, or have you been informed of the commitments and promises that were made to the people of the Northern Peninsula by Clearwater? Do you recall, or have you been informed of how those commitments and promises, to this day, three years later, have not been fulfilled? Wouldn't those instances, which are a matter of fact - not of opinion, a matter of fact - cause you enough concern to ask just a couple of basic questions to Mr. Risley?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Finance. The Canada Health and Social Transfer provides funding to the Province for health, post-secondary education, and social services. During the next fiscal year we will receive $336 million. That is a loss of $89 million from 1994-1995. When you look at the cumulative net loss from 1994-1995 to the projections to 2005-2006 we will have received almost $1 billion less in accumulative loss from the federal government. That is a very significant figure, $1 billion.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians expect their federal government to live up to its responsibilities under the Canada Health Act to safeguard a universal, accessible, comprehensive and publicly administered system. I ask the minister: Why are you allowing your federal counterparts to crucify our Province on funding dedicated to health, education, and social services?

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

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

I thought he was listening a lot more attentively to my Budget Speech than obviously he was, because we actually pointed out the fact that we also are quite concerned about less CHST coming into the Province and the need to have the money that we have for programs, for social programs particularly. I can't tell you, but I can get you the page. I spoke to it specifically in the Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You did listen, I am glad to hear it. That is excellent!

In fact, we are very concerned and we will continue to lobby to try to have the restoration of the CHST so that we are able - anyone in this Province can see that over the last four years we have increased our Health and Community Services budget by 40 per cent, from $1 billion to $1.4 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Our commitment is there!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked her on her role (inaudible) the federal government. She doesn't seem to understand the question.

Over the next five years our Province will receive the lowest increase in Canada Health and Social Transfer on a percentage base of any province in Canada. An increase of just over 20 per cent over the next five years. When you look at it British Columbia, they are going to get a 35.5 per cent increase over that period; Ontario a 43 per cent increase; Alberta 48 per cent increase, three have provinces getting enormous increases.

I ask the minister: Is this Province going to be able to provide health care services that are comparable to British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta when the money for these provinces from the federal government is increasing at more than twice the rate?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows as well as everybody else how the formula is established for CHST. We know that we are getting the same percentage based on formula for population as all of the others. Our population is a lot less, so therefore our amount would be less. Relatively speaking, we are not being detrimentally affected in any other way other than the fact that we believe we should get more money. With respect to the formula, the formula treats all of the provinces in a like manner.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It wasn't the case before 1994-1995 when our current federal Industry Minister sat in the Cabinet and changed that to a per capita basis.

Your predecessor, who is sitting right next to you, said just recently, in this past year, it is an easy time to be Finance Minister. That is what he said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what he said! The new minister has an easy job, that is what I gather.

Our Province is the most geographically disadvantaged in this country, in terms of delivery of health care. Not only that, furthermore, we have an aging population -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: - that are demanding a greater share of medical services. I want to say to the minister, on top of that we are the only Province in this country experiencing a declining population. I ask the minister: Why are you allowing the federal government to get off the hook and get away with funding CHST on a per capita basis and not on a need basis before the former Premier and the current Industry Minister got his hands on it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We are well aware of the challenges of delivering health services in this Province, and we do not have the monopoly on an aging population. Canada has an aging population and our Province is a part of Canada and we experience that same aging population, but our commitment is clear. Any government that would increase the funding from -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I will say it again so my colleague opposite can hear. He is listening attentively, the Member for Placentia, so I will say it again.

We have a provincial commitment to health and community services here in this Province. We have raised our health budget from $1 billion to $1.4 billion. We will continue to make our case at the table with the federal government, as will a number of our other colleagues, particularly those receiving equalization and CHST transfer, in the way that we need it to deliver our programs and services. We are not letting anybody off the hook. We are very public. We read it in the Budget Speech. We make it every chance we get and we will continue to do that because we believe we deserve and need to provide the services to the people of this Province that other provinces cannot expect, and that is why we made a 40 per cent budget commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Premier, your statement yesterday indicates that you are willing to reopen the debate on bulk water export. You said: I believe the public debate was short-circuited a little bit the last time. Come on, Premier, are you seriously saying that the announcement made by Brian Tobin, the announcement that was supported by you as a member of his Cabinet, are you saying now that announcement was wrong?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have not said that anything was wrong. I have said that under the right circumstances we are willing to have a full public debate about exporting water from Newfoundland and Labrador and getting royalties so that we can provide free tuition for students in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

Premier, the public have spoken on this issue. Premier, you made comments that you did not think there were serious NAFTA implications to bulk water export. Premier, that was not the opinion of former Premier Brian Tobin. It was not the opinion of you and the rest of Cabinet, and it is not the opinion of the federal government. Do you seriously believe, Premier - are you going to tell us today that you seriously believe there are no NAFTA implications to the bulk export of water?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I have said is that we are willing to have a full public debate about the export of water from Newfoundland and Labrador; a full public debate on all of the issues so that we can hopefully get royalties from water to provide free tuition for students in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

Premier, do you honestly believe that if you start sending tankers full of water out of this Province that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to get maximum benefit in terms of jobs, spinoffs and royalties from this resource? Because, Premier, if you are, it is the first resource giveaway that we are going to get maximum benefits on.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do know and I am quite confident that again, the hon. member in the Opposition would be frightened to death to think that maybe we could actually export water from Newfoundland and Labrador, get some royalty revenue and have free tuition for students in Newfoundland and Labrador because it is the last thing they would like to see and obviously they are opposed to it. They do not even want to have a debate on the issue. They would hope that we would not even talk about the issue publicly. We will have a full debate because our objective will be to get royalty revenues from the export of water from Newfoundland and Labrador and hopefully in such volume and in such numbers that we could provide free tuition for the post-secondary students of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and has to do with his visit by those proposing to take over FPI. Given the Premier's intimate knowledge of what Mr. Bill Barry did in Burgeo, in transferring quotas to Nova Scotia, did the Premier not take advantage of the opportunity to tell this Nova Scotian and the others who were visiting them, to send them a strong message about what this government's position would be on issues such as removing quotas from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Was the Premier's indifference, which he expressed to the media yesterday, because the representatives and those associated with him, who came to visit him, were not members of the party opposite or their associates but, in fact, were associates of the Liberal Party and perhaps supporters of the Premier's attempt to lead his own party?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Education. Minister, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, great pains were taken to establish a primary curriculum for the new millennium, I suppose, to get away from the more outdates skills-oriented teaching methods. The whole child became the focus, the emphasis on a seamless curriculum on balance.

Minister, you have sort of unraveled that, of late, in coming out and talking about increasing language arts time. Your reason for increasing language arts time is that more time on task will provide higher achievement; but, to get more time in language arts in primary schools, you are taking 25 per cent of time from such subject areas as physical education, art and music. By your own argument, Minister, won't less time on task in phys. ed., art and music, mean lower achievement in phys. ed., art and music?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, just to correct the hon. member on the figure he used there, we are not looking to increase anything by 25 per cent. The amount of time spent on language arts in our school system today is 25 per cent. We are looking to increase that by 15 per cent to bring the total amount of time spent on language arts in our school system to 40 per cent. That is in keeping with what is happening in the Atlantic Provinces, when you look at Nova Scotia where they spend 40 per cent on language arts, and in P.E.I. where they spend 45 per cent. We are in keeping with that formula and in that range because it is an Atlantic Provinces' curriculum that our students are studying. We are talking Grades K-3 here, so it is not where we are looking at junior high or high school, or decreasing time from other subject areas.

In fact, if you look at what is happening in the school system today - and most boards are doing this - there is an optional 10 per cent in the school day, and most teachers now incorporate that optional 10 per cent on language arts. So, if you look at it, we are really looking at a 35 per cent time frame being spent today on language arts. What we are looking for is an additional 5 per cent, and most teachers would know how to get that by focusing on language arts when they are doing music, drama or art. All we are asking is that they focus a little more attention on language arts to try and deal with the problem that we have in our Province in terms of literacy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, you misinterpreted my question. I talked about a decrease and a lower achievement level in phys. ed., art and music as a result of you altering the curriculum, which you have done. You have altered the curriculum.

My next question is: If you have altered the curriculum, isn't it true then that the loss - and it is a loss - of 25 per cent of time allotment in phys. ed., art and music - because that allotment is lost, whatever way you do it, it is lost - it will result then in a comparable loss of teaching positions in these specialty areas. Again, Minister, how do you explain that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, for a government that has just come out and announced that we are not taking any teachers out of the system whatsoever, despite declining student enrolment, despite fewer students in the system, despite fewer schools, there is no intention on seeing fewer teachers in any area of any subject in any school system. We are not taking 25 per cent away from other subject areas. Let me repeat: there is a 10 per cent optional in the school system now that will be applied to language arts. That is happening in some parts of the Province now in some boards.

Having said that, I am sure there are those out there, including the hon. member opposite, who would love to say that we are, in fact, taking time from other subject areas. That is not the intent. What we are trying to do here is, we are trying to ensure that our teachers focus on language arts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS FOOTE: At the end of the day, if our children cannot read, or our children cannot write, or our children cannot add, then any amount of time on phys. ed. or music or drama or art will have been lost, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, don't shoot the messenger! I am just carrying along a message from the educators of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: I say to the minister, let's just take music as a specialty. Memorial University School of Music is geared almost exclusively to supplying music education teachers in our schools. I ask you, Minister, if you are going to alter the curriculum, if you are cutting back on music, if you are cutting back on the specialty teachers, what impact will this have on student registration and indeed on the survival of the School of Music?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, what a stretch! My heavens!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Here we are, talking about subjects in K-3. We are not talking about elementary, junior high and high school. To suggest that what we are looking at doing to try and increase the amount of time on language arts would wipe out the School of Music at Memorial, give me a break, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: That is ludicrous!

Let me say that if he wants to bring in a message from the education community, I am getting messages every day from parents, teachers and principals saying: Go for it, this is important. It is important that we focus on language arts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order. I ask the Speaker if he would ask the Premier to withdraw statements he made here, accusations in this House, and implications that were improper. No member of my family, immediate or otherwise, has any shares in the Barry Group of Companies, no more than an employee of his office and a person working for government is an employee of the Premier of this Province and the government of the Province. He should not be making implications. If he cannot prove it, and table it in this House, I ask him to put up or shut up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I have offended the sensitivities of any member in this House - because I named no one; I named nobody in this House - but if, in fact, I have offended some sensitivities, which it looks like maybe I have, then I certainly apologize and withdraw.

It is nice to know who it was that I wasn't talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Order No. 2, Mr. Speaker, Committee of Supply, the Legislature and Executive Council.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I am pleased today to speak on the Estimates associated with Executive Council and the budget notes. Certainly the total budget for Executive Council is $27.1 million, comparable to last year's level of $27 million. I would note that last year we added some one-time funding with respect to Human Resources and Employment, and also for the Motor Vehicle Registration Driving System, with respect to the computerization there. The funding is not included obviously, in 2001-2002, and other accounts are up almost a total of $900,000. This also includes - when we talk about this - various components, including Government House, the Premier's Office, Cabinet Secretariat, Intergovernmental Affairs, Treasury Board, Comptroller General's Office, Women's Policy Office, Strategic Social Plan, Communications, and the Opening Doors program.

In this budget for this particular section of the Estimates, as members would know, those who listened attentively to the Budget would know we added $140,000 for our seven women's centres bringing the total to $410,000. We also did additional funding of $284,000 for the anti-violence strategy; which brings that total up to a $500,000. We have also included $300,000 for a new classification system, so we can continue to work and do the preliminary work that needs to be done as we look forward to new classification.

As well, we are very proud to say that we have provided additional funding for the Opening Doors program, and also for a strong commitment for information technology to a number of departments. As you know, Treasury Board houses the monetary component of the IT budget so that other departments are able to avail of it. We also do the computer support and the administrative support as well with respect to, specifically, the IT.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to do any explanation or take any questions as it relates to Executive Council.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, it is no wonder the former Minister of Finance said it is an easy time to be a Finance Minister. The jet-setting age of finance travel. The Executive Council had a great time. Just reading the newspapers alone on all the travel that is going on in the Province; tremendous travel by the Premier's office.

I ask the minister, under Government House, 1.1.01.01., they budgeted last year $427,300 for Salaries. What was the reason there was roughly a $37,000 less expenditure? I know it was budgeted back in this year. Was there a position in the meantime that was not filled for a period of time and is now? Is it the intent to fill that position or has it just been carried there with the intention of filling it sometime, or is it filled now?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

In fact, there was a vacant chauffeur position last year in the Budget.

MR. SULLIVAN: It has now been filled has it?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, that has been filled and that would account for the change from last year back up to this year.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

CHAIR: Before the Opposition House Leader continues his questioning, I am instructed by the Clerk that perhaps we should call the first head.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it would be a good idea. Now we can do this over again.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: You have to get your facts straight. I say to the Premier, he has to get his facts straight. He can't be throwing out things that are not accurate.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) questions about the facts?

MR. SULLIVAN: Questions on the facts; we usually don't get the facts. We get diversions, we get half truths. I will not say that bad word but we do get a lot of variations of the truth.

Last year under Purchased Services, under Government House, 1.1.01.06, there was $24,600 budgeted and we spent $45,500. That is a 95 per cent increase there. What accounted for those extraordinary expenditures there of $21,000, because we are back again next year to the same amount we projected last year? Was there a one-time acquisition that had to be carried out or a purchased service? Does that relate to certain legal or other types of professional services that were required there? What specific expenditure occurred here?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

The answer to the question on Purchased Services is while the vacant position of the chauffeur was obvious in the previous question, services were provided at that time by the Canadian Core of Commissioners for the purposes of chauffeuring, and that would account for a purchased service as opposed to an employee position for that period of time.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, and that would account - in total the expenditure is roughly the same. It was about $4,000 more in a year. That was just looked at under another area. While you didn't have a chauffeur you just purchased the service on a direct contractual basis as opposed to an employee basis?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Right.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

I will just move on to the Premier's Office, Salaries, 2.1.01.01. We are projecting the beginning of an extravagant period, even more extravagant than the Premier's Office. The Premier, this year, wants to increase his staff. Maybe he doesn't have as many hidden everywhere else. He wants to increase staff, or salaries to those staff, by about $60,000. Does that mean there are new people in the office? Does it mean that there is going to be increased remuneration to the ones there, or that impressive a jump in salary we can anticipate - which would be highly unlikely. Can the minister tell us what extraordinary expense has occurred there?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, what we are really trying to do is strive to get back to the Premier's Office budgeting for 1988-1989 when it was up to $1.8 million. That is what we are really trying to do here.

MR. SULLIVAN: You are getting there in a hurry! You are getting there in a hurry, I can tell you!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Chairman, we still have $800,000 to go to catch up.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes.

We were up to $1.8 million in 1988-1989, and we are up one point less than $1 million this year; so there you go.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I asked a pretty simple question: Why did we spend $780,000 last year and $841,000 when there is $61,000 more in Salaries in the Premier's Office this year than last year? What is accounting for the $60,000? Is it an increase in pay to the ones who are there or are there more employees in the Premier's Office? Is it one of those two, and which one?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

There is an additional position in the office of Assistant Secretary of Strategic Planning. Basically, that is it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) the last Premier. We can see, I guess, one reason why; he probably might be planning on spending a little bit more time here. He might need more staff. That could be one reason why.

AN HON. MEMBER: The travel budget will be down.

MR. SULLIVAN: Good deduction.

MR. J. BYRNE: With all the mistakes he's making he needs more staff to straighten him out.

MR. SULLIVAN: I suppose so, interesting. The Member for Cape St. Francis said he is getting into so much trouble, he is making so many more mistakes, he needs more people to come after him and correct his mistakes and get the spin out there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Cape St. Francis is not wrong very often, I can tell you. Not very often at all.

Transportation and Communications; here is a biggie, $145,000 budgeted and $220,000 spent; $75,000. Over a 50 per cent increase in transportation in former Premier Tobin's Office for last year. I mean that is an enormous increase in Transportation and Communications. That is not counting, I suppose, anybody accompanying him. Those transportation costs all farmed out somewhere else. The Minister for Mines and Energy, I guess that amount went out there, and if a person from some other department accompanied him, that cost went out to that department. That is just the ones that are showing up here. Why is there more than a 50 per cent increase in what we budgeted in this particular line item last year as a result of expenditure? Next year the new Premier is not planning on doing as much travel? He is back to what the other premier thought he was going to do, not what they actually did. So why over a 50 per cent increase?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Obviously, there was an increase in Transportation and Communications and it is there in black and white. Everybody can see it. It is associated with increased travel requirements of the former Premier, and obviously attending to the very important business of the Province. Also, there were a number of very important trips around negotiations at the time and various other ministerial and Premiers' responsibilities. As you can see, the number is there and the number is slated to be back to $145,000 again this year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to ask the minister, the former Premier was only here for six-and-a-half months out of that twelve: How much of that $220,000 was incurred by Premier Tobin? What is the breakdown incurred then by Premier Tulk and by Premier Grimes out of that allotment? If it is difficult to give all three, could you tell us up to October 14 or October 16 how much was incurred in the six-and-a-half months out of that $220,000 by the first of these three Premiers?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The number is not broken down. It is just broken down for the position as opposed to the various individuals within the department. As I said, there were two former Premiers. I think, clearly, the bulk of which would have been for the former former Premier; but I don't have the actual breakdown for each of the three Premiers in the budget year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr .Chairman.

Would the minister be able to get that breakdown for me of how much was incurred by the former Premier in his six-and-a-half months out of that $220,000? It should not take a long check of the records to go back to these. They are all dated and signed off appropriately there. I do not expect her to be able to necessarily throw it out today, but if she could give me a commitment that she will provide that for me?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, the minister is saying yes, agreeing to that. Thank you.

The next item - boy, this is an expensive Premier when you look at things. Maybe it is not such a good time to be a Finance Minister.

Supplies, 04., were $19,400 and now the revised amount is $30,000. That is a significant amount. We are going back again to $19,400. I know with three different Premiers in one year there might have been extra things needed in terms of stationery and others types of things, but I am not sure if they would have accounted for that much of an increase of $10,000 or $11,000. I would assume a certain amount can be attributed to the change from three different Premiers in that fiscal year and I guess the printing of things that were already done there. If there is anything over that, could the minister just let me know what the extraordinary expenditures are?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Again, it is basically an increase in supply and demand associated with the Premier's change in office and there is nothing specific that I can identify other than that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The next item shows, under 06. Purchased Services, we budgeted last year $26,500 and we are budgeting this year $26,500, but we spent last year $55,000. That $28,500 is an increase of 100-and-some per cent, more than double, no fiscal control whatsoever on many of these items here. Why the large over expenditure, over 100 per cent more than we budgeted, in this item under the Premier's Office?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

The costs are reflective of hospitality and entertainment associated with increased travel for the office of the Premier.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Under 07. Property, Furnishing and Equipment, there was $5,000 and we spent $10,000. Normally there is a low amount allocated for this, so when we look from $5,000 to $10,000.... In the total budget $5,000 does not seem much, but it is a 100 per cent increase in what we budgeted. Why is there also a 100 per cent increase in Property, Furnishings and Equipment in the last fiscal year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

There was an extra $5,000 spent for property, furnishings and equipment in the Premier's Office.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: So the new Premier did not like the colors in the office. Did he change the art, what is on the walls? Did he change any structure? We had a 100 per cent expenditure. Is there any particular item that constituted the bulk of that expenditure?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, to correct the assumption that was made, and rightly so. If the member opposite thinks that we changed the property and furnishing in the Premier's office, that was not the case. The allocation is $5,000 and there was $5,000 over and above the allocation, in terms of equipment and other pieces of required property that went between the three Premiers for that particular period of time. I think that would not be exorbitant, in light of the fact that there were three Premiers in that period of time.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I understand that. We did know that the second one was only there for only a short period of time, that was a predetermined time almost, so I cannot see any significant changes in the interim there. There is a 100 per cent increase and I still do not know now what it was spent on. That was the question. I do not want to insinuate any particular thing, but if there was an expenditure that needed to be made there, and it was made, that is not the point. The point is, what was expended there.

When we look down through this budget here, we see an increase of over 50 per in Transportation and Communications. We see an increase of 60 per cent in Supplies. We see an increase in Purchased Services of 100-and-some per cent. We are seeing over 100 per cent increase in Property, Furnishings and Equipment in the Premier's Office. I would just like to know what it was spent on, and were they necessary expenses, basically, when they were not budgeted? If they were, fine. If it was a necessary expense and it had to be done, and it is a particular item that had to be replaced, or whatever the case, I am sure we are quite understanding of that. That is a particular question that I would like to have an answer to.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I already answered the question, Mr. Chair.

MR. SULLIVAN: We did not get an answer.

Harvey, do you want to go to the next one?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Madam Minister, I wish to switch to 2.2.01. Executive Support. We note there have been some changes. Last year the budget provided for $699,500 for Salaries. Actually, you spent $732,700 and now it is up to $814,500. We note that it is gone from $699,500 to $814, 500 which is basically about a 15 per cent increase in one year. Why would that happen?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Salary adjustments for the Clerk, salary adjustments for the Deputy Clerk and Assistant Secretary to Cabinet, Strategic Planning.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Does that mean, Madam Minister, that the people whom you have listed - and I have them in the Departmental Details there - that these people on average received a 15 per cent increase last year, and that was a salary adjustment? Are you suggesting that there were no new people added, and that the salaries went from last year $699,500 to this year $814,500 and you did not indicate any new positions. Therefore tell us, in percentage terms, the percentage of salary increase we are talking about to the people you previously identified.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Yes, there is an additional position, as I pointed out. Salary adjustment for the Clerk, salary adjustment for the Deputy Clerk, comprised with the new position, is what accounts for that increase in the allocation on that line.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, at a time when all other people in the civil service were looking at 2 per cent and 2 per cent and 2 per cent, are you suggesting that the people in the Executive Council, some of the chief officers of that department, that there was a different salary scale increase for these people as compared to the rest of the civil service? Could you tell us what percentage increases did occur in the salaries for the people we are addressing here who work in the Executive Council?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

As I pointed out, there has been an increase in the salary for the Clerk and Deputy Clerk of government, and also a new position, Secretary to Cabinet. I do not have the exact percentage of breakdowns. You can see there is nothing hidden in the numbers here. You can see the numbers, what they were last year, the revised numbers, and what they are now. They are the three individuals we are talking about here. We are not talking about any number of people; we are talking about three individuals as it relates to the increase in the salaries that would account for what you are seeing right there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

In the Estimates that we are looking at here for Professional Services, last year we budgeted $32,700. Actually there was $5,000 spent. It is back up to $32,700. What professional services did you anticipate spending money on last year but did not? Why do you need to put that money in the budget again this year if you only spent $5,000 last year? Why would you increase that by six times the amount that you spent last year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

We are not spending six times more. What it actually amounts to is that last year we did not spend the allocated budget. That was because we spent less on consulting fees in that particular area than we had intended, but the budget is restored to what it was the previous year even though we did not spend it. We do not go out and spend every cent of money in the budget, even if we do not need it. We try to do it responsibly. From time to time when you do not need to spend it - as you can see, last year we only spent a portion of it, $5,000 as opposed to $32,700. This year, based on discussion with executive and senior staff, they believe we should leave the allocation for the budget at $32,700 and if we need to spend it this year then the money is there, and if we do not then we will not spend it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, we are not questioning whether or not you should have spent the money if you did not need to spend it. It was there last year. My question is, if you did not need to spend it last year - we are talking here about Professional Services and it is only a small amount of money we are talking about in terms of the total budget. We congratulate the minister if she is able to cut the expenditures they do not need to spend; however, if we are looking at about $25,000 that we are putting in this year, my question is: If you did not need it last year, why would you not let the budget for this year stand at what was really spent last year, which was $5,000?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, Mr. Chair, because this is a new year. While we did not need to spend it on consulting services last year, there is a possibility we may need to spend it this year. So, based on the advice we got from the people that help us in doing the budget, our senior executive and managers, they recommended that we leave the allocation of $32,700 in for possible consulting which may come up from a number of initiatives that are occurring, whether it is from the Strategic Social Plan or any particular piece like human resources or anything that may result. I cannot sort of crystal ball what it may be, but the best advice we got from our officials was that we should leave it in because, on the chance that we do not spend it again next year, it will be there. It will still be there, it will go back into the general revenue, but you need to budget it if you are getting the best advice that you may need to use it throughout the year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

The same thing applies, Madam Minister, to 07. Property, Furnishings and Equipment. Last year you budgeted $20,000 and you spent $10,000. It is back to $20,000 this year. Surely the people in the Executive Council would have identified what they would be spending $20,000 on. There is a very small staff. What would they be needing to spend $20,000 on, when they only spent $10,000 last year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, Mr. Chair, they may not need to spend it next year; and, if they do not need to, as you can see from this year, they will not spend it. They were budgeted $20,000 and they spent $10,000; now they are going to be budgeted $20,000 again. There are new people there, new staff positions. It is quite possible there may be some requirements there.

Mr. Chair, again I will say that if it is not needed to be spent, it will not be spent. You can see that not all of the allocation was spent this year, even when it was revised, and therefore the same will hold true. If we do not need to spend it then we will not, but it remains as a budgeted line item.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Minister, I congratulate any government division when they can curtail their expenditures, and note that perhaps there should be rewards in government for departments that can come in under budget. Just because it is in the budget does not mean that we have to spend the money. We should reward them or recognize them, if they can run their department with fewer dollars than may have been allocated to them.

Madam Minister, going on to the next budgetary item which is Economic and Social Policy Analysis, I note that last year you spent $376,100 on Salaries. This year it is up to $392,400. What would have caused that? Is that just standard salary increases?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: And step increases, and the 2 per cent and part of the 1 per cent this year. It is the two combinations. Did you get that?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, thank you, Madam Minister.

Could we go on down then? I think the rest of the items in that particular division are relatively self-explanatory. I might just note as well, if you could look at Transportation and Communications under Economic and Social Policy Analysis, last year you spent $30,500 and you have put that up to $40,000 this year. Is there an explanation, or is it that you expect more travel this year or you have some new communications strategies that you are going to implement?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a little bit of fat in the budget, isn't it?

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

Actually, we are trimming fat off it. As you can see, it was previously budgeted at $42,000 and now we are budgeting $40,000. Even though we only spent $30,000, the line item remains. As I will say again, if we do not need to spend it then we most certainly would not spend it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Madam Minister, going on to 2.2.03 Offshore Fund - Administration, the administration of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Fund, we note that last year there was a budget for $81,400. What would have caused that to go $86,000 then to $93,200? If you look at last year's budget compared to this year's budget, we are looking at going up by about $12,000 compared to $81,000 last year in the budget. That is a significant increase. Is that because of just the step progressions and other regular pay adjustments?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is correct.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: If I could move on now to 05. Professional Services, under the same category 2.2.03., last year we budgeted $37,300 for Professional Services, spent $16,000, and this year it is back to $37,300 again. Why would we keep that budget item for Professional Services at the number it was last year when obviously last year they left a lot of money unspent? We congratulate them for that, but why would you keep it at $37,300 if last year's history shows they can do the job on $16,000?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

This particular item was around the cost of auditing fees, and the auditing fees were less than anticipated this year. That is not to say that we will not be doing further audits this year, because we would. Based on that fact, the best advice we had gotten from our officials was that we should maintain the same line item cost in lieu of the fact that the auditing cost may go up, or any other professional services. That is the one specifically that I refer to, but there may be a need for other services which might drive that line item up to $37,300.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Minister.

The same thing would apply to the next item, which is Purchased Services where last year there was $7,500 allocated for it. The expenditure was really $2,000 but this year it still continues to be at $7,500. Does the minister have an explanation as to why we put an extra $5,500 more than the actual expenditure of last year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Because, we generally try to budget on what we anticipate will be spent, not what is actually spent. From time to time, as you can see from previous line items, we spend a whole lot more and we still would return to a lower budget. So again, I would say, based on the advice from our officials. You know, in this particular case, the Offshore Fund - Administration, which is funded under the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Fund, it was decided by the parties that we would leave that item in because it is a cost-shared initiative, as you know.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Minister.

The next item, we will go to page 18, is 2.2.04. Economic Renewal Agreement - Administration. The administration of that, of course, is really shared again with the federal government. We note that in Salaries again, last year the budget item was $123,700, the actual was $111,600. Given the fact that we spent about $12,000 less, and of course we had the step progressions last year as well, what happened there? Did we have somebody who left early and we didn't spend the amount? Because it is unusual, when the allocation for salaries is up on that kind of a small amount of money, that we wouldn't be spending that amount. Did something happen? Did somebody leave early or somebody transfer to another position? This year it is up to $132,900, which means that it is up about $21,000 beyond what it was last year, the actual of last year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

There was a vacant secretarial position for part of the year and that would account for the decrease in the salary line vote.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, would the amount from $123,700 of last year to $132,900 this year be accounted for through the standard progressions and step increases?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is correct.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much.

We look down to Professional Services. Again, I compliment the divisions of government when we can run our divisions and spend less than was allocated. I am looking at the item under Professional Services. Again, there was $17,000 allocated for that particular unit last year, the actual was $4,000, but the minister this year has put $17,000 back in there. When I look at the aggregate here, then we have to look at where we need extra money. If we are going to be lean in these allocations, to me, it would have made prudent sense not to keep it at these amounts but to recognize that many divisions of government in other units are crying out for more money. Why would we not adjust that amount to reflect more of the expenditure to be in keeping with what was actually spent last year rather than what was asked for last year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Again, I would say that in this particular line item there was less money spent on the auditing services than we had anticipated. Again, this is a Newfoundland-federal government cost-shared arrangement, and the budget was planned with that in mind.

With respect to another comment, that many departments were looking for more money, I would say every department would like to have more money this year, so I certainly concur with that. Again I will say that if the money is not spent (inaudible) it goes back into the general revenue, as you know, and then it would be reallocated.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Minister.

I just want to read into the record, and you can correct me if I am wrong, going back to page 16, to the Executive Support, which is the salaries, of course, for the Clerk of the Executive Council, my colleague has been checking some data for us while we have been talking here and I note that this year the salary allocation for the Clerk of the Executive Council is $125,537, up from $113,376 of last year, and the Deputy Clerk is allocated this year as $108,047 from the salary estimates that we are looking at, from $90,985 of last year. That means that these two positions together, we have gone from salaries of $204,361 up to $233,584. Does that accurately reflect the salary increases for these two positions under the salaries for the Executive Council?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Chair, it accurately reflects your calculation but I have not done the calculations and I really am not in the position to concur. I know the numbers are there, the increases are there. I know this was around three individuals. You have identified two of the three individual salaries from this year's to last year's. With respect to those two, you have the numbers there. They are there in black and white. As I have said, I have been very clear and open and honest that they are reflective of an increase adjustment to both the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk and the new position.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

MR. EFFORD: Do you roll pennies every night for the piggy bank?

MR. H. HODDER: I would not have time, I say to the Member for Port de Grave, to roll his pennies, but I do have time to roll mine. You have lots of free time now, John, you can roll your money every night. With all the free time you have, you do not need us to help you roll your money, but I still would not have time to roll your pennies for you.

I want to move to the item under 2.2.05. Advisory Councils on Economic and Social Policy. I note that salaries last year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Peter Fenwick, Joyce Hancock -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Are you suggesting Peter Fenwick is now a Liberal?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Is now a what?

MR. H. HODDER: A Liberal.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, he asked me who was on the council, so I was just listing off a few people who just came to the top of my head.

MR. EFFORD: If Peter Fenwick is on it, he should (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the Member for Port de Grave, he was in Cabinet when he was appointed.

MR. EFFORD: I did not know.

MR. H. HODDER: You did not know? Now you do. You will have to go back and ask for a rescinding, I would say to the Member for Port de Grave.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: He makes a very good contribution to the whole committee.

MR. SULLIVAN: He should be consistent.

MR. H. HODDER: We do not doubt that the member makes a good contribution.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: He makes an excellent contribution.

MR. H. HODDER: I wanted to go to the salary allocations under item 2.02.05. Last year you allocated $134,500, actually spent $129,600, but this year you are looking for $203,200. What has happened here under Salaries? Is this extra personnel? It must obviously be extra personnel, because we have virtually gone up over 50 per cent, approximately $73,000.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Yes, in fact, there are new positions here. As you know, we are moving to the next phase particularly with respect to the social policy on our social audit. That can account for some of it in terms of our policy requirements. Yes, there is a new position and other adjustments.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I wonder if the minister could tell us how many new positions and where they would be found within that unit? (Inaudible) looking for the independent advice to government on major economic and social issues. I want to ask the minister where the positions are, and how many there are?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

There is a new temporary policy position within the Social Policy component.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Is that the only new position?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes it is, that I have on there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: We are looking at a $73,000 increase. That seems to be an unusual amount of money for that one position, I say to the minister. Maybe she would like to take the question under advisement and check back with us later on.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: There is a built in increase in Salaries, as well as a new temporary position in the Social Policy piece.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: The people who are actively negotiating with government, as we speak, might be interested in some of this kind of information, I say to the Member for Ferryland.

I want to go to the issue under the same category 03. Transportation and Communications. Last year there was an allocation of $78,500 and actually spent $28,000. This year it is still back at $78,500. Why did you not spend the money last year? Obviously, you allocated too much money. Why would you then put it back to $78,500 this year, if you indeed could get along last year with about 30 per cent or 40 per cent of that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Last year there were fewer meetings. We have two major committee groups represented under this heading and there were fewer meetings. I think this will come closer to looking at the social items. Specifically, there are more planned meetings around consultations and you know it is a widespread group. My understanding is that they plan to do more meetings around consultation as they come closer to identifying what the social audit is going to look like because that is a huge piece of our Strategic Social Plan.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I am fairly reasonably familiar with the social audit provisions and the processes that are necessary. However, when you look at bringing this group to St. John's or wherever for meetings, we are looking at spending nearly $80,000. That is an awful lot of meetings and an awful lot of expense to the public purse. I just want to make that comment because it means that the budget for that division will go up from $167,600 to $313,200 this year. That is from what was actually spent last year to the allocations that you are looking for this year.

Madam Minister, if we could move to the next item which is under 2.2.06. Protocol office. I note that last year the budget was for $108,900 under Salaries, but you spent $135,800. That is approximately $25,000 or $26,000 more than the budget. Why did that happen?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: This includes salary costs for two permanent positions.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Madam Minister, going to the next item, which is Transportation and Communications, last year there was $250,000 budgeted, again they spent $90,000, and the Protocol office this year is back up to $250,000. What special events are we talking about? Are we expecting any Royal visitors? What is happening that we would be budgeting $250,000 for the Protocol office under Transportation and Communications in one year? Last year we did have some significant numbers of visitors coming to Newfoundland because of the Viking Celebrations. What is happening this year that we would need to spend more than twice as much as we actually spent last year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

This year, as you know, we will be celebrating the Marconi celebrations with Princess Elettra and her family but, more importantly, the focus is on telecommunications. That is why you can see the Communications piece in there as well, because the focus is on telecommunications with this particular celebration piece.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Madam Minister, you are anticipating that the focus this year - again, we know that the actual cost of the celebrations we had last year was a lot higher than the allocations for the Protocol office. Again, it seems to me that we do seem to be spending significant sums of money in that one office for Transportation and Communications, even though I recognize that when you are talking about celebrating Marconi, it is a little different than what we were doing last year in terms of Protocol. I think you did indicate that there is a visit expected from some members of the Marconi family. I assume they are coming from Italy?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: They are, yes.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Minister.

I was wondering if the Member for Ferryland is now ready to proceed to the Minister's Office?

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister's Office; oh yes, that is the area that we want to get into.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Which minister's office are you talking about? Is this IGA Minister's Office? Is that where you are now?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Did you finish Senior Management, Harvey?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, we will run down the list here and keep it in line -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Do you want me to finish off before you do IGA? Is that what you want to do? The minister will be doing IGA for himself, I would assume? Are you doing IGA yourself? You are.

Do you want to finish off my stuff or do you want to break off for a few minutes?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, okay. Did the minister say she wanted to have a general comment before we move into IGA?

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader has been recognized.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I am just wondering. I did not hear the minister's comment -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am sorry, what did you say?

MR. SULLIVAN: I was asking if government wanted to have comments under IGA before we moved into that or are we just going (inaudible)?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am not doing IGA. The minister is doing it but if you want to finish off the rest of what I am doing you can. It is up to you, however you want to do it. It doesn't matter.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well IGA would be under our House Leader, so if there is something else while you are here and you want to move to it, I don't have a problem.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Okay, that's good.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am just seeing what is next now.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Communications and Consultation is next.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, that is on page 21, Communications and Consultation, 2.4.01. Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, 2.3.01 we can get back to later if that is fine?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is IGA.

MR. SULLIVAN: Communications and Consultation, 2.4.01. We will get back to the Government House Leader, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs questions a little later.

Under Communications and Consultation; Salaries are fairly comparable. They are, in fact, almost identical, which means there probably must be - is there one particular salary less now to allow for increases and so on, or any progressions there? It is almost the same, so there must be probably a salary less, I assume, under 2.4.01.Communications and Consultation, subsection 01. Salaries.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No salary less. It is almost identical, with the exception of minor increases.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, so there is very minimal allowance for increases. There must be some change there.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, you can see the change.

MR. SULLIVAN: Under Transportation and Communications it is pretty consistent. They budgeted $40,000, down to $36,000, back again to $40,000. I guess that is within a 10 per cent drop there and it slightly increased, which is within a reasonable margin.

Once again, Purchased Services, I know Purchased Services from year to year can vary to a certain extent. They are subject to tremendous fluctuations in the past. Historically, we have seen them fluctuate a lot. In this case there was $40,000, down to $32,000, a 20 per cent drop, and then we have the increase again. Under Purchased Services, was there an particular extraordinary thing that was planned or any amount that did not materialize? You have just gone back to historic levels, I would assume, in that. It just came in under, for no apparent major reason, other than that it has been a historic level of expenditure, probably. Would that be it?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Again, you only spend what you need to spend, and you budget. Like any budget, sometimes you go over and sometimes you come under and you try to stay under. In this particular case we budgeted $40,000, spent $32,000 and, again, as an allocation from the officials who help us with the budget, they identified that $40,000 was a reasonable amount. If they needed it, they would spend it. If they did not, they would not.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is within a reasonable range. When it starts to get over 50 per cent and 100 per cent, that is when I get concerned and have particular questions.

Once again, under 2.4.02. Internet Operations and Graphic Support there is a fair consistency throughout almost all of these. I have two questions under 05. Professional Services. There was a budget amount of $80,000 and we spent $25,000, so I would assume there were plans to have an expenditure here that did not materialize in the last fiscal year. I am assuming that is going to be carried and expended in this next fiscal year. That is what is looks like on the surface. Would that be -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, that is accurate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Was there one major thing that comprised that? We only spent $25,000, which means a lot of other minor things would have been covered there, so that there must be one major expenditure there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What actually happened under that vote was that upgrading and maintaining the Web page was actually a lot slower than anticipated. That is why we spent only a portion of it, as you can see, about $25,000, on upgrading and maintaining the Web page, compared to the allocation, so we will keep moving forward with that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Which means, I guess, that plan should be carried out in this fiscal year. It should be completed; it is not a long-term thing. I guess upgrading is going to occur over the next short period of time. Otherwise we will probably need another upgrade again.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is exactly right.

MR. SULLIVAN: Property, Furnishings and Equipment, there was $15,000 budgeted. It went down to $3,500 and back to $15,000 again. That is a historic level, I think, $15,000, or in that ball park. Was there a specific identified expenditure anticipated last year that did not materialize, or was that put in because of historic levels and the expenditures just did not necessitate expenditures, or whether it was areas that you might have a tendency to see budget overruns and you try to at least refrain from purchasing again to keep levels of expenditure down? Might that be the case?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, I do not think it is about budget overruns. Again, it is just about - and I think it might be somewhat related to the Web page and maybe some of the other equipment and property that would have been required that was not required because things moved along more slowly. I would think that if it continues up - I do think it is somehow linked - it may be spent. I would say again, in caution, that we will only spend it if we need to. The departments have been given a clear mandate that, if you do not need it, you do not spend it. I think you will see that those allocations that maybe historically you would see would be spent towards the end of the year, that does not happen, and if it is not needed then it is not spent.

MR. SULLIVAN: The point I think I made when I said budget overruns, I guess the intent of what I was saying was that sometimes when it gets near the end of the fiscal year and the department expenditure is up to the limit, sometimes you might have the tendency to make an expenditure or desire and you will try to put that off, if you can, to keep within a certain limit. That is the intent that I meant, but I think you have answered that anyway.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, the next one is under 2.5.01 Financial Administration. Salaries there were pretty well on par with what was budgeted, and it looks like next year there is a budget for one new position under Salaries. Would that be correct?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, sorry.

MR. SULLIVAN: Would the minister be able to tell us what the particular position there is going to entail, what the new identified position is?

MADAM CHAIR (Hodder): The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The new position is for secretary to the former Premier. It is traditionally a position that former Premiers hold for a period of two to three years - I think three years - and that is where that position is housed, under Financial Administration.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, secretary to the former Premier. Would that be Premier Tobin or Premier Tulk?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Former, former.

MR. SULLIVAN: Former, former, okay. So, they are provided for a period of - is it one year?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am pretty sure it is three years.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, for three years.

I know people who, when they have left and probably gone out of public life and into private life, there was a certain allocation; but in the case of a Premier who moves on to a federal ministerial position, where he has a staff and so on of his own, and that is provided federally, would that be necessary then for our Province to expend money when he could draw on our federal resources there?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think the intent is that the position is there for cluing up of files. It has nothing to do with where you move on to; it is from whence you have come. I think that is the whole idea of keeping it there, so that if there are any issues, legal issues or anything that would require winding up, that is the purpose of that. It does not matter where you move on to; that it is one of the allocations that has been made historically.

MADAM CHAIR (Ms Hodder): The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Would the former Premier (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I would assume the immediate -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I am talking about Premier Tulk (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the former.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) talking about the former, former Premier.

MR. SULLIVAN: I know, but this allocation here, she is indicating, is for the former, former Premier.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is right.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but your question is a different question. I guess the answer to that would probably be yes, too. I think it is just the most immediate former Premier who would be entitled to similar, if necessary, and needed to do that, and would be also.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is right. He would be.

AN HON. MEMBER: For three years?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would imagine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even though he was only there for three months?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Did Tom Rideout have it for three years?

MR. SULLIVAN: I think the point is, though, if he is in government for another three years, use that as an example, I guess that would be necessitated because the system would be here anyway to provide that service, but if he decided to leave the employment of this government then and went outside - because some of the work he would need, if there is a follow-up on the office on files, it could be legal matters, it could be matters in court, it could be any matters, and the person would not be expected to pay for his own resources to be able to defend positions. When he is in the Premiership, then, there should be public resources. I guess that is the intent, and that is not uncommon to other jurisdictions, I know, in areas there.

AN HON. MEMBER: He certainly would not be entitled to a free moose licence (inaudible), would he?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Premier is Premier, whether it is for a month or ten years.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What vote is that under, moose licence?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is under wildlife.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Oh, under wildlife. Okay, just checking.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, is that where it is now?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that under Forest Resources and Agrifoods? Wildlife licences, are they?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. SULLIVAN: Moose licences are now under Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, they are under wildlife.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not related to this but it is just for my own information. They keep moving it around so much, it is kind of difficult to find out where it lands with all those different shuffles.

That question, I think, we dealt with salaries. Transportation and Communications is pretty well in line. There is one here also, 06. Purchases Services. I know it is probably a similar answer, but Purchased Services was $26,000 less than anticipated. Again, was there at the time budgeted for a specific-like anticipated purchased service that did not occur now, or was that just in that particular year? Because we are back again to budgeting what we had before which implies, when you look at previous years, there were certain historic levels you normally spent and you want the budget to be on the safe side. Was that the case or was there some anticipated thing that we did not spend last year and we are carrying it and going to have the expenditure this year, under Purchased Services?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Part of this allocation was due to repairs and maintenance that cost less than was originally expected. I understand there is some more to be required, in addition to some of the normal vote that would be put in there.

MR. SULLIVAN: Like repairs and maintenance of -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would have to get the specific repairs and maintenance. I do not have it specifically. I know that they were for-

MR. SULLIVAN: Like on capital, basically office space and things like that?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, it was capital.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to move along to 2.6.01. Strategic Social Plan, this year we are seeing appropriations that provide for the implementation of the Province's Strategic Social Plan, which I guess is what this heading covers here. There was just a slight twenty-some-thousand, actually, on almost 700 less expended than anticipated salary wise.

Next year we are looking at a reasonably significant increase there in Salaries over last year's expenditure in the vicinity of $160,900. In that, can the minister tell us how many positions and what generally those positions are intended for, or what duties are entailed there?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Just give me a second on that, would you? Do you want me to list out all the positions? Is that what you are asking me?

MR. SULLIVAN: No the $160,000 extra.. I would assume there is a retention of the previous positions, basically. Would that be accurate, first of all?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You would assume that. Yes, that is correct.

MR. SULLIVAN: There are some new positions too. I was just wondering how many positions, or what new positions are there, with the hundred and sixty-some expenditure.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The information that I have would say that we have increased some temporary assistants. We have increased some temporary assistant positions, again focused around the social audit piece. We are doing some inside and we have also done some from outside, under Professional Services. We got some contractual work there through the university, among others, for the Professional Services, and under Salaries we have some temporary positions assigned there focused around that specifically.

MADAM CHAIR:The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wondering, there is $160,000 extra in salaries. Well, let's say with increases and so on, allowances, we are still talking about 120,000 or 130,000 in salaries. So, there must be a few new positions there whether temporary or other. They are temporary but on a full-time work basis, I would assume, is it?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is accurate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Would there be probably another three positions or so extra over last year?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would have to get you the exact number. I know that also included in that is step increases, salary adjustments and overtime as well, in there.

MR. SULLIVAN: In order to meet deadlines, I guess, necessitated overtime in this?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: All the reasons for overtime.

MR. SULLIVAN: You mentioned there under Professional Services, which I will just get to now, there was a large expenditure last year for Professional Services. You alluded to it. I think you made reference to Memorial University and other areas of expertise you called on, on a professional basis. Now this year under Professional Services it is down considerably. A lot of the groundwork, the formulation, is all done and basically it is getting more to the execution of the plan. Would that be -

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: As you know, we have done a fair bit of work on the social audit. We have availed of some of the expertise in the local community. That is why you can see that a lot of our planning in a previous vote around Transportation is slated to increase, because I understand that the work is coming closer to conclusion, as you have pointed out, and I think they will be wanting to do more travel and consultation on that piece of it. But, yes, that particular amount is back to where it was, because we believe we have utilized the expertise of the people we needed and we will be able to move the process further along.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: I see the minister has one big fan over there. When he heard the word transportation, I say, that really set him off. It really got him going. He can't wait to get to his estimates, I would say, on transportation.

As the minister said, basically, when you do look at the two areas, Professional Services and Transportation and Communications, from one year to the next they are fairly consistent, combined. One is based more on Professional Services and the next more on Transportation and Communications, more at, I guess, getting to an end of a process.

Although the Strategic Social Plan, that has been going on a long time. That has been going on since I -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is good stuff.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is good stuff. Oh, no doubt. There are a lot of positive things, I say to the minister, on that -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Oh my god! I can't believe it! Say it again, Loyola.

MR. SULLIVAN: - on the Strategic Social Plan. It is not all bad.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: My gosh! Does everybody hear that?

MR. SULLIVAN: I remember when I came in here in 1992 that was the buzz thing, the Strategic Social Plan, and it is like it has been going on - well, it is about ten years now we are dealing with it.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, 1996, this one.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, initially Clyde Wells established the Strategic Social Plan back around 1992, I would say. In fact, I think at the time -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I was on the other side of the fence then.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think the gentleman who is retiring now - yes, she was on a different side of the fence then. She was up attacking government for how bad they were then.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Never! Never!

MR. SULLIVAN: Anyway, I think Mr. Jenkins who was paid tribute to here in the House, I think at the time, went to work on the Strategic Social Plan, after 1993, if I remember correctly. Bob Jenkins was assigned in that area. I am sure the Minister of Environment can recall that.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: He worked on the 1996 one I know.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, it could have been 1996 then, but it started around 1992 under the Clyde Wells government, after I got elected. He had a Strategic Plan. He also had the Recovery Commission; and nothing recovered. We are still trying to recover some of the dollars they wasted and paid out. So, it was a recovery commission of a different sort.

There was a Strategic Social Plan. When it had its embryotic beginning, I am not sure of the exact date, but it is in that ball park. It has been going on for close to a decade now at least. Many members who were there prior - I think the minister came here in 1996. I do believe I am accurate there. Prior to that, I think, people who were here would know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Phase 1, Loyola.

MR. SULLIVAN: Phase 1.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three phases, thirty years.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is like our water system trying to get in. It is in a dozen phases.

The next item there under Strategic Social Plan, Grants and Subsidies: what are the sources of Grants and Subsidies? What is the makeup of these? I know the expenditure is down there. To whom are the Grants and Subsidies, and what is the specific issue? I would assume it is out to social groups in the Province and so on. Would that be accurate?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Actually, these are the grants that are put out for community groups and other social groups to do pilot projects for the most part. The maximum is $25,000 per project. We have done a number of them right across the Island with respect to community capacity building, volunteer component and also the partnership piece. It is the three components of the Strategic Social Plan. They submit a proposal, there is a selection committee, and the maximum amount is $25,000. We are going into the fourth year of doing these now.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

So, basically the maximum amount, as you said, for any one group is $25,000?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, and some of those in partnerships. There are, I guess, other sources. It would depend on amounts and their contribution.-

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Oh, they lever from the federal government with that; a lot of them do.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

Now, Information Technology: there was a significant amount spent over and above there. There is about $48,000 almost, $47,700 spent more on the $78,500 budget. That is almost 70 per cent; about 68 per cent or 69 per cent increase in expenditure under Information Technology. Could the minister tell us where those extra unanticipated expenditures - what are the source of these?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

This was around information technology as it relates to the social audit and statistics being gathered and imputed so that we can use it in terms of the measurement and the base line associated with the social audit.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Under 2.7.01. Women's Policy Office: last year we can see a slight decrease in expenditure - over anticipated there of about $32,000. Has that been an anticipated position not filled there? Also, this year we are anticipating an increase of about $96,000 in this area. I guess first of all, what is the cause for the decrease last year? This year it seems like there are extra positions there in this upcoming year. If the minister could confirm that?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

As you know, in this particular area we have had some fairly extensive consultations with the women's community. One of the things they wanted - they wanted many things, of course, and there is never quite enough money to do everything - was an additional policy position with respect to the Women's Policy Office. So that covers off a new position for policy.

Do you want to do the rest of the line separately? But that what it is, it is an extra policy position.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

MR. MATTHEWS: You are doing a good job, minister, you are getting the House cleared, at least over on that side.

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not hear what the former Minister of Finance said there.

MR. MATTHEWS: I said the minister is doing a good job. She has the House cleared, at least on that side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, no doubt about it. On both sides, I might add. She has been pretty effective with her own too.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Now, you have to subtract the ones that are not here.

MR. SULLIVAN: There are almost as many empty over there as we got over here! Almost as many, just two short.

Is it still an easy time to be a Finance Minister?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Absolutely.

MR. MATTHEWS: I would go on record as affirming that at what point I say that, I stand by it. When did I say it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: You can take it from me, you said it.

MR. MATTHEWS: I was having a good day that day.

MR. SULLIVAN: Not only privately, but in the public forum, you said it.

MR. MATTHEWS: What a time to be a Finance Minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am sure you do not visualize me standing and attributing a statement to you that you did not make. That would never happen.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I wouldn't (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Are you going to be around next week?

MR. MATTHEWS: I would think so. I am around for the long haul, brother. I am not retiring until you retires, Harvey.

MR. SULLIVAN: Transportation and Communications and so on, there are increases there. It probably reflects extra staff to a certain extent, does it?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Extra staff and also where we funded the extra positions too. There is a fair bit associated with making sure they are up and running and providing those services. We have a couple of newer ones as well which they provide support services to.

MR. SULLIVAN: The next one now, 05. Professional Services: last year we budgeted $34,100, we spent $47,600. That is an increase of $13,000 over $34,100. That is a significant increase of about 35 per cent. This year we are going to $128,100. That is an increase of about three to four times what we budgeted last year. Actually, an increase of almost three times what we spent last year. Why would there be an increase? What type of professional services, or whom might you be going for this type of service?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

This specifically speaks to the funding for the anti-violation strategy. That is what this is for in terms of the added increase with this line, as well as for the Purchased Services increase particularly. Also, if you look under the Grants and Subsidies piece, at the extra $140,000, that is the extra money for the centres. Plus, again, there is an incorporated piece for the anti-violence strategy in all of those pieces.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, that answers that.

Under Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women; that is strictly a Grants and Subsidies basis anyway.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is.

MR. SULLIVAN: They go out and run their own offices based on their contribution. The contribution next year is pretty well - we will say the same as in the past. That is just a inflationary increase. Are these changes within the amount given or is that pretty well just -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The amount for the vote is the same, but if you were to add both the Women's Policy and the Status of Women, you can see that there has been a fairly significant increase. That is attributed to the points I have previously raised in the other vote.

MR. SULLIVAN: In terms of the Council on the Status of Women, it is pretty well status quo in terms of structure and budgetary requirements in that aspect of the total Women's Policy.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, in terms of their grants. Their grants are the same.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am going to allow the critic for Treasury Board to - I think the intent was to proceed along the line to do Treasury Board Secretariat, President of Treasury Board next. My colleague from Waterford Valley.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford-Kenmount.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

And it is Waterford Valley. We did have Waterford-Kenmount from 1993 until 1996, but we changed it. I should point out that many people in my constituency still refer to it as Waterford-Kenmount. It has taken a little while for the name change to sink in.

Madam Minister, we are moving now to 3.1.01. President of Treasury Board. This is appropriations for the operation of the office of the President of Treasury Board. Last year you budgeted $245,500, this year the office is going to run at $247,400. I did note that there were some minor increases last year in Supplies, for example. It is a very small number. Last year you did allocate $3,400, and you went to $9,000. What happened last year? Did you have more paper supplies? It is just a very small amount of money but it is three times, basically, what you had asked for in the budget. You are back again this year to the original amount which is $3,400. Is there a simple explanation for that?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The reality is I would have asked for more if I was sitting there, in this particular department, because I think it is fairly low if you were to compare the amounts in the others departments. I think, traditionally, prior to this year when the departments were together, this is a small piece aligned to Treasury Board and now that they are separate again, I think it speaks to a low amount, really, for this particular piece. I know that, with respect to Supplies, $3,400 is not a lot when you consider the Treasury Board piece of it. So I think it is reflective really, in terms of when it was a part of a bigger department. Since it was separated out it never truly reflected the supplies requirements. It is back down again now - but I think in light of the fact that the two departments are combined it might be fine - but I think that is just reflective of the day-to-day operations, and that it wasn't enough to be budgeted once it became separated.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In Executive Support; last year in Professional Services we had budgeted $180,000, we spent $10,000. This year though we are up to $180,000 again. I just wanted to ask the minister what Professional Services are we expected to purchase this year that would cause us to spend $170,000 more than we spent last year?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The answer to this question really is based on the fact that under Treasury Board there was, initially, an intent to look at doing more public-private partnering, but that did not happen last year for any number of reasons. I think the allocation is still there because that option remains; but also because, if you consider the fact that Treasury Board is responsible for all payroll, the administration and the running of government itself. The officials felt it was appropriate to have an allocation to do two things really. One was to continue on to see if the initiative on P-3 was possible but also to give some leeway for things like human resource development, planning around the professional services piece, so that is why that allocation is there. I will say again to my colleague, if it is not required, it will not be spent.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Maybe the minister might want to reflect on the fact that in the Budget Speech she mentioned a commitment to greater accountability. Does the minister intend this year to introduce or to continue along the lines of some recommendation that have been made and noted in the Auditor General's report about commitments to make a greater accountability structure? I think the minister is familiar with the processes that are currently in place and ones that the Auditor General has noted in her report. Would any of this particular allocation be used to continue to support the initiatives that would make the whole accountability issue, shall we say, a greater function of the department?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think whenever you spend money with respect to professional services for staff, human resources, you certainly would add and enhance the accountability framework. There is a component to building on the accountability framework and that certainly would require money, so we will continue along the path that was set by my predecessor and we will look at maybe even strengthening that at some point.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

In 03. Transportation and Communications, last year you budgeted $15,100. You spent more than twice that, a 100 per cent increase in that allocation. I am just wondering what would have caused you to have spent that much of an increase? There is more than a 100 per cent increase than what you asked for last year under item 03.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, that just speaks to increased travel inside the Province, as we talked about the accountability piece, and also outside the Province for meetings around treasury and that sort of thing.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Going to 3.1.03. Budgeting and Systems, which is the appropriations for the preparation and monitoring of the provincial Budget and the coordination of information technology matters for the government, I notice that we have under Information Technology, the budgeted amount here is $7,403,800, which is only slightly up from last year; however, can the minister now tell us that the information technology programs that have been gradually introduced over some years, that now we are reaching a point where all of the departments in government are now up to, I guess, the most recent standards; because over the years we have had to put extra money into information technology and computerization and all of these programs. Has that program of making sure that all of the departments in government have appropriately now been brought online, is that program now finished? It never will be finished, but are all departments up to date?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, this particular piece, line item 12. from vote 3.1.03., really speaks to the operation of government as it relates to the payroll, accounting systems, computer support. It is all of those pieces. It is not necessarily the new and innovative pieces that go with it. As you know, Treasury Board houses that budget for all of the departments of government and allocates it out based on need. In addition to this, you would know that, for example, when you come to do the vote on Human Resources and Employment, you will know that we have allocated more for a new pay system. You would see that part of the IT under that department specifically, so this is over and above. This is basically around the accounting, the finance, the management system as it relates to the government, and we house it for each of the departments.

Are we up to scratch? I think everyone would agree that the minute you install a piece of equipment it is probably outdated. Yes, this would also include the regular updates for the various Window programs that come out. It is a software as well as a hardware, and basically around financial and accounting and management of those systems.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: One of the issues that was raised a couple of years ago was the ability of one division of government to be able to dialogue effectively with another division of government. For example, you can get the Motor Vehicle Registration, that needs to dialogue with Works, Services, and Transportation or dialogue with Government Services, everything from fines, administration to moose licenses or whatever. Are these interactions now all possible and are they being effectively implemented by government so that one department can now dialogue effectively with another department, keeping in mind the right of privacy to information and all the standard features that should accompany any good computer program?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think you can say that fairly safely from within government. I think that outside of government as it relates to some of our communities, particularly we are not as well-structured as we like to be. Our challenge is always to find money to go from technology, or from services to put to technology. That has always been the challenge.

I cannot say that we are on the top shelf with respect to all of our community services, particularly outside of the government buildings, but within buildings. As you know, we have just completed the motor vehicle registration and the international registry for industrial vehicles, so we have done a fair bit of work in upgrading the system, and I think within the government system itself we are there.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Can the Minister advise, in response to a problem we had just a couple of years ago, within the Department of Human Resources and Employment, particularly as it relates to in some cases child welfare, these issues. One of the issues that was significant when I was part of the study on children's interests was the fact that different offices throughout the Province could not effectively communicate with each other except by telephone, and often these services had their own complications. Is it now possible for all of the different offices involving children throughout the Province to effectively communicate with each other so that we can have up-to-date information, and also when it comes to the need for social workers in the Province to have knowledge of everything from income support to, shall we say, status for certain individuals? Is this information now possible in all of our regional offices? It is very difficult to get it at the individual community level. Are all of the individual offices online?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Our regional offices are, without doubt, but in some individual places, as you know, particularly in Labrador, sometimes we do have some difficulties there. For the most part, all of our regional offices, yes, are online. You talked about having access to this. Depending on your professional status in the organization, your access code varies, as you would know. So, it depends. If you are a social worker you could access, for example, the financial administration piece through HRE, but you probably would not be able to do the reverse; if you were doing the financial piece, you would not be able to access the social work piece. The code of access is in place as well.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, I recognize that information has to be protected and it has to be on a need-to-know basis. Certainly we would agree, and anybody would agree, that the standard policies have to be in place. If you do not need to know information then you should never have access to it. That is standard for all divisions of government, not just those that are with the income support or with children's issues.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is right.

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, I noted that a couple of years ago there was some difficultly mentioned in the Auditor General's report on having a comprehensive policy regarding computerization in the government and basically - if my memory is correct - she was talking about there not being a coherent plan in place for monitoring computerization and programs. There was not a secure plan in place where certain programs would be licenced. She mentioned, for example, some of the software being used was not appropriately purchased. There was not a secure program in place whereby those who were authorized to use the software programs - indeed, we are still the people using them in some cases. I note that this was in last year's report. She noted that some people in some departments - she noted a couple of departments, the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in particular, where a great lot of the software was being used by people other than those to whom it was registered. Are there policies in place now to counteract that, to make sure that all the programs that are used are appropriately licenced to the divisions or to the people who are using them?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, I think once we had that report we made it very clear to our senior executive what the policy was with respect to government's use of those kinds of programs, particularly around software. I think with the advent of the year 2000, when we looked at trying to prepare our systems to meet the needs around - the computer system and what we would need to have for this millennium then we also reestablished that policy about making sure that all of the software programs that we use are registered, as they should be, whether it is in your own home or whether it is in government services.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Last year the Auditor General noted, for an example, that some of the art work that had been purchased by the government was not able to be found.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You are on a roll over there now, Harvey. He is on a roll now.

MR. H. HODDER: I do know a little bit about computerization, just a little.

The Auditor General did note that data was being used to record who had the art work and who did not. What measures has the minister taken to make sure - again, it is a computerization problem. The people who have art work signed out, for example, are people who can be traced. Last year the Auditor General noted that a fair number of pieces of art work were indeed missing. I know this is not the details that she might be looking at every day. Will the minister acknowledge and let us know that the problem of knowing where the art work is, has been corrected in government?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think in fairness to the art collection and the commitment this government has made to promote our own local artists and artisans in the Province -

MR. H. HODDER: And we encourage that.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, I think it is good. It is a beautiful exhibit and one that we are very anxious to house in The Rooms, once we get it to a point where we are able to transfer much of this valuable art work.

We do have a numbering system and we are able to trace it. I think that information, if you were to follow up on it, you would see that it is all available. People know where it is. I think we have very effective people who work in the art procurement department - which is not under me from the best of my knowledge. If it is, I just found out about it today; but the last time I checked, it was not. I understand that they are keeping a good record. It is something that we all value; and as you said, something that, on your side of the House, you also support.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: The only reason I mentioned it is because in her report the Auditor General notes that it is such a simple thing to keep the records.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is, yes.

MR. H. HODDER: It should be very easy. With all the computers we have at least we should be able to keep records on where Newfoundland art is, who has loan of it and all that kind of thing. It is also an affront to the local arts community when pieces are purchased and they get lost. People tend to get somewhat upset over that.

Moving on to Human Resources, 3.1.04. We note that last year you had allocated in Salaries, $1,227,100. It is up this year to $1,318,100. Is this normal step progressions or do we have extra personnel hired?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

No, this is actually an allocation - I think I previously mentioned it, but it fits in under this particular category as it relates to the new classification system that we are working on. It is about $300,000 extra.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Minister.

Just a couple of more questions. Under Professional Services, in the same category: last year you spent $46,500, and this year you allocated $125,400. Is there some reason why we need to spend, basically, two-and-one-half times as much as we did last year?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Again, it is in relation to development. A new classification system is a huge undertaking and in the multi-millions of dollars. What we are doing now is the preliminary work to try to get it up and moving. That is why we haven't spent as much last year as we intend to spend this year. Hopefully, we will be able to move it further along. That is why you are seeing the discrepancy in the numbers there.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Under Purchased Services, 3.1.04.06, we are going from $14, 000 to $80,000. Is that the same thing, where we are out purchasing the expertise that we need to complete the reclassification?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Exactly. That is exactly right.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, very much.

I do believe that my colleague, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, is nearly ready to - I don't know whether it is to giveth a great speech or ask some questions to the minister, but I have been told that he is ready to go and, shall we say, address the House.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is always interesting to sit and listen to my learned colleague from Waterford Valley question the minister. It is always an interesting discussion. I paid particular attention as he drilled the minister on certain -

MR. MATTHEWS: What are you up for Fabian? What are you asking questions on?

MR. MANNING: The Minister of Mines and Energy, I ask him to stay calm. I know he is excited that I am on my feet again, but I just want him to stay calm. I am not going to discuss the situation on O'Brien's Hill with him today. I would just like to have the opportunity, if I could, to make a few comments in regard to the Budget that was brought down last week, Madam Chair. While there are some comments that I would be pleased to make and have the opportunity to make in regard to the Budget, there are some positive aspects to the Budget that we, on this side of the House, certainly agree with. Not only agree with, but that we have put forward over the past couple of years, especially in the last election campaign - as we went into the election campaign we put forward some concerns in relation to a Child Advocate, as an example.

We were very pleased on Budget day to hear the minister stand in her place and put forward the fact that there is going to be, hopefully, a Child Advocate put in place in our Province over the next little while. That government will take this opportunity, not just to put a person in place for name only but, indeed, to put a person in place and put some meat on the bones in regards to a Child Advocate. We certainly, on this side, support the Child Advocate position. We, on this side of the House, have put that forward, as I said, in our Blue Book during the last election campaign. We put forward the fact that we would like to see a Child Advocate. We are very pleased to see that but we want to make sure it is an open process. We want to make sure that the Child Advocate answers to the people here in the House of Assembly; that the Child Advocate is not just a puppet on a string but indeed somebody who will answer to the House of Assembly and most importantly of all, will speak out on behalf on the children of this Province, will speak out on the concerns and the issues related to the children of this Province, and will have some authority to make some recommendations to the government, but certainly some authority to make some positive changes on behalf of the children of this Province.

We were also very pleased, during the Budget Speech, to hear the announcement of the return of the Ombudsman, Madam Chair. I stood in this House back in the early 1990s, when the then Premier of the day, Premier Wells, decided to disband the Ombudsman and the Office of the Ombudsman, to put that more or less out to pasture. We were very saddened on this side of the House, as I am sure many people in the Province were, because the Ombudsman creates a voice from many people in the Province. It is an opportunity for concerns that are raised and issues that people have, to come forward and put these to the people of the Province. The Ombudsman hopefully again - I reiterate about the Child Advocate. Hopefully, at the end of the day, the Ombudsman will not just be a puppet on a string either, Madam Chairperson, but a person in this Province who has an opportunity to put meat on the bones, an opportunity to speak on the issues and an opportunity - more so than anything else - to make sure this person can create a positive change. What we are looking for here in the Budget, in that regard, is somebody who can create a positive change. Hopefully, when the Office of the Ombudsman is put back in place it will create a positive change in this Province and will be something that the people of the Province can look to, to bring their concerns and issues to the government of the day. Hopefully, at the end of that time, something positive can be done in regards to the Office of the Ombudsman.

Another interesting detail we heard in the Budget Speech, or on the book that was passed out with the Education Highlights: Investing in Our Youth/Investing in Our Future. It is interesting to see on the back cover, we have under the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education - I will get to a few things in a minute. Also on the back cover were some announcements with regard to K-12 Education and Literacy. It is interesting to see that we have a tag team now in regard to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Youth Services. They are operating as a tag team on the back cover.

Once again we have the Blue Book being brought forward. The positive policy changes that we see on the other side of the House are a result of some people on that side of the House, or the people who worked for them within government, taking the Blue Book from cover-to-cover and picking out all the good ideas, all the great opportunities that were there, and then taking those policies and putting them into practice. Then they wonder why we are not up everyday contradicting the new policies that are coming in. We can't be up on our feet everyday contradicting the new policies that are coming in when we developed those very policies. When we developed those very policies how can we be up on our feet contradicting the policies? We are pleased. We are delighted, on this side of the House, to see some of these policies coming forward.

It is like with the FPI situation, we cannot do it through the front door so we have to go in the back door with our policies. But we are very pleased to see the Minister of Finance on her feet bringing forward the policies of the Blue Book and trying to implement those policies here. Again, you will find no complaints from us. Now if we see something that comes forward that was not part of the Blue Book policy, that was not part of the policy of the PC Party of this Province, Madam Chairperson, we will have to question that. We will have to wonder why we have those policies coming forward, because there are not too many positive policies that have come forth from the Liberal Party, and therefore we have to be able to question that.

Madam Chair, if I could touch on a couple of things under Youth Services, in my critic portfolio, and some things that certainly concern me. We have a $3.3 million allotment in the Budget to achieve a 10 per cent reduction in tuition fees for students at Memorial University beginning September, 2001. There is no doubt about it, 10 per cent is 10 per cent, and to many parents around the Province that 10 per cent is a great help. The concern that is raised is, number one, why doesn't it expand into other colleges, Madam Chair, other tuition fees throughout the Province, and another concern is that it is not enough. While we always express our view that we are pleased that we have an announcement of some sort of reduction, certainly, from listening to the leadership campaign that went on at the Glacier in Mount Pearl a few weeks ago, we thought that the world was going to fall apart, and certainly when the announcement was made we figured it was going to be more than 10 per cent. It is a step in the right direction, but again we say we are back to the Blue Book policy, and the policy that we look at on this side, certainly, is to reduce that even further.

Madam Chair, $8.1 million has been allocated to be spent on renovations and equipment at the College of the North Atlantic. Well, I hope they spend the money more wisely than they did in the last fiscal year, Madam Chair, because when the Auditor General finished up the report the last time there were some major, major concerns raised about the expenditures at the College of the North Atlantic here in the Province. Now, without really any questioning from the government, we are going to pass over another $8.1 million. We don't know, we can't say, I can't say, if it is money that is needed. I don't know the facts and the figures on it. Certainly, my concern is that the money be spent wisely. It is taxpayers' money and we want to make sure that it is spent wisely. You know, $8.1 million is a fair amount of money and we want to make sure that money is spent in the best possible way. Certainly, it concerns us.

A further $3 million installment to the MUN Opportunity Fund. Again, that is matching dollars in an agreement that was made back a few years ago. That money will be matched with the money that they could raise from other sources. We, on this side of the House, fully support that endeavor. We are pleased to see that, because of the $3 million that was raised through other sources at the university, that is going to become $6 million to further the objectives of Memorial University. We, on this side of the House, are certainly very pleased with that, Madam Chair.

Half a million dollars, $500,000, for Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic to lever additional federal research funding. Once again, Madam Chair, anything that helps with the research of certain aspects of our society, anything that helps with improving certain aspects of our society, we don't have a big problem on this side of the House agreeing with. We hope, once again, that the money is put to good use and that the half million dollars will lever other dollars from the federal government. Hopefully, the research that is needed in many things, Madam Chair, will be forthcoming.

If we step up to the Education Department, Madam Chair: $11 million to retain 218 teaching positions in schools. This is despite a projected enrolment decline of over 3,500 students. Once again, great news, if it is, in its totality, as we see it here. What concerns me, Madam Chair, is that we have a reduction in students, that we are all aware of. Rural Newfoundland is certainly a major concern to a lot of people for the simple reason of out-migration, a decrease in the population over the past number of years, and the fact that we still be able to provide the services to the people in these communities, provide the level of education to the people in these communities, provide the level of health care to the people in these communities, and the rest of our social services in which we are involved.

Certainly what concerns us on this side of the House, and I am sure it concerns people throughout the Province, is what the impact of out-migration and an aging population is going to have on the level of education and the level of resources, I guess, that are going to be made available to the schools.

As an example, we have in my district schools that require funding for capital expenditures. We have schools in my district that we have to be sure would be able to maintain a level of programing that has been there over the past couple of years. Certainly, as the school councils meet and the administration of the schools are very concerned that -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. MANNING: It is just that the level of the education application that is in our districts - in my district, Madam Chair, is a concern for us and we certainly want to make sure once again - we are not talking small amounts of money. We are talking millions of dollars that are being spent, and we want to ensure that money is spent correctly.

Five-hundred thousand dollars for implementation of the Strategic Literacy Plan, another announcement in the Budget. Once again, it is very important that we try to improve on the literacy rate in the Province. Newfoundland has been failing the grade on that for quite some time because of cutbacks in education and the reform in education, and other things that have caused that. We recognize the importance of proper literacy programs in the Province, and hopefully this money will be put to good use.

Certainly, I listened as the minister spoke in regard to $23 million additional funding for new school construction, bringing the total to $160 million. Once again, on this side of the House, we are very pleased to see the money that is saved from the reforms to education will be put into school construction. While we have some concerns about the layout of that fund, while we have some concerns about the amount of money that is being put back properly into the education of the people of the Province, we are very pleased. Then, on the other side, we hear the minister announce $130 million - I do not know exactly; I do not have it here in front of me now - $130 million-plus of the roads program in the Province this year. I am trying to check now just to make sure I have that straight. I believe $130 million was the amount for the roads program this year, and certainly in my district we could use a fair amount of money in the provincial roads program. I am just trying to find that here now. Okay, $121.8 million is committed for improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway, major trunk roads and provincial roads; $6 million in additional provincial funding is allocated to the provincial capital roads budget to address priority improvements; $5 million is allocated for improvements to ferry terminals and wharf renovations.

If I could get just to the roads program as an example, the minister stood in his place last year during the Budget and announced what was the biggest roads program for the Province since Confederation. This year, we have the minister stand in her place and announce the second-largest roads program for the Province since Confederation. All I can say is, thank God for John Crosbie. We are still spending his money and he has gone out of politics since 1993, I believe.

AN HON. MEMBER: John who?

MR. MANNING: John C. Crosbie. He has gone out politics now since 1993 and we are still spending his money. We have a Roads for Rail Agreement; we have a trunk roads agreement; we have a Labrador Highway agreement that were all federal-provincial agreements, that were all signed under the former PC government of Canada, Brian Mulroney and John Crosbie, and we are still spending that money. Then we have the minister -

MR. LUSH: Bad deals.

MR. MANNING: They are bad deals? I say to Government House Leader, you are some lucky that he signed a few bad deals. Where would you come up with the money? In 1989, the last provincial roads program for this Province under the Peckford Administration was $40 million-plus. The Roads for Rail -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: The last provincial roads program in this Province under the Peckford Administration was $40 million. We have gone a little over $20 million this year on the provincial roads program and there is an incredible need out there for road work.

If it is such a bad deal, why does the minister of the day stand in his place, or her place, and applaud the greatest and the largest roads program since Confederation? That is what I cannot understand. When we have $150 million program and $130 million of it is John Crosbie's money, how come it is such a bad deal? When we have trunk roads agreement that we are spending millions of dollars on, and it is John Crosbie's money, how come it is such a bad deal? When we have a Trans-Canada-Labrador highway program that we are spending millions of dollars on, and it is John Crosbie's money, how come it is such a bad deal? When we have a Roads for Rail program that we are spending millions of dollars on, and it is John Crosbie's money, how come it is such a bad deal? Only for the bad deals that the minister on the other side wants to call it, you would be spending piddly on money on roads in this Province.

There is a desperate need out there for roads improvement. There is a desperate need in my own district. I could start in the community of St. Shotts and come right up through St. Mary's Bay; from the St. Joseph's highway depot down to St. Vincent's is in desperate need of assistance; from the community of St. Joseph's down to Admirals Beach, that route, needs major work; through the Town of Mount Carmel there is much work. I had a conversation with the Mayor of Mount Carmel the other day, very concerned about the roads in his community and wants to have a meeting with me to discuss that over the next few days. We come up through Colinet and North Harbour, and going into the community of North Harbour there is a major need for road improvement on the approach to North Harbour; out towards the Cape Shore on route 100, from the community of Branch over to St. Bride's, and indeed from St. Bride's into Patrick's Cove, a road that was paved in 1979 under the PCs, paved under the PC Administration in 1979, and is in desperate need of repair, Madam Chair - Mr. Chair. Sorry about that. Madam Chair is gone, so we have Mr. Chair here.

The road down to Point Lance, the community of Point Lance, I was down there the other night, on Friday night, and there is a desperate need for work there. Route 100 in the Cape Shore, all the way in to the Barachois, up through Point Verde, down through Placentia, through the community of Placentia, up through South East, over to Freshwater, down through Ferndale, up through Dunville, down to Ship Harbour, Fox Harbour, right throughout my district there is a desperate need for highway improvements.

Then we have a government stand in its place and get the members on the opposite side to clap and jump up and be happy because we have the second-largest program since Newfoundland joined Confederation, while we have almost 90 per cent of that program that was John Crosbie's money.

It is a shame on the members opposite to be still using that money after John Crosbie has faded from the political limelight in this Province, gone off to something maybe more challenging and more wonderful than what it was in politics, gone off, and we are still spending his money. Then we have the gall to stand up and say that it is a bad deal. Mr. Chair, I say thank God for John Crosbie, thank God for those programs, because you would not have much to spend, you would not be spending much money in this Province only for those agreements that were signed at that time.

It is a shame to hear someone on the other side shout out that it is a bad deal for the people in this Province when ninety cents of every dollar you are spending on roads is under agreements that were signed by John Crosbie.

I would say if we had another John Crosbie in Ottawa we might get another roads agreement now in the Province. I know you are working on one. You are working on one this five years now with your cousins in Ottawa. You would think that when the cousins in Ottawa look across this Country of Canada and try to find other cousins, because the only cousins they can find are on this rock, the only cousins that they can find in Canada, the only government that they can find in Canada is on this rock here, and we are four or five years now waiting for another roads program. We are four or five years waiting for a provincial-federal agreement on another roads program in this Province. I say it is a shame on the government that they cannot come up with something.

All you have to do is drive around, not only in my district of Placentia & St. Mary's, but throughout the whole Province there are concerns with roads, Mr. Chair, and we still do not have a new roads program for this Province. I would say that is a major concern.

The Minister of Finance is not here at the present time, but as I look through the salary details - and I heard the hon. Member for Ferryland do some questioning today on the staffing of the offices here. When I look at some of the positions that are within government, certainly as I look - if I could have a moment now to find it here. On 2.1.01, the Premier's Office, I think I heard the Member for Ferryland ask some questions today concerning the Premier's Office. I, too, was very surprised to see the number of people that are employed at the Premier's Office and the amount of dollars they receive.

I do not know. I am trying to figure out in my own mind, Mr. Chair, is it better to win the 649 or is it better to get a job in the Premier's Office, because certainly both are very lucrative, if you look at the numbers and the figures that are in the book here. Whether the Premier needs fifteen people working in his office really makes me wonder.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Well, I am not interested in working in the Premier's Office, I would say to the Member from Carbonear. No, I am interested in a different position, but I am not interested in working the Premier's Office. But at the same time, I will be honest with you, at the same time it is a pretty lucrative operation up there. Certainly, when you look at people getting $96,000 a year, I tell you one thing, there would be a lot of people lined up for it, I say to the Member for Twillingate. I am surprised that you are not up in the Premier's Office. They cannot get you back any further.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What was that, I say to the Government House Leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: He is an old man in a senior citizens home (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: You are right on one thing, when we get into power, we will be there until you are in a senior citizen's home.

MR. MANNING: I say to the Government House Leader, I will look with anticipation for your comments after your days in retirement, after a few months to reflect on retirement. I will look for your comments in the local media to see what you have said.

Certainly, when I stand here in the House and I hear comments about Brian Peckford's cigars and Brian Peckford's limos and all this, I say to myself: you know, there is something wrong with that too. I agree. Then, on the other side, there is either a limo or a charter aircraft. Right? So, what would you like; one or the other? Is it a cigar or is it a $15,000 party somewhere?

I went to St. Anthony during the by-election on a plane, and maybe that is the cigars they are talking about. That was like a cigar, that plane, one of those little small airplanes. So the Liberal cigar is an airplane.

However much Brian Peckford's cigar is costing, it did not cost the price of the airplane. When I look at the expenses of a Premier, I am telling you he must have enough Aeroplan points to go all over the world because -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you talking about?

MR. MANNING: I am not talking about the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Did you just say the former Premier and cigars in the same sentence?

MR. MANNING: Yes, the former Premier. It is a job to keep track of it here. It is the former, former Premier, not the Member from Baie Verte.

It bothers me, you know, people in glass houses throwing stones. We have the Premier of the day, if I could find the travel budget, if you bear with me for a minute - and, you know, it is really interesting to look through these Estimates. I say to all members, especially the two new members on our side of the House, it is interesting to take the Estimates book, go through it and just see the changes in what they were budgeted last year and what they actually spent.

Just as an example, they budgeted $145,000 for Transportation and Communications. How much going could you do for $145,000. You can do a lot of going for $145,000. I say you could almost stop in every port in the world for $145,000. There are not too many ports of call that you could not haul in for $145,000, Mr. Chair. That is not a small amount of change. You could do a lot of traveling for $145,000. I ask once again: How much traveling could you do for $145,000?

I ask the Member for Trinity North - I almost called you minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I would be wrong again. I say to the Member for Trinity North: How much travel could you do for $145,000? How many times could John Efford go around your district for $145,000? How many times could he go around, go into Hodges Cove and go into Random Island and ask people to vote for him, for $145,000.

Remember when we were younger, we used to have these spin-tops. He would be like one of those spin-tops, he would be going around so much down there, for $145,000, and go into Hodges Cove and say: Vote for Mr. Wiseman because he is a good man; vote for Mr. Wiseman because you can depend on his word; vote for Mr. Wiseman because he will stand up with you; vote for Mr. Wiseman because we are good buddies; vote for Mr. Wiseman because I will help him out; vote for Mr. Wiseman because he will stand up with me in the House of Assembly and he will fight for the people of Trinity North; vote for him because he wants to be a part of the government.

I would like to see John Efford go down in Trinity North today. If you gave him $145,000, he would not go down there, I wouldn't say. If you gave him the whole travel budget, you would not get him down in Trinity North today to say: Vote for Ross. Why? Because when the time came for Ross to stand up with the Minister of Fisheries, he said: No. Therefore, now you have Mr. John Efford, a great Fisheries Minister, I give credit where credit is due. Now he cannot leave this Province unless he travels by boat. John Efford cannot leave this Province unless he travels by boat. And you think I am joking.

He cannot leave this Province unless he travels by boat, because he cannot go to the airport because he cannot get through the metal detector.

AN HON. MEMBER: So much stainless steel in his back.

MR. MANNING: There is stainless steel drove in his back, left, right and center. He went out the other day and went beep, beep, beep and they would not let him in. He cannot even get through because of the metal detector.

MR. T. OSBORNE: They turned him away for concealing so many weapons.

MR. MANNING: He was concealing weapons everywhere. They could not even find half of them.

You are throwing me off my topic here, Transportation and Communications. I just wanted to get in the point there, that for $145,000, I believe - it is too bad he is not here. I would like to ask the member, and when he comes back today, I am going to ask him, would he go to Trinity North for $145,000. I would say that he would not.

We budgeted $145,000 for the Premier's Office last year for Transportation and Communication, and then, lo and behold, we pick up the Estimates this year and it has increased from $145,000 to $220,000; $220,000 for Transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) metal detector..

MR. MANNING: Well, he should buy his own metal detector with that. It is amazing that you could spend $220,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: My God, he must be buying something with $220,000. Most of the people I know only dream about that, $220,000 to travel around.

I say to the Member of Trinity North, the former Minister of Fisheries would not go to Trinity North for $220,000 either. He would not go to Trinity North, period, after asking you to go down to his announcement and you said: No. Just come down, he said, for moral support. You do not have to support me, just come down for a cup of tea, boy, you know, come down for moral support. No, John, boy, I can't. I can't, John, I can't. Come on. You do not have to support me, I would just like to have a few people there while I am making my announcement. No, not one of you went down with him.

I am telling you, when I watched TV on the day of the convention and John Efford was called up on the stage, there were some worried looking faces. I watched you going up over the steps and you were worried people. You were not 100 per cent sure. You knew he was scratching at the door. You were not sure if he got it open or not, but you knew he was scratching at the door. Boy, he came pretty close for a blockade of the Liberal Party to try to stop him in his tracks. I am telling you, he gave you a good fright.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I did. I was snowed in and I could not get out. Sure, I had no other choice.

MR. T. OSBORNE: It is either that or woody woodpecker.

MR. MANNING: Yes, it is either that or woody woodpecker, according to the Member for St. John's South. Ever now and again I used to flip back to woody woodpecker.

I want to get back to the fact that the Premier's office spent $220,000. Now when the questions were asked today, they said: Well, there were three Premiers since this Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What is that? I say, sticking your nose -

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, he asked about woody woodpecker sticking his nose. That was the correlation I was getting to. One time you saw somebody sticking your nose, the other one you saw fellas sticking knifes.

MR. MANNING: As a former colleague and a friend of mine once said - I will just reword it a little bit - I would say that the Member for Trinity North had his toes amputated so he could get the nose closer to the Premier's you know what.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not talking about a brown nose, are you?

MR. MANNING: Are you talking about brown noses? I do not know, Mr. Chair, but when you are up in the nose bleed section anything is possible. Maybe some day you might find your way down here to the front benches. Highly unlikely, I say to the Member for Trinity North.

When I sit down and look at the Cabinet of the day and I think about the expenses involved, and here we are discussing the Budget and the few people that got left out - everybody said to me when the Cabinet was announced: Did you see who was in the Cabinet? That never bothers me about who is in the Cabinet. It is the crowd that are not in, the crowd that were left out, the crowd that got sandbagged, I say to the members opposite. Why are they left out? I do not know all of the reasons why they are left out. I would say that being left out of Cabinet had something to do with the number of delegates that you brought to the convention. I wonder is that the reason they are left out.

Well, I would say the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair: Everybody said to me, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse is going to be in the Cabinet. I said: I do not think so. They said: Oh, I do not know. boy, she is from Labrador and is a Labrador representative. I said: Yes, we have a good minister from Labrador. They said: I think she is going to be in. I said: I do not think so and I will tell you why, because she did not deliver as much as one delegate to the leadership convention.

Then we had the Member for Trinity North who never got to Cabinet either. If he had to stick with John Efford, like John Efford stuck with him, he would be in Cabinet today. If you had to go with John Efford for the sake of nine votes, you would be in Cabinet today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, he would be in John Efford's Cabinet if he had to go with him, but see how life takes strange turns. There will be a lot on that side of the House who would not be in Cabinet. There would be a lot of new faces over there. Certainly, the Member for Trinity North, if he had to stick with John Efford, would be in Cabinet today. What can you do? You cannot rewrite the past. You can think about it, you can be reminded about it - because I will keep reminding you about it.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) the Member for Trinity North could have taken seven people with him.

MR. MANNING: Yes, I am sure he could have brought in seven people from Trinity North to vote for Mr. Efford. He did not have to bring in anybody, all the delegates voted for him. I am sure that his powers of persuasion, as great as they are, were certainly working on the floor that day. He could have gotten eight more votes for Mr. Efford and we would have a whole different picture here. I am telling you, it would be quite the picture. It would be pretty colorful anyway. I suppose the safe side was to stick with the Grimes team. I can't get over, and I will be on my feet here for however long I am here reminding the Member for Trinity North, because I know how hurt the former Minister of Fisheries was. I know how let down he felt, how rejected he felt, about what the Member for Trinity North did to him. I have to keep reminding him because those things are important.

Like the new Premier said, transparency is going to be the style of our new government. You are so transparent -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I wouldn't worry too much about that.

The new Premier said, we are a transparent government. We are going to be a transparent government. I say to the Minister for Mines and Energy that words are important. The Minister of Mines and Energy is so transparent -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) he comes over.

MR. MANNING: No, he is not coming over here. No, Sir. We had him over here. I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, we had you over here. We had you at that prestigious club in Ottawa that cost a good many bucks. We had you up on our floor, seeing if you could run for us, but we didn't want you then -

AN HON. MEMBER: Dreamer.

MR. MANNING: No, no dreamer, I would say. It is as real as -

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

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, I listened to the Minister of Mines and Energy talk about my colleague as being a dreamer when he referred to the opportunity to run for us. I can revisit, if he would like me to, the day that I was in the office when he was there, and I was not dreaming. I knew and saw what he took out of there. So, if he would like me to revisit that issue, I certainly can for him.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: To the point of order, Mr. Chair, the hon. member, on a specific occasion, on a certain date, may have thought he saw things that in fact he may have actually seen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: I have to say to the hon. member, not only was he dreaming that day, but his leader and some of his colleagues were dreaming that day. They were dreaming of the prospect of having, I would suggest, without being too immodest, a candidate of some substance who could represent them, but it was not to be. I appreciate their offer, I appreciate their attention, I appreciate the concept that they had in their mind that I would come and sit with them. I simply answered the question: Were you interested? With great respect and not much fanfare or ado, the question was answered in the negative. I think, in retrospect, my judgement and my decision speaks for itself.

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

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: May I be as presumptuous to provide some unsolicited advice to the Minister of Mines and Energy. Sir, when in a hole, stop digging.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: For the greater certainty of this House, there is no point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: For greater clarification, just to explain to the hon. minister - to the hon. member who would like to be the minister -

CHAIR: (Inaudible) clarification.

MR. MATTHEWS: - that at what point, if ever, in his career he becomes the Minister of Mines and Energy, by singular definition, mining does involve digging. I suspect that for the next short while I will be doing a lot of digging, one way or another, hopefully to the consummate benefit of the Province, and that would include his benefit as well.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would say that the only digging the Minister of Mines and Energy can be concerned about is up on O'Brien's Hill. That is the digging he should be concerned about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Diggin' ‘em Dillon.

MR. MANNING: Yes.

I say, this is certainly the year of the quotes, after the fact that there will be no rivers without water and no water without rivers. So, it is going to be an interesting session, I can see that. Then the stuff that we didn't see that we thought we say that we never saw at all. So, I am getting really worried about the level that the Minister of Mines and Energy is on. I am very concerned.

At the same time, I want to get back, if I could, Mr. Chair, to the Transportation and Communications of the Premier's Office. That is basically what I am on my feet about. It seems as if every time I bring up the discussion of the Minister of Mines and Energy and his affiliation with our side of the House, he gets kind of upset about it.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, no, no, no.

MR. MANNING: Not upset, but he rises to his feet. All I can say is that the truth is bitter, and sometimes it is a pill that you have to swallow. We know that you live with regret, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. You had your chance, but you live with regret. There is nothing we can do about that at this time on this side of the House. You made your decision.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you think he could get another chance?

MR. MANNING: No. He is getting no more chances on this side of the House. We will talk to him, we will bid him good-day and we will be courteous to him like you should be to every other human being that you meet, but his time on this side of the House, his affiliation with this party here is over, zilch, done, never again, that's it. I mean, it is not going to happen.

MR. MATTHEWS: I must say, the hon. member was very courteous when I visited his district.

MR. MANNING: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: He gave me a cup of tea.

MR. MANNING: Yes, Sir. Well, that is it, our Irish heritage, our solid Irish heritage. Any member on the opposite side of the House -

MR. MATTHEWS: He was friendly, I can tell you that.

MR. MANNING: Yes, Sir. The Minister of Mines and Energy, who was the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs at the time, came into my community, my home community as a matter of fact, and he was treated with the utmost respect. We gave him a good cup of tea and he never even checked to see if there was anything wrong with it. He drank it. He had full faith in us. He had full faith that we weren't going to harm him in any way, and he just -

MR. SULLIVAN: Did he have his assistant check it out first?

MR. MANNING: No, he didn't even have his assistant, as with the situation -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: If anything happens to him now, boy, you are a prime suspect.

MR. MANNING: See, what I am trying to get at, I say to the Minister of Finance, is that he came down to my community, he came down to my district, the Minister of Mines and Energy, he came in, we gave him a cup of tea and we treated everybody really nice and friendly. He never checked the tea. He had no fear, he had no concern, when he came to the community.

Then I asked the question: When this situation arose on O'Brien's Hill -

MR. MATTHEWS: I met your father, and he is a fine man.

MR. MANNING: Met my father, yes. And do you know something? He said the same about you when you left. I said: Dad, you don't know him that well. Give me time. He said: He is a fine gentleman. I said: Well, I haven't got time to get into that now, Dad, I will get back to that later.

What I am trying to get at is that you came down to my district without any concern or anything like that. Now, last week, when the situation arose on O'Brien's Hill, you sent a front man up there to check things out. You sent two front men up there to check things out.

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, they were women.

MR. MANNING: So, that begs the question: What were you concerned about? I mean, this is in your own district, O'Brien's Hill. You came down to my district with no fear, no concern, just walked in, and in your own district you were fearful, you had to send two people up to check things out.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Lloyd, Ali called me. There were two women in there.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: You sent two women up to talk to Ali.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I didn't.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Oh, no. That was the Department of Environment.

MR. MANNING: No, no.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes. Lloyd, Ali said, when you went up they locked Mike in the back room and he was frothing at the mouth.

MR. MATTHEWS: He didn't come out, I will acknowledge that.

MR. MANNING: And I would say the Minister of Mines and Energy is some lucky that Mike didn't come out of the back room, because it would be like Jack and Jill. You would be Jack rolling down the hill, I would say to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: I tell you, Ali O'Brien was a very gracious man. What a host!

MR. MANNING: Ali O'Brien is an excellent man, a very gracious man, a gentleman in every stretch of the imagination, and so is his brother Mike, and they should be treated like that. I would say that the Minister of Mines and Energy did treat him in the gentlemanly way that they should be. Now, I cannot say that for the Minister of Environment who is going to bring in all stops; he is going to put them in their place. Then, any man who would stand up in the House of Assembly and say that we would not have a river unless there was water, I would be concerned about the level of competence there anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would we have a spill without oil?

MR. MANNING: I don't know. I would be very concerned about that, Mr. Chair, very concerned. I was trying to find - do you have the comments where he said that about the water?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing in there.

MR. MANNING: No, it is not there.

MR. MATTHEWS: The highlight of my day in the House is when you are on your feet.

MR. MANNING: Yes, I know.

I would say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, if memory serves me correctly, you were wondering why you were treated with such hospitality in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's. We are a very hospitable crowd anyway, always are, but if memory serves me correctly, my brother on a couple of occasions visited your home and was treated with the utmost respect also, so we do mind passing it on; but you are some lucky you did treat him nice because when (inaudible).

If I could, just for the record, because I am not sure if all members heard the Minister of Environment on March 21, I just want to reiterate what he said just to make sure everybody is aware because it is very important. The Minister of Environment said: Mr. Speaker, all living things depend on water - we all knew that - without water there would be no rivers, lakes, forests, fish, wilderness, wildlife, plants or people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I just wanted to make sure. The Member for Trinity North is concerned whether I would mistake that Wiseman with the other Wiseman and I say no. We would not want two wise men in Cabinet when this Wiseman could come up with that, I say to the member. All of us need clean water to survive - well, you should take that one into account with the 200 communities here that are boiling it in this Province - and it is important to work together to protect and conserve this precious gift of the nature.

AN HON. MEMBER: End of quote.

MR. MANNING: End of quote, yes. I say it should be end of minister if they were thinking right over there, but that is their concern. He said this, and then what he did with the beverage container issue. I tell you, you talk about a man getting off to a rough start. I would say he was some thankful there was water, because I would say he took a couple of cold showers after he left here in the daytime certainly under the situations that he was working under.

AN HON. MEMBER: I would say he soaked his head.

MR. MANNING: I would say he soaked his head more than once, because he had it down in the mud for three or four days. I am having some job getting back to the Transportation and Communications of the Premier's Office.

I can understand fully the concerns, but I would like to make a few comments on the Budget and how people see the Budget in the bigger picture, and I look down at the present Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs who was an exemplary Minister of Environment. I have to give credit where credit is due. The present Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was an excellent Minister of Environment. He did a great job, Mr. Chair.

If I could make a comment on a couple of by-elections that were held in January, I think it is important that we look and size things up, because in the by-election that was held, I think it was in May that the Member for Trinity North was elected. Was it May? April or May.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: April, and in that by-election we all wondered. He won the district by 194, was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and ninety-two.

MR. MANNING: One hundred and ninety-two votes. The Member for Trinity North won the district by 192 votes. Thank you, John Efford. There should have been a big picture in The Packet the day after that election, a big paid advertisement saying: Thank you, John Efford. We never seen it. I do not get the Packet on a regular basis but I understand that there were some things wrote up in the Packet. He should have had Thank you, John Efford in the Packet, but he never did. So therefore -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are driving them out.

MR. MANNING: I am only telling the truth. Don't worry, boy.

I want to get back to the fact that you are here in the House today because of John Efford. Now, we went up on the Northern Peninsula with two by-elections -

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MANNING: You are here because of John Efford. You can cut it, slice it, or do whatever you like with it. Thank you, John Efford and you never -

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I have to stand in the House today to defend the two most recent people to be elected to the House - the Member for St. Barbe and the Member for The Straits & White Bay North - because it is really unfortunate that the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's would want to categorize by-elections as being an event where the member who is successful never gets elected but it is someone else who elects them. I guess we can attribute the two recent by-elections on the Northern Peninsula to who? Who should we attribute it too? Which one of you, or which collection of you should we attribute it to? Because it appears that the by-elections are won by someone other than the candidates. I commend the two hon. members opposite for their recent election. In fact, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to congratulate them in the House. I do congratulate them. I commend them for their victory and I think we attribute the elections of candidates in by-elections the same way as we attribute the election of candidates in general elections. They are a reflection of the will of the people. The same thing happened in the two by-elections on the Northern Peninsula, as happened in Trinity North. So the same thing would happen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Placentia and St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Trinity North: Don't run out. Stay where you are. If you want to stand up and make comments at me, stand in your place and listen to what I am going to say. I am not finished with you yet. Listen -

 

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) you wouldn't have a friend.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, God, for water. I say to the Minister of Environment, I will get back to him.

The reason why these two members are on this side of the House is because we had two star candidates on the Northern Peninsula. We had two star candidates on the Northern Peninsula!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Now, I knocked on doors in both their districts. I knocked on doors in your district.

Run out now, don't stay! Sit down! He's running away! See what you are doing? John Efford is not here to protect you now. John Efford is not here to protect them now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did John Efford have anything to do with him?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: don't take any advice from the Minister of Environment because you will have to put bridges wherever there is water.

The two new people elected here was a combination of star candidates, a lot of great campaign workers, a great team on this side of the House who went up and supported them, and I have to say, with a little help from that side of the House too!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: We could not have done it without you. I give credit where credit is due; $10,000 for a broomball team which got fifty votes or more. Doors for the Fire Hall, another fifty or 100 votes. I mean we were almost knocked down with projects up there; another couple of hundred votes. Works, Services and Transportation funding left, right and centre. We could not have done it without you. These two members would not be on this side of the House only for your efforts, along with ours. I say that with all honesty and I thank you very much. I thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: You cannot survive in politics by yourself. You have to have friends. The boys were just lucky that they had them on both sides of the House. Now when you get in here for a couple of years you will find that your friends are on this side.

I say to the Member for Trinity North, that it was a team effort. Yes, that got him elected too. When I went out there I ran into several members from that side of the House who were out in Trinity North. A team effort but when the leadership came it wasn't John Efford. It was a team effort but it did not translate into John Efford. What I am saying is if you are a team and I go out and support one of my colleagues - that someday down the road if I may want a bit of help I hope that they will return the favor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: If I go down with the Member for Cape St. Francis and give him a little help today, I hope that he comes back and gives me a little help tomorrow. If I go down with the Member for Kilbride and give him some help today, I hope when his opportunity comes to give me a bit of help, he will tomorrow. But what did the Member for Trinity North do when John Efford asked him for help? He said: I can't do it, John.

I asked a question here in the House before, and I ask the Member for Trinity North, if he is so quick to get on his feet, to answer me this question. There are two questions, part of the question is: How many times did John Efford visit your district? How many times did Roger Grimes visit your district? Simply question, simple answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did Vic Young say when you asked him?

MR. MANNING: Vic Young don't talk to me, honey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: The Member for Trinity North said: Oh, John Efford! At least when John Efford said -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give it to him honey, I mean -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am serious about this. Mr. Chair, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's in a comment across the House referred to the Member for St. John's Centre as honey. I would appreciate that you would address me appropriately. I also make the same remark to my colleague sitting right next to me!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Finance, in my neck of the woods it is a phrase we use, but certainly if it in anyway at all compromises the Minister of Finance, I withdraw the statement. I can guarantee her that I did not call the Minister of Mines and Energy honey, I tell you that.

If I could get back to my comment to the Member of Trinity North and the fact that I believe your word is worth something. I believe that your record will stand on your word. When the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture at the time -

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: I just want to get some - for the public record, because it is very important in this House of Assembly that we get the information correct. I want the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's to come clean and indicate to me: Was it the hon. Member for The Straits & White Bay North and the Member for St. Barbe, two fine gentlemen - I understand that they won the by-elections and it was not Danny Williams who won it for them? That is what I want to make it clear because he is making the analogy that the hon. Member for Port de Grave won the by-election in Trinity North. I was in Trinity North and I can assure you that the caliber of the candidate we had in Trinity North - he won the district of Trinity North on his own. We gave him assistance, as the Party on that side gave these two gentlemen assistance. We assisted this man to get elected but his reputation in his own district got him elected, not anybody else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There being no point of order, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wish the Member for Port de Grave was in the House to make comments -

AN HON. MEMBER: Most of us in here got elected on our own.

AN HON. MEMBER: Most of you. What about the rest of you?

MR. MANNING: All I am saying is that I know a fair amount of people in Trinity North who believe that the Member for Trinity North - and sure I congratulate him. He got elected. A job well done. All I am saying is that the Member for Trinity North, I believe, as a lot of the people in his district believes, that he is here because of the efforts of John Efford. That is all I am saying, he is here because of the efforts of John Efford. I think the records will show out in that district that the presence of the Minister of Fisheries in that district had a big impact on the results of that election. The presence of the Minister of the Fisheries at the time, John Efford, had a big impact on the results of that election. I know a lot of people out in that district -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, but the Minister of Fisheries had an impact. I will be honest, I was on the Northern Peninsula assisting my two colleagues here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Only for you helped out maybe they would have gotten defeated. Only for you came on and started throwing around a bit of money they would have gotten defeated. But thank you, God, that you came along with that money and we got these two excellent members in the House of Assembly with us now.

I just want to say that I would like to have John Efford here in the House to ask, what I believe to be a pertinent question, how much effort he put into the Wiseman campaign in Trinity North? A lot of people think that he is here because of the efforts - certainly everybody included, but a major effort of John Effort, and maybe the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you there?

MR. MANNING: Yes, I was there. I was knocking on doors.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were there, were you?

MR. MANNING: I was in Hodges Cove, I was on Random Island, I was -

AN HON. MEMBER: I was out there for a whole month.

MR. MANNING: Yes, you were out there for a whole month, and I can see what your impact was. Yes, sir, and I understand fully.

All I am saying is what other people are saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Trinity North.

MR. MANNING: We asked them. We talked to a lot of them out there. I am telling you if John Efford, as the Minister of Fisheries, had to do, at that time, what the present Premier did and not go out there at all, it would have been a totally different situation on election day. That is what I believe. I am entitled to believe it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) what is going to happen in the next election? What's going to happen in the general election?

MR. MANNING: We will talk after the general election.

Mr. Chair, I would just like to finish up with a few comments on what I got up to speak on earlier, that the Transportation and Communications budget for the Premier's Office went from $145,000 up to $220,000. It just amazes me, in a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador, that we could lay aside almost $250,000 for travel in the Premier's Office with so many people in need in this Province, with so much want in this Province, with so much concern in this Province, with all the issues we have in this Province, to put aside almost $250,000 for transportation. Here we have a lot of people - as far as I am concerned, there is certainly an issue here of whether she is out of control or whether she is not. When you go from $145,000 up to$220,000, there are a lot of questions that I will have to leave for another day.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

I tell you, I have been here eight years and I have never heard you talk so much before. I heard you talk more today than I heard you talk in the last eight years, I say to the minister. We will get an opportunity, you and I, in this Legislature before this session is over, don't worry.

I understand we are in committee. I want to get back to some of the heads that we are talking about. In particular, I would like to ask my hon. colleague and former vice-chair of the Public Accounts Committee - we served on the Public Accounts Committee together for eighteen months and it was an interesting experience, a good experience, I say; but outside of his role as Government House Leader, I would like to talk about the office of the minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

In the Province there is probably, in my estimation - I am not trying to be facetious, this is an important department in terms of how it interacts with all government and the federal government - but in the Province it is probably the least understood department. Normally, in the past, generally speaking since Confederation it has been held by the Premier. There have been exceptions. Premier Peckford had an exception, former minister Ron Dawe, for example, was a Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, a member for the Codroy Valley. Now the Minister of Government Services, was the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and now the Member for Terra Nova.

The Minister's Office is clear in terms of what the budget is. I don't want to get into that, but I want to talk about the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat for a moment. This is under Executive Support, 2.3.02. It talks about: "Appropriations provide for executive and administrative support for ongoing intergovernmental discussions and relations." In terms of salaries, it is listed there $347,500, which is down. What I am really interested in is not the amount so much as what, in particular, the salaries - could you give a description, if you would not mind, elaborating, I guess, is the best way to put it, on the appropriations provided for executive and administrative support. Here is the phrase, "... for ongoing intergovernmental discussions...". I wonder if you could elaborate on the $347,500 there for Salaries. What are the salaries towards? What are the positions and an explanation of those positions, if you would not mind? I will give you a few minutes to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, it is on page 20 of the Estimates, 2.3.02. under Executive Support. It is right under the heading Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, right after the appropriations that are provided in the estimates for the minister's office.

In terms of the Salary Details, what I am looking for is an explanation. The phrase that I believe is most appropriate there it is the phrase called, "... for ongoing intergovernmental discussions...". I wonder if you could provide briefly what some of those ongoing intergovernmental discussions are, what salaries -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: They are all listed. For example, all the Salary Details are listed.

MR. SULLIVAN: He is talking about 02.; 01. under the subhead.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, 01. under the subhead. I am sorry, Minister.

Subhead 2.3.02. 01. Salaries, $347,500. In the Salary Details, all of the descriptions of what the positions are, are clearly defined obviously. The section for ongoing intergovernmental discussions, would you be able to give an example of the type of ongoing intergovernmental discussions that are occurring right now within that department? It is a very legitimate, bonafide question.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chair, as the hon. member mentioned, Intergovernmental Affairs provides a relationship among all departments trying to facilitate, assist and encourage the development of the Province. There is all kinds of activity with respect to signing of agreements. All of the Intergovernmental Affairs agreements are signed by this department - economic development - and I expect this is what the ongoing discussions involve, all of the economic development policies which have been signed over the past number of years, the ones that will be now signed. There is a myriad of documents and agreements that have to be signed by the department, and I expect there will be signings in the future. I know I am going to Nova Scotia on the weekend to sign an agreement.

MR. E. BYRNE: What agreement would that be?

MR. LUSH: That is an agreement for economic development.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, if I could, I want to get back to it but I know my colleague from The Straits & White Bay North wants to have a few moments to say a few words. So I will sit down for a moment and let him do what he has to do and then get back up. I will have more questions for the minister in a few moments.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: I was going to sit down and listen all day today, but after all the comments about the by-election on the Northern Peninsula, and who got who elected, I figured I might as well get up and have a few words.

I guess, as everybody knows, no one person gets themselves elected on their own, unless - I am not sure about the Member for Bellevue, maybe that is how he got elected, on his own, but I know I did not get elected on my own and I know Wally Young here did not get elected on his own. There was a great team effort on the Northern Peninsula. There were a great deal of volunteers who helped out. There was a great deal of support from caucus members on this side and, I guess, as my buddy up at the end of the table said, there was a great deal of help from across the way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep it up.

MR. TAYLOR: Keep it up, yes. Anyway, you guys were down there quite a bit during the election so you know the issues, I guess, or you should know the issues in the district pretty well as much as I do, actually.

At the time, I guess, during the election - I do not know - the cheque book was out quite a bit so I do not know if you had time to see what the problems were in the district, but I heard the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and Paul Shelley on the radio this morning discussing transportation matters, and the Budget, and I guess if you spent awhile driving around the district in January month and talked to any of the people in Conche, Croque, St. Julien's, Grandois, Boat Harbour, Wild Bight and a number of communities through the Straits area, you would have found out that those people, for the most part, are driving on seasonal paving, as they call it, and the season for their pavement just ended. It melted in the last two weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: So, I hope that in the next while, while the minister is deciding on how to spend the second-best budget on roads since Confederation, that he look favourably on the roads in the Straits and White Bay area that are in desperate need of upgrading, in desperate need of paving, just about 100 kilometers of them actually, and summer pavement we would like as well, not just winter pavement as we have had so far, and have a good look at that. I suppose still on the topic of roads, we will get to what is paved. I think, if I am not mistaken, the life of pavement is something like twenty-five years. Is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Well, I think if you look at the records on the Northern Peninsula, Route 430 and the Viking Trail, we find that the vast majority of that pavement, if not all of it, with the exception of fifty kilometers or sixty kilometers that was fixed up in the last couple of years, roughly around 350 kilometers of it is in excess of twenty years old. So, all of that is basically popping right now and for one of the premiere tourist destinations in eastern North America, I suggest - I guess the Northern Peninsula is - I think it is time for us to look seriously at Route 430 and the Viking Trail and get down to work and resurface that road if we are serious about tourism on the Northern Peninsula and the West Coast of the Province.

A few more issues I suppose you would have run across while you were running around in January month down in the Straits and White Bay North, for those people who were on the ground and happened to drop by the Flowers Cove Hospital, you would have run into a facility that is twenty-odd years old, which is not actually an old facility, but because of the nature of the building and lack of adequate funding, I suppose, for those types of facilities over the past number of years, we see a hospital that, on top of being run down - I will go back a little ways, I suppose.

I was in Nicaraqua in 1989 as part of an OXFAM delegation to help fishermen down there. Unfortunately, one of the guys who was with me at the time drowned so we had to bring him to a hospital, actually. I suggest that in 1989 in Nicaraqua - a Third World Country, I guess, by any measure at that time especially - in the middle of civil war, they had a better hospital than the Flowers Cove facility. Have you looked at the Flowers Cove facility? It is run down. There are offices stuck in hallways. It is not wheelchair accessible.

MR. SULLIVAN: Not wheelchair accessible?

MR. TAYLOR: Not wheelchair accessible, in the former Premier's district, in the district of the former Minister of Health, actually, I think, Mr. Decker. Anyway, that is an issue there. Flowers Cove Hospital is in desperate need of some work and certainly immediately needs to be made wheelchair accessible. You just try and walk through the halls. A good buddy - I will not pick on anybody on the other side, although there are a couple that I might be able to, but our good buddy who is not here today would have trouble getting through the hallways actually. A dig at my buddy who is not here.

Anyway, moving right along, there are quite a number of issues there. Minister Wiseman, who is not here right now -

AN HON. MEMBER: He is doing the backstroke.

MR. TAYLOR: He is doing -

On an issue that is not related to water, I guess, it is on the other end, on the waste disposal end, I think there are probably some people from St. Anthony area who are going to be in here tomorrow. I am not sure if they are meeting with the minister or not right now, but there is a pressing matter of waste disposal - regional waste disposal facility for the tip of the Northern Peninsula. I think there was an engineering study done and quite remarkably an agreement between the communities on the tip of the Northern Peninsula, the councils and local service districts, to establish a regional waste facility, a waste disposal site, and to close down some of the sites that are there right now, close down the teepees and get them away from the road, get a waste disposal site that is actually practical for the area.

I do not know what happened along the way, but I think somewhere somebody started looking at Nova Scotia. When we had an opportunity to move on a regional waste disposal site on the tip of the Northern Peninsula - that is immediately needed, actually - somebody decided that maybe we should look a little bit bigger than the very tip of the Northern Peninsula. Maybe we should look at the top half of the Northern Peninsula and establish one regional waste disposal site. Now that is all on hold and I guess it is going to be some time down the road before we see anything move on that. Anyway, I hope that the minister and the department will get around to reviewing that situation shortly and get on with establishing a new site down there, and assist the people in the area, the councils in the area, to move on this.

I guess the biggest issue on the Northern Peninsula for anybody who has been there lately is the desperate economic situation, out-migration, lack of employment, and I guess you people all know, or you should know, I brought it up enough in the election and I guess you saw it while you were down there in the area. You were writing out enough cheques for make-work programs, certainly, that you should realize that the reason people want make-work programs is because this area has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. That is in large part because of an economic policy that, for this Province, has really failed a lot of rural Newfoundland, if not all of rural Newfoundland, especially the tip of the Northern Peninsula.

We have one operating fish plant in the Straits & White Bay North, basically. One is all I would suggest there is anyway. There are a couple of smaller ones that are doing a bit of work from time to time, but the St. Anthony fish plant is the only one that really provides any amount of employment for any length of time. In spite of the fact that a large portion of the shrimp allocations off the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and a great deal of crab off the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador are caught in the immediate area of the tip of the Northern Peninsula, here we are with one operating fish plant.

Although the Minister of Fisheries is not here today, I would applaud any review of fish processing policy in this Province; because the one that was there in the recent past, the one that was reformed a few years ago on core licensing, the core policy on fish plants certainly has failed the tip of the Northern Peninsula. We have Englee, Bide Arm, no plants in the Straits North of Anchor Point operating.

Anyway, those are some of the issues that are really pressing in our area. Somewhere along the way, hopefully in the not-too-distant future we will get an opportunity to deal with some of those issues in a more detailed manner. I just try to remind you of it today.

Since we were in a discussion on the by-elections on the tip of the Northern Peninsula, I thank all the people who supported me at that time, the volunteers who helped on our campaign, the many people in caucus here, Ed Byrne, Danny Williams, who came down and helped us out to a great extent.

AN HON. MEMBER: A couple on that side.

MR. TAYLOR: Let me get to that. I would also like to thank, on behalf of the Fire Department in Griquet, the members opposite for the garage doors, and on behalf of the Conche Broomball Team who, by the way, left 12:00 last night and beat over one of the worst roads in the Province to go to Deer Lake. They are on their way. Thank you for the $10,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: On their behalf.

MR. TAYLOR: On their behalf.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want any more?

MR. TAYLOR: Want more? That is what I am telling you, I am identifying the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: I said thank you for them.

Anyway, those are just some of the issues. We will be into more of them over the next while.

I would just like to thank everybody for all of their support. Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I just want to preface my questions before asking them. I think that most members would agree, and I think most Cabinet ministers would agree, that the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs is a serious department. It is an important department. That is probably one of the reasons why, for the majority of our time in Confederation thus far, it has been associated with the Premier's Office, because of the Premier's interaction with other first ministers and prime ministers across the country.

Now, back to the issue, because it is important. We have an opportunity. This is like any other Estimates Committee meeting, what we are in here right now. The only difference is that on this part, under Executive Council, House of Assembly, issues concerning the Legislature, we have the opportunity to have the minister before us but we do not have the opportunity to have all of the minister's staff. We should take advantage of the time that is presented to us to ask questions.

The minister talked about, when I asked, ongoing intergovernmental discussions. He gave a very general response in terms of the section dealing with Executive Support. Under Executive Support, there is a Deputy Minister for the department, which is fair enough, Assistant Deputy Minister, Executive Director, a Secretary to the Deputy Minister, and a Secretary to the Assistant Deputy Minister.

Then, under Policy Analysis and Coordination, if I am not mistaken - I will get to that in a second - but in terms of what you have talked about, you have indicated that you are going to Halifax this weekend, for example, to announce an agreement about economic development.

I guess, what I am trying to ask directly is: What are some of the files, for example, what are some of the issues, that the Intergovernmental Affairs Department is dealing with right now in terms of our interprovincial relations, our relationships vis-à-vis the rest of Atlantic Canada, our relationships with Ottawa, our relationships with our western provinces, sister provinces? What are some of the detailed initiatives that the department is dealing with right now, for example?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: I thank the hon. member for his question. Again, just to rehash for a moment, the fact that the department is probably one of the most misunderstood, because of the reasons that he gave, that in the past they have been taken by the Premier, although we have had exceptions.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. LUSH: We deal with departments that have dealings with the federal government to try and assist and encourage all of the departments that have federal relations, particularly the Department of Fisheries, I can think of, that we are dealing with now, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, all of these departments that have relationships and have signed deals with the federal government, we are there assisting.

One of our primary roles, Mr. Chairman, is to ensure good relations between the federal government and the provincial government and all other provincial governments as well, to make sure that we facilitate the process, that our department facilitates the process of the line departments dealing with the federal government or with other provincial governments for that matter.

The Leader of the Opposition wanted to know what files we were dealing with at this particular moment.

Mr. Chairman, we are working on the equalization formula, trying to improve that within IGA. We facilitate that process. When we speak with the IGA minister federally, Mr. Dion, we indicate to him our position on equalization. From there, we try and facilitate the meeting of other ministers within departments so that we can arrange meetings for these people to advance our case on equalization as well.

We are working at the moment on the Nova Scotia-Newfoundland boundary dispute. As you know, Quebec is in on that situation and the Minister for Quebec made some statements on it last week indicating that they were supporting Nova Scotia in their 1964 proposal. So one of the reasons why I went to Quebec was to point out to them our position on that and to indicate that we had hoped that we would not get into a court case with Quebec in working on their boundary when the time comes for the boundary in The Straits, but that we would be able to do it by consensus, thus keeping a good relationship -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Good.

Mr. Chairman, these are probably some of the files that we are now dealing with; the equalization, the Nova Scotia boundary dispute, dealing with Quebec. While I was in Quebec also, we decided to talk about the Labrador Hydro, to talk about it and ensure that everything was moving satisfactory there and again setting up the process, setting up the channels of communication for our Premier and establishing an early meeting between our Premier and the Mr. Landry.

Mr. Chair, with respect to the western provinces, it is our intention to present the case of equalization, of improving equalization, enhancing equalization right throughout Canada, to talk to the Province of Ontario, to talk to the Western Provinces, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, in an attempt to sell to them, in an attempt to convince them of Newfoundland's need for improved equalization. That is our priority at the moment.

In summation, Mr. Chair, the job of IGA is to facilitate all the departments with relationships with the federal government, in particular, to facilitate that process, to support and encourage the development of the Province economically and to do everything we can to advance the cause, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not the same job as Wally had, is it Tom?

MR. LUSH: No, it is not the same job at all.

Every minister brings a different perspective. This gentleman here has brought a perspective that was admired and respected by all of his colleagues and he did a tremendous job. I might say, one of the big things that he did was about to sign as a result of his trip, a MOU with the Province of Zhejiang in China . As a result of his trip there we are signing a Memorandum of Understanding which is very important, I understand, to the Chinese people which will encourage business development with this Province. That is one initiative done by that hon. gentleman. I say, Mr. Chairman, we all bring a different perspective, we all bring a different focus. I bring one, too, and I hope that it will result in economic activity for the Province.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

There is a -

AN HON. MEMBER: As Clyde Wells would say: What gibberish. Tom, as your former boss would say: What gibberish. What tripe.

MR. E. BYRNE: This is an important department. There is no question about that in my view.

I would like to ask the minister this: Has he had the opportunity or has he created or taken the opportunity, in the most strenuous ways, in the most articulate, the most forceful of ways, to present to the Prime Minister's Office and Stéphane Dion on the one hand, that in our view there are two classes of citizens living in this country today? Has he indicated to the federal government how they are treating people in this Province when it comes to the use of our energy resources? For example, has he pointed out to Stéphane Dion that the Province of Alberta enjoys a much greater advantage than the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and supposedly in a country like we live in, a country where opportunity amongst provinces, at least espoused at the federal level is that we are equal; but has he taken the opportunity to present again, in the strongest possible ways, that the Province of Alberta enjoys a franchise that we do not, that they have the ability, provided and facilitated by the federal government, to transport or to wheel their energy resources across other provincial boundaries and into the market of the United States without those provinces like Manitoba, like Ontario, without those provinces charging such a ridiculous marketing fee that would ensure that the Province of Alberta, if this existed like it did for us, that they would be in fact the poorest province in Canada - and they would - but the federal government facilitated many years ago the opportunity for that Province to reach the have status that exists today.

Unlike our situation, for close to thirty years we were in a position, because we lived in a regulated electrical power industry in the country where we could not wheel our power across Quebec, where we were not allowed, the pressures in the United States provided us an opportunity where our own country would not. About five or six years ago, because of the demands of the power commission in the Eastern seaboard in Boston, Maryland, New York, other places in that area of the United States, primarily where our customers are, where the customers for power exist from Quebec, they said to the Province of Quebec that if you want to continue the advantage that you presently enjoy of wheeling power to us and selling power to us, then you have to open up your boarders and allow us to ship back through you.

That was heralded, at the time, as a significant opportunity for this Province to develop the remaining potential on the Churchill River system; namely Muskrat Falls and Gull Island, commonly known as the Lower Churchill. In recent negotiations, however, the Minister of Mines and Energy admitted it at a press conference. Here is what he said when asked a direct question: Why could we not bypass the Province of Quebec? Why could we not wheel our power through them and pay them a reasonable, rational marketing fee? Do you know what he said? That the marketing fee, if we had done that, that we were told by the Province of Quebec that if we went ahead on our own, if we chose to row our own boat, or if we chose to paddle our own canoe in this regard, that they would charge us - meaning this Province and its people - such a significant marketing fee that it would not be worth our while economically to even consider it.

The question to the minister is this: Why is it that the federal government continues to perpetuate two types of citizenship in this country: one that allows a Province like Alberta to ship its material, its resources, across interprovincial boundaries, into the market of the United States, providing them unfettered access that provides the type of revenues that allows them to pay off $5 billion worth of debt on this year's account, when the federal government does not provide the same advantage or the opportunity to us? In other words, they allow the Province of Quebec to use its geographic position, its God-given geographic position, to our disadvantage.

I would like to ask the minister: Have you and your department stressed to the federal government, either to the Prime Minister's office or to the federal minister, and also to the Province of Quebec, about this outrageous and almost, if I should say it, this outrageous and, in my view, criminal activity that is being perpetrated on the people living in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chair, I cannot say that I have asked Mr. Dion the question exactly in the words that the hon. Leader of the Opposition places it, but let me say this: It is a question that has been raised in the past, and it is a legitimate question. What I did raise with Mr. Dion was the fact that we expect cooperation with the federal government in terms of making us equal with other provinces in this country and giving us the opportunity so that we can become independent in our own right, so that we can develop our own resources and are afforded the same opportunities that were afforded other provinces, so that we could get ourselves out of this position of dependency and get to a position of wealth, and get to a position of making a contribution to other areas of Canada, to other areas of this country.

We know that we can get in that position, but things have to be equalized. We have to be given certain rights that we are not given, certain opportunities that we are not now given, and we have to be given an even playing field so that we can rise up and be a contributing Province in the Federation of Canada. We believe that we have the ability to do that, but we do expect some cooperation from our federal friends. That is the proposition that I put to Mr. Dion.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

It being now 5:28 p.m., we have to facilitate the opportunity for the Committee to rise and report the progress that has obviously been made in the House thus far.

I will say to the minister that tomorrow is another day and we will talk about this department and its importance within the context of the country and the rights of citizenship that on the one hand we espouse as a country nationally and internationally, that have for such a long time been denied to the citizens in this part, in this Province, who live in this country.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) for this process, agree to stop the clock?

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed to stop the clock?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

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

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

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment, I just want to advise hon. members that the debate tomorrow will be the private member's resolution from the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, having to do with shrimp. That is the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move that this House on its rising adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m., and that this House do now adjourn.

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