April 25, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 13

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings for today I would like to welcome to the House of Assembly nine Grade 6 students from E'cole Francaise de Saint-Jean. They are accompanied by their teacher David Foley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask leave to make a statement with respect to an appointment of an Officer of the House.

By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, with concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I will move that Mr. John Noseworthy be appointed as Auditor General for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I wish to inform the House that this proposed appointment has been made, as I indicated, by agreement of all parties in the Legislature. As you are aware, Ms Marshall, our previous Auditor General, has completed her ten-year term as stipulated in the legislation.

Mr. Noseworthy began his career with government in 1981 as a senior auditor in the Department of the Auditor General. Since then Mr. Noseworthy has held positions of Auditor Manager and Audit Principal, and more recently, the position of Deputy Auditor General. Having performed at these levels, Mr. Noseworthy is very much aware of the challenges that face an Auditor General.

Mr. Noseworthy is a member of the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Newfoundland and Labrador and is Chair of the Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors Strategic Issues Group reporting to all Auditors General in the country. Mr. Noseworthy recently completed a three-year term on the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants Task Force that researched and developed public sector accounting standards for pensions and other post employment benefits.

We look forward to having Mr. Noseworthy serve this Legislature and the people of the Province as Auditor General for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Just to make a few comments on the Premier's statement. Certainly, we support the appointment of Mr. Noseworthy. I came to know him in my former capacity in the House as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. A career public servant who certainly, as the Premier said, knows the challenges that he will face. We also understand the challenges that he faces as Auditor General, but in the meantime, we want to be associated and support the appointment. We believe it is a good one.

Mr. Noseworthy's record of service with the Office of the Auditor General speaks for itself. There will obviously be no learning curve from that officer's point of view; that he can pick up where the former Auditor General, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, left off and continue the work that he has been associated with over time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak in support of the appointment of Mr. Noseworthy as Auditor General. As the Premier has indicated, we were consulted on this appointment and we are particularly impressed with Mr. Noseworthy's commitment to the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador and his involvement at the national level with the task force on audits across the country and setting accounting standards for audits of governments and public institutions. He clearly has a high standing in the profession being on the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Newfoundland and Labrador and his national involvement and experience as Deputy Auditor General gives him full qualifications for the important position of Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador. We endorse the appointment and support Mr. Noseworthy in the appointment of Auditor General for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I give notice at this point and ask leave to move the following resolution to make the official appointment:

WHEREAS under subsection 4(1) of the Auditor General Act, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has authorized, under the Great Seal of the Province, to appoint a qualified auditor to be the Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has been pleased to appoint Mr. John Noseworthy to the position of Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador effective April 25, 2002; and

WHEREAS under subsection 4(2) of the Auditor General Act, the person appointed to the position of Auditor General must be confirmed in office by a resolution of this hon. House of Assembly;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House of Assembly confirm the appointment of Mr. John Noseworthy to the position of Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador, effective April 25, 2002.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

On motion, resolution carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Canada's leading archeologists and an expert in the original native people of the Island of Newfoundland, the Beothuks. Dr. Ralph Thomas Pastore at Memorial University died at the age of sixty this past February.

In the summer of 1980, while conducting a project for the Newfoundland Museum, Dr. Pastore made an exciting find in Boyd's Cove in Notre Dame Bay. The rich site, abandoned by the Beothuks about three centuries ago, contained eleven house pits, circular mounds and depressions that indicated where the walls, central fires and the sleeping platforms would have stood.

Dr. Pastore's research and theories did much to put the extinction of the Beothucks into context. The mythology said that they were victims of intentional genocide. Dr. Pastore emphasized the role played by the ecology of Newfoundland.

Boyd's Cove now has an interpretive centre opened in 1997 with a large gallery, images of the archeological investigation, drawings by David Preston Smith showing Beothuk life around 1620-1730, models and videos, including footage of Dr. Pastore.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in recognizing the important work of Dr. Pastore and expressing our condolences to his friends and family.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today - it is National Volunteer Week - and certainly send a tribute out to all the volunteers in my district, but especially I would like to honour the volunteers at the Immaculate Conception School in Colliers. Mr. Speaker, this is a K-4 school with a population of 106 students. More than thirty dedicated and special individuals administer and run several volunteer programs in this school.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Ralph Percey, who is the President of the School Council, describes every day at the school as being: alive with volunteers.

Every school day starts with a breakfast program that is free to all students, serving real juice, fruit, toast, cereal, milk and waffles. This is followed each day with a hot lunch that costs, I think, a minimum of just one dollar a day.

Every Friday, they celebrate Green Days as part of their active recycling program. To date, they have raised over $7,000, again, recycling various products, but more importantly, teaching these students to take an active role in protecting the environment.

On the academic side, Mr. Speaker, the volunteers regularly assist teachers in the classroom with the Book in a Bag program and as guest readers. Just recently the parents held a read-a-thon and a book fair which was entirely done by themselves and generated more than $5,000 in new books for the reading programs.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand here today and to inform all members of this House that the Canadian Home and School Federation, in partnership with Healthy Alternatives, have named the volunteers of Immaculate Conception School in Colliers as the national winner of the Canadian School Volunteer Program Award.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This prestigious award also provides the school with a $10,000 cash prize. The volunteers have decided that this award would go directly back to the children through the purchase of much needed playground equipment.

I would ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to the entire school community of Immaculate Conception, the school council, administration, staff and students, but, in particular, to the volunteer core of dedicated people doing their part locally, provincially and nationally in service to those 106 students.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Her, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise to bring attention to yet another significant accomplishment by a youth of this Province.

Recently, eight students participated in a Corner Brook Lions Club fiftieth annual high school speak-off competition. The winner received the George C. Poole Memorial Trophy which was donated in Mr. Poole's memory, as a founding member of the Corner Brook Lions Club.

This year's competitors spoke on a wide range of topics, including: The Importance of Volunteers; Life as a Member of the Air Cadets; The Popularity of Harry Potter; Human Bonding, and several others. However, this year's winning speech was given by a Regina High School student, Danielle Lewis, who spoke on the prospects of genetic engineering with the idea of creating the so-called "Perfect Person". Danielle faced talented competition, finishing ahead of runners-up Susan Tibbo of Herdman Collegiate and Andrew Spencer, also of Regina High.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Danielle Lewis and all participants in this year's Corner Brook High School speak-off, and the Corner Brook Lions Club on fifty successful years of sponsoring this event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday morning of last week, the City of Mount Pearl hosted an appreciation breakfast for its city volunteers. I rise today to recognize the many men, women, boys, and girls of Mount Pearl who each year give so much of themselves so unselfishly to their community.

Mount Pearl has a reputation as one of those communities where the volunteer base is exceptionally strong. Volunteerism is the essential core of Mount Pearl's past and will, I am sure, continue to bring the young city continued vibrancy in the future.

Volunteerism takes many forms. Most often we note it as a fundamental part of our sports community and in our many community organizations. However, it finds itself in simple acts we do for a neighbour, from things like shoveling the driveway for a senior or a disabled person to reading at the local library or arranging to spend valuable time with a senior who may need an outreached hand of encouragement.

Volunteerism is also about networking and about a team approach when a need arises. Just to give one example, last September, after all transatlantic flights had been diverted to Canada, and particularly Newfoundland and Labrador, I was witness to many acts of outreach in my own community. As an example, at about 8 p.m. on September 12, I received a call asking for blankets for those passengers being accommodated at the St. John's Civic Centre. I made only two calls and using the networking system already in place at my local church, we had three vans loaded with blankets and other supplies within forty-five minutes. When the need arose last September, volunteers all over the Province opened up their homes, their hearts and their lives to assist in any way they could.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the City of Mount Pearl for its initiatives in thanking these community volunteers and I encourage them to continue these special recognition receptions in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Without our community volunteers, all of our communities would miss many of the social strengths that bind us together and make our towns and cities such wonderful places to live and raise a family.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to recognize the accomplishments of the Eagle River Credit Union who recently held their annual general meeting. At the meeting the Credit Union reported that it paid out $160,431 in dividends and patronage refunds, based on the profits that it earned in 2001. The return to the members consisted of a 10 per cent dividend on non-equity shares, and a 5 per cent rebate on loan interests. This is a unique accomplishment and the Eagle River Credit Union is the only credit union in the Province to give such a return to its members.

Credit unions have become popular in Labrador in recent years when banks began to abandon the area. The success of the credit unions prove that rural Newfoundland and Labrador does have a profitable and lucrative business environment despite what the larger banks maintain.

The Eagle River Credit Union has operations located in Mary's Harbour, Cartwright, St. Anthony, Port Saunders, and their head office in L'Anse-au-Loup. With five branches forging ahead on a very steady and stable course, the overall health of the Eagle River Credit Union is very good, Mr. Speaker. Economic opportunities in the region such as the fishery, tourism, the Labrador highway and small businesses have allowed the credit union system to experience a great deal of growth in all aspects of its operation. There were increases in assets and in the membership of the credit union in the past year. Their membership has grown by 418 people, an increase of 10.3 per cent.

The Eagle River Credit Union offers a variety of products and services and intends to offer more in the coming months.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: They are projecting that within the next twelve to eighteen months, they will be fully operational on-line and will be able to provide on-line balances, telephone banking and electronic bill payment. This success must be credited to the dedicated employees, members and volunteers. The Eagle River Credit Union is another example of the success in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask all the members of the House of Assembly to join with me today in congratulating the Eagle River Credit Union in its success and wish them even more profit in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sunday, April 28, is a National Day of Mourning. A day when we remember all workers who have been killed, injured, or died or became disabled by disease from exposure to hazzards in the workplace.

Throughout our history, workers were considered dispensable with little or no regard for their health or their lives. This becomes quite evident, Mr. Speaker, when we consider the following facts: Throughout the life of the mines on Bell Island, 104 workers were killed; mines in Labrador West had more than twenty deaths; Buchans had their tragedies; and untold numbers of deaths, Mr. Speaker, occurred from disease in Baie Verte and St. Lawrence.

We have also seen disasters in our fishing industry, the loss of the Ocean Ranger and many other places where workers went to earn a living for their families but ended up dying.

Behind all of this, Mr. Speaker, are countless numbers of people left behind whose lives will never be the same again.

In 1978 the longest strike in Canadian history took place in Baie Verte on the sole issue of health and safety, four long months.

Safety and health was not something that was bestowed on workers. It was not given to them by any employer or government, workers fought for it and they paid a huge price, many times with their lives and their health.

It is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that we have a day set aside each year to remember all workers who have been killed, injured, or suffer from illnesses and disease caused by their workplaces.

Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way since the mid-seventies when the national slogan in this country was "stop the slaughter in industry."

I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have probably the best health and safety legislation in the country, and, if I recall correctly, we were the first Province to have the right to refuse unsafe work.

However, sadly, in this Province last year we had twenty-six workplace related deaths and approximately 11,000 new claims to Workers' Compensation for work related injuries. A very alarming figure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: It is only through cooperation between workers, employers and government and a continuing education program that we will be able to eliminate accidents in the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members to take part in services that will take place in various regions of this Province on Sunday, April 28, to remember all those who have died or became incapicated while simply trying to make a living.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sunday, April 28, as National Day of Mourning in Canada. This solemn occasion is set aside to pay tribute to workers who have been injured or who have died as a result of industrial disease or workplace related accidents.

At noon on Sunday, here at Confederation Building, I will join employers, employees and families of injured or deceased workers, for a wreath-laying ceremony. In keeping with this occasion, flags on Confederation Hill will fly at half mast.

Statistics show, that in Canada, approximately four workers are killed every working day of every year. Thousands of others die each year from work related illnesses; and thousands more are temporarily or permanently disabled.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador recognizes the need to work with business, with labour, and with communities at large, to foster an environment where we can reduce human, social and economic loss that often results from workplace accident, injury and death.

Striving for excellence in health and safety in our Province's workplaces is one of those extremely important areas where employers, employees, along with government, have to remain constantly focused. A healthy workplace means healthy employees, and that is good for everyone.

On this Day of Mourning, I ask all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to encourage your employers and fellow employees to strengthen their commitment and support of occupational health and safety, in an effort to bring an end to work-related illness and injury.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement and to say that we on this side of the House, as well, are very glad to associate with the minister and government to recognize the injured workers of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the minister that there are people in this Province who are injured and who remain injured to this day. I am glad to know that on Sunday we are going to recognize - and I will be here with the minister as well - to recognize these people who unfortunately have lost their lives. But, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the minister that I hope and pray - because I know every member in this hon. House gets the calls as they relate to workers' compensation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can only impress upon the minister to say to the people who deal with these injured workers in this Province, it is time for somebody to have a heart. It is time for the injured workers of this Province to be recognized and treated fair, and not only to be treated fairly, Madam Minister, but as well to be treated with some dignity in this Province. I have seen too many cases, since taking over this job -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: I have seen too many injured workers who have not been treated with the dignity and the respect that they so honestly deserve in this Province.

I would ask you again to impress upon your co-workers and the people who work for your department -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: - to just make sure that the injured workers in this Province are treated fairly.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the hon. Premier.

We have more confirmation today from the Minister of Mines and Energy that this government will soon make a secret deal with Inco to ship nickel concentrate from Voisey's Bay for processing in Thompson, Manitoba, and Sudbury, Ontario. A secret deal that is an absolute contradiction of every commitment the Liberal government and the Liberal Party made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in both 1996 and 1999.

I want to ask the Premier about another deal in the making, relating to Voisey's Bay, and that is the land and benefits negotiations with the Aboriginal people of Labrador. The Premier likes to pretend this agreement is between Inco, the Innu and the Inuit of Labrador, but it is also an agreement with the Province, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier confirm that whatever agreement Inco reaches with the Innu and the Inuit on land use and benefits from Voisey's Bay, that will become part of the overall Land Claims Agreement that the provincial and federal governments are negotiating with the Aboriginal people of Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I regret that we are not very good at keeping our secrets, because obviously everyone I speak with all over Newfoundland and Labrador knows full well the principles on which we are negotiating with Voisey's Bay Nickel and Inco, and those are principles that will allow us to see full processing to a finished nickel product in this Province, and that in fact there might be some concentrate that would be shipped out for some defined period of time to raise the cash to make sure we get the capability to process to a final nickel product right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, which we all want to achieve.

Mr. Speaker, the other negotiations that are going on, there have been negotiations between the Inuit and the Innu and Voisey's Bay Nickel with respect to benefits agreements that have not engaged and involved any participation by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have not been at any of the negotiating sessions. It is not our role. We are at the bargaining table with both the LIA, on behalf of the Inuit and the Innu Nation with respect to land claims and self-governance, which we hope to accomplish further achievements later this year. We have already had an Agreement-in-Principle with the LIA and we are hoping to move towards that with the Innu, and we would like to have a final agreement with the LIA this year. All of those issues have been debated publicly as well. The documents have been actually voted upon with respect to the Agreement-in-Principle by the LIA, and will be by the Innu Nation if we are successful in the conclusions.

Any monetary arrangements that are made for benefits for the Aboriginals in those two groups that are paid for by Inco and Voisey's Bay nickel are not issues that are of concern or related to any land claim deal that we will make with those two Aboriginal groups; hopefully, in the near future.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier confirm that as a result of Supreme Court rulings and federal government policies, the land claim agreements negotiated with the Innu and the Inuit, including that portion of the agreements now being negotiated as part of the Voisey's Bay agreement, will become part of the Constitutional Law of Canada and will have the full force and effect of the constitution? In other words, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, in effect, will they not be amendments to the constitution of this country?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we look forward to successful conclusion because we have made more progress in the last year or so with respect to land claim negotiations with the Innu and the Inuit than has been made for the previous twenty-five years, and we are very proud of that. We have committed the time frames to try to conclude it in the next year or so if we can humanly and physically possibly do so.

We do recognize, Mr. Speaker, that a land claim agreement, in which those groups would give up their claim to ownership of the land in return for certain benefits that are bestowed upon them by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada, that that would be binding and all of the applicable law in Canada would apply. We are glad to have every bit of the law, including constitutional protection, applied to the final agreements that we reach with our Aboriginal partners in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I ask the Premier: Will the Premier confirm that the framework for these negotiations provide for a ratification process by the Innu and the Inuit? - that we wholeheartedly support, I might add, Mr. Speaker. But this involves a separate referenda by both the LIA and the Innu Nation and majority approval by the Innu and Inuit populations in Labrador. Will the Premier confirm that this ratification process is, in fact, required?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to confirm and add to this. A land claim agreement, if we are successful in reaching - I understand that the Official Opposition and the NDP party all support the concept and would like to see the details, of course, when it is done to make sure that everyone can support exactly what is arrived at. A land claim does have to go through a voting procedure within the LIA and within the Innu Nation. It also has to go through a voting procedure in this Legislature and in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, there is opportunity in that respect for absolute and full debate because it is a requirement by law to change the law and to have impact that is then protected by all the laws of this Province and of Canada, to have that kind of debate because there is an absolute requirement to bring it to this Legislature for approval. Those kinds of things, Mr. Speaker, do not apply to business arrangements that are made between the government and other companies or any business arrangement that might be made between the government and the Aboriginal nations, or the LIA in this case and the Innu, because that is not a requirement as it is in changing the law of the land and dealing with land claims that are covered by particular law in the Province and in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am pleased to hear, Mr. Speaker, that this issue, this ratification process, will involve the people of the Province because, of course, we are talking about not only the membership of the LIA and the membership of the Innu Nation, but, indeed, forty-eight other members, and that is all the members of this hon. House of Assembly.

I must ask the Premier again: Why is it when an issue as important as these land claims - and the Premier has acknowledged that this will be brought back to the House. Why is it, that on such an important public policy issue as Voisey's Bay and what it means to every single citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador, why is it that this Premier refuses to have this openly disclosed and debated in this House so that all members, on behalf of all citizens of this Province, can see exactly what we are in for?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see that the Official Opposition is now back to recycling questions which were asked, actually, much more effectively by the Opposition House Leader when he was the Leader of the Opposition last year. A year ago, a year-and-a-half ago, two years ago, all these issues have been raised here in the Legislature before.

Mr. Speaker, let's not misunderstand this, we have already had, through Question Period, through private member's motions and other motions in this Legislature, extended debate about the Voisey's Bay arrangement and the possibly of development of that project in Labrador. We even had a private member's motion asking the Opposition to join us in support for research and development so we might actually get a hydromet technology approved (inaudible) to use in this Province and they voted against it. It has been debated in this Legislature, components of the deal that people all over Newfoundland and Labrador are already fully aware of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: The debate will not be restricted to this Legislature, has not been already, it will be debated in every nook and cranny of Newfoundland and Labrador, in every public place that anybody wants to see the details. It has been debated since 1996, Mr. Speaker, and we hope that we can be the group that can finally be debating something that will actually happen -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - instead of something that the Opposition is frightened to death that might happen, Mr. Speaker. We are going to keep trying to make sure that this proceeds so we can actually start accruing the benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we badly need and deserve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we are going to see to it that the Premier receives a Juno award for that act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, and he was singing a song that time, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands; a song and dance show.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are very close to losing another long held tradition which is very dear to their hearts. How priceless and valuable is it to be trouting with your son or daughter, trying to catch a pan-sized trout? Mr. Speaker, this is about to end. New regulations sent by DFO officials to the minister for approval require that only trout thirty centimeters in length, twelve inches long, and over one pound be retained by anglers. How many members in this House of Assembly, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, have been trouting with their kids and caught trout over a pound and twelve inches long? Not too many.

Also, licences for specific species may be required. I ask this to the Minister of Tourism or the Minister of Fisheries because, I would imagine, both would be involved. Does this government agree with these proposed regulations?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, my understanding, at this time, is that these are proposed regulations. I do know that my officials are looking into the matter with DFO to get more information, but I do not have any further information than what is publicly available at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Over the past ten years our people are consistently losing their traditions and way of life. You cannot catch a cod anymore. You cannot go out with your pickup and get a load of wood without getting a permit, Mr. Speaker, and this government privatized the public parks that we once held. These new regulations are being proposed without any research or even a trout population study being completed.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell us what representation our government has made with respect to this very serious issue for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Who is pushing for these changes and for what purpose?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my previous response, my officials are looking into this matter and, I believe, they are in contact with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on this matter. I would look to having further information in the very near future, in the next few days, at which time I would be able to provide that to my hon. colleague.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like for all Members of this House of Assembly to speak in unison in opposing these new proposed regulations.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister give a commitment in this House of Assembly today to contact the federal minister responsible and let him know, in no uncertain terms, that the government and the people of this Province will not stand for, nor support, these ill-conceived and poorly planned proposed regulations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have always made it a position of mine that before taking a position, as a minister, that I would have full information. My officials are looking to get the full information on the proposed regulations. When we have time then, to analyze those, we will be taking a position, whether to support further or to contradict or to oppose those; but in the absence of the kind of information that I would like to have before making that kind of position, I think, at this point, the best thing is to do the research and the analysis that is required.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Before these proposed regulations were sent to the minister for approval - I would like to ask the minister: Why wasn't her department involved in putting these regulations in place? And such a serious -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: But they should have had some involvement before they went forward, I say to the minister. Why not? They should not have been there in the first place.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Again, Mr. Speaker, I understand that they are proposed regulations, that they are not in effect. If the hon. member is looking for rationale as to why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would do something like put out proposed regulations, I suggest that the best course would be to ask them, and not to ask me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today, Mr. Speaker, are to the Minister of Education. They are on behalf of my colleague from the District of St. Barbe, who, unfortunately, was called away on a family emergency just before the House convened. Basically, they are his questions to you today.

The parents in Rocky Harbour, Norris Point and Sally's Cove, Mr. Speaker, are very concerned about the rushed manner in which the K-6 school has been turned into a K-12. They have concerns. The main one is the lack of consultation on the design, but three other concerns follow from that: The adequate separation between elementary and high school students. The life and safety code requirements have been met for the cafeteria; however, issues pertaining to overcrowding have been raised in a letter from the local fire chief to Mr. Elliott of School District 3. A site plan has many obstacles, especially pertaining to the safe and efficient flow of traffic.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, two school chairs have resigned over this issue and parents are talking about civil disobedience if their concerns are not taken seriously. I ask the minister: Will the minister make a commitment today to the parents of Rocky Harbour, Norris Point, Sally's Cove, that their concerns will be properly addressed before construction begins on this school?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question and I recognize that there are some concerns being expressed up in the Rocky Harbour area. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member opposite heard the interview that was done this morning by Dr. Ross Elliott of the school board, where he put forward a case which clearly said to me that a great deal of consultation had taken place prior to the tender being let for this particular school.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, as well, in the correspondence that I have had and the questions I have asked subsequent to receiving that correspondence, I have every assurance that the concerns that were expressed prior to the tender being called, that were expressed by the school councils, have in fact been responded to and taken care of, and it has been done in a very positive manner.

Mr. Speaker, we know that when we are building schools in this Province, and we are trying to work with the resources available to us, which has in fact amounted to $170 million that this government has put in, the most since Confederation, I have to say that even with that amount of money it is still difficult to respond to all of the special requests that come forward from parents and teachers and school boards. We have to work very hard to make sure that we respond to as many needs as we can, working with the resources that we have available to us.

On the issues that the member raised with respect to separation of our primary and elementary from junior high and high, Mr. Speaker, that, in fact, has been taken care of. I am told that there will be a separation between those student bodies, so that we won't have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.

MS FOOTE: - constant interaction among those students.

As well, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the cafeteria, that has been dealt with. I am told, as well, that the Fire Commissioner, in fact, has approved what is happening in that school, that it is a safe environment for our students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question of finances is not the question here, Minister, it is the question of consultation. We have two school chairs who have resigned. They thought it important enough to resign, because they have not been given the courtesy of being in the loop when this design was put into place. They need to be in the loop, and they are asking for a commitment from you to do so.

Minister, just to go one step further - I say, Mr. Speaker, just one step further - when you talk about finances, a common practice for school boards when closing a school is to utilize the savings over a period of three years to assist in the transition into a new facility.

So, I ask the minister: The board has a savings of $300,000 by the closing of the school in Norris Point. Will the minister see that these savings go towards addressing the concerns raised by the school councils and parents of Rocky Harbour, Norris Point and Sally's Cove?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, two questions there from the member opposite. One, in terms of the consultation: I can only tell you what I am being told in terms of what transpired. Mr. Speaker, as far back as June of 2001, in fact, a meeting took place with respect to the Rocky Harbour School to introduce the project, and at that time the participants were the school council chairs and others, of course. Then, throughout the fall, their specifications and draft plans took place. Mr. Speaker, on December 11, joint council members met as well with them. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the list goes on in terms of the consultation with the school councils.

Unless you are telling me that the board is not being upfront in this, Mr. Speaker, I have to go by what I am being told. I am certainly being told by the board - and I have every confidence in that particular board, Mr. Speaker, as I do in all of our boards. Certainly that one has been very upfront and working very closely with the school councils to ensure that they are well aware of what can and cannot be accomplished, again working with the resources we have, but making sure that at the end of the day we deliver a quality education for our students.

With respect to the savings, Mr. Speaker, what I can say to the member opposite is that this government has been very responsible in ensuring that every bit of savings that has accrued as a result of school closures and consolidations has gone back to the boards, and we are going to continue to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services, concerning criteria for home support requests, and particularly for natural families caring for family members in their own homes, as opposed to having them living in alternative care or independent living arrangements.

The new criteria put in place in December, and planned to continue through 2002 and 2003, has made it next to impossible for these families to get short-term home support. When they really need support and it is not being approved, the only alternative in many cases, I say to the minister, is to have them admitted to hospital for periods of time. These families are looking for short-term support to give them respite. They want to care for their family members in their own homes, but occasionally they need support to give them a break. Given that it is far more expense to hospitalize someone compared to providing home support hours, particularly for short-term, I ask the minister: Will he commit to reversing this policy so that family caregivers can get relief they need before they end up needing care themselves and probably saving the health care money in the long run?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member raises a very important issue that from time to time in this House we have had questions related to the whole area of home support. Indeed, in recent years in this Province we have all seen that this has become a major cost driver in terms of the health care budget within the Province. Nobody is denying the need that is there.

The case that the hon. member referenced - well, I am not familiar with the individual case but certainly the circumstances that he describes, I think we can all relate to, and we certainly have some sensitivity and feeling for the families who are involved. The difficulty is, in terms of crafting a budget and trying to respond to the many demands that are out there in the health care system - home support is one, important as it is, and government has tried in recent years to respond to that. In fact, in the last four or five years we have seen the budget go from some $31 million to $60 million in terms of support for that program. We do acknowledge that it is an important program. It is an important service, and we also recognize that in some areas there are probably things where we still have a ways to go.

Our commitment, to the people of the Province, is to continue to work in that area and other areas to make sure that we do deliver a quality service to all of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, sometimes short-term care and relief can save money to the health care system overall, versus admitting someone to an hospital. I think the minister is well aware, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. COLLINS: The minister met with many families in my district last fall and was made well aware of the problems they had in getting home support. Shortly after the meeting new criteria was put in place that made the situation even worse. The people felt positive about the meeting they had with the minister. I wonder if the minister could give an explanation to these people as to why, after such a positive meeting which they felt would lead to positive changes, they are now worse off than before? What went wrong, Minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, as the hon. member points out, I did have occasion last year in my other capacity to meet with a number of families and groups in his district to discuss their concerns as it relates to providing quality services to their families. Indeed, as I acknowledged to them at that time, I have acknowledged to this House today, and my position still is that I recognize the importance of that service, the importance of the need and, I guess, the challenge to us all, to try to be able to response in an appropriate fashion to those needs that are out there.

In fact, I do not know if the hon. member would be aware, the presentation which I made to the Romano Commission a short time ago on behalf of the people of the Province did reference that very issue, and pointed out to Mr. Romano that as he moves forward in drafting a report for the federal government - this is one of the areas that we have suggested that he take a hard look at, because, in fact, we feel that there is a role here for the federal government to play.

We all have to acknowledge, and we always have to remind ourselves as well, during a period of time when we, in this Province, have seen the contributions from the federal government decreasing, we have managed in this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: - to not only sustain, but actually to increase, year over year, expenditures in health care in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, that speaks to the commitment of this government, but it also speaks to the challenge that we have as a people, and as a government, in terms of trying to deal with the many challenges that are out there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions are for the Minister of Environment. I guess another example of the lack of information and planning put forward under the tire recycling program. Is the minister aware that in addition to the $3 recycling fee charged by tire retailers, in addition to the tax on the $3 recycling fee, that there are tire retailers in the Province that are charging a $2 disposal fee over and above those fees that are put forward by the government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the program requires the $3 fee to operate and that is the fee that we are asking be charged for the program. If there are other fees being charged, I am not aware of it; but I can tell you, that is being done by private retailers and that is up to them, I suppose, in their business practices. The bottom line is that the program is going to proceed and we are looking forward to it being a success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to ask the minister: Is there anything in the regulations to prevent tire retailers from charging a fee over and above the $3 fee and the tax on the $3 implemented by government? Why would a tire retailer charge a disposal fee when the $3 is supposed to cover disposal transportation and recycling in the first place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, before we brought the program in tires were sent to landfills. So there were private arrangements previous to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Exactly. So they are going to end up going to landfills again. If one of the retailers is out there doing that then maybe we will get the list and we will say to the ones that are not - well, maybe they will suffer the business consequences of it. The bottom line is, I will check it out and see whether or not they are doing it. If they are, we will see if we can deal with it. The bottom line is, for a $3 fee we are going to take care of a big environmental problem in this Province that needs to be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

The Minister of Health and Community Services keeps telling us that there is a strategic plan that is being developed and going to be delivered later this spring. Will the minister confirm for this House today that there is a section in that plan that deals with the location, the delivery of certain services? Which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, is very similar to one of the sections in the plan recently announced by a Liberal government in B.C. Will the minister confirm for the House today, and tell the House today, what changes are going to take place in certain hospitals and clinics with respect to the delivery of services when that plan comes out? What changes are going to be made in the roles of certain hospitals in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member himself has said, this is a plan that is being developed. The plan has not been finalized, so it certainly would be inappropriate for me today to stand here and respond to a hypothetical situation put forward by the hon. member opposite. All I can say to him is you have to wait for the plan to be unveiled and then, he, like everyone else in the Province, will have the opportunity to analyze and ask the appropriate questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise this afternoon to present a petition on behalf of 682 residents of the electoral District of Lewisporte. Four hundred and sixty-seven of those residents reside in the Town of Embree and 215 reside in the Town of Little Burnt Bay. The prayer of the petition relates to the condition of the road connecting those communities. I could, I suppose if I wanted to, present the petition on two separate days, but the petition was sent to me as one. Since it deals with the one piece of road, I think it is only appropriate that the petition be presented together rather than in two separate parts.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a few minutes of the time that I am allowed on presenting a petition, to impress upon the government and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, in particular, the dire need to do something with this piece of road. It was a dire need that was recognized and committed by the government when the previous member represented the district. It was a dire need that was committed by the government under at least three separate ministers, and has not yet been completed. Now, in fairness to the government, Mr. Speaker, some of it has been completed. The few kilometres from Lewisporte to the town boundary of Embree has been repaved over the last couple of years, but from Embree to Little Burnt Bay, which by far is the worst of the piece of road, has yet to be addressed.

The prayer of this petition is that the government, in their capital works spending under Works, Services and Transportation this year, move to address this desperate need.

Mr. Speaker, I have driven over that road myself on numerous occasions. Without exaggeration, you are actually taking your life in your hands to go over it. Driving over some of those potholes in deteriorating and rotting pavement is worst than driving over a dirt road. It does more damage to a vehicle than driving over a dirt road. It cannot be maintained by going in and putting coal roll in it like you can put a grader over a dirt road.

The school children, the people who have to go to hospital, the taxis, the people who have to go to Lewisporte for every service that they need from Embree and Little Burnt Bay are pleading with the government to keep the commitment that they made to them three years ago, which is not yet fulfilled but which should be fulfilled, which needs to be fulfilled and we are hoping that the minister, in making those commitments on behalf of the government, will make sure that those commitments are fulfilled this year.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say this, in closing, that each year for the last three years, I personally have gone and sat down with whomever the minister happened to be at that time, whether it was the Member for Humber Valley or whether it was the Member for St. John's North or the present member, I have gone and sat down with them in their capacities as ministers and pointed out to them the desperate need of fulfilling this commitment that this government has made to the people of Embree and Little Burnt Bay. Mr. Speaker, I call on the government and call on the minister to keep that commitment and to make sure that it is kept this year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Today I rise to present yet another petition mostly from the residents of the Town of Pouch Cove. These petitions continue to come in, and they concern the Torbay bypass. I really do not see the need to read the petition, Mr. Speaker, because I have read it into the record before, but it does concern the Torbay bypass. Again, it emphasizes the need for a roads agreement between the Province and the federal government.

I have asked the minister in this House a number of times - we spoke on this topic with respect to the Torbay bypass - and not long ago he mentioned that they are working on an agreement of sorts with the federal government for roads in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. On that presentation, he mentioned that the Torbay bypass is one of the roads to be done if and when we get this roads agreement between us and the federal government. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, it will be much sooner than later.

The Torbay bypass is desperately needed. It is becoming a safety issue in our district now. The residents of Torbay, Pouch Cove, Flatrock, Bauline, Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove are signing these petitions and I am receiving them every now and then, Mr. Speaker, so I present them in the House of Assembly.

We have now over 12,000 vehicles a day travelling the Torbay Road. In particular, of course, the area where the Holy Trinity school is, in Torbay, right on the road, very near to the road, the intersection between Convent Lane, the Marine Drive, and Torbay Road itself is a four-way intersection, Mr. Speaker, and in the mornings with the school children - there are some 600 to 700 children going to that school - we can only imagine the traffic jam and the potential for a very serious accident there.

It was only yesterday that I had a meeting set up between myself, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and the Mayor of Torbay, to discuss this issue. Unfortunately, the minister could not make it. He was in another meeting. Maybe in the near future we can get together again to address this very serious concern.

The Torbay bypass has been on the Order Paper, we will say, for years and years and years. The former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the man now who is running for, I think, Bonavista-Trinity Conception, John Efford, when he was the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he put this on the back burner. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Torbay bypass, as I said - I see the Premier looking and listening very attentively. I am glad he is; I appreciate it - there are 12,000 vehicles per day on this road. It is getting like Topsail Road used to be years ago, Mr. Speaker; very dangerous.

We have numerous intersections. We have the Bauline Line intersection, the Indian Meal Line intersection, the Marine Drive intersection, the WindGap intersection, and it goes on and on and on. The road is desperately needed, the Torbay bypass. It would alleviate the traffic on Torbay Road going through the community of Torbay, as I said, and the people in the area, the town councils, Mr. Speaker, the five town councils now are supporting this, from what I understand. I see the minister paying very close attention, and I am glad he is. I appreciate it. As I said earlier, he has stated in this House that the Torbay bypass is on the list of work to be done if and when we get a roads agreement between the federal government and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: - I urge the minister to continue his talks and to try and get this roads agreement speeded up because the Roads for Rail Agreement is about to come to an end in the very near future, Mr. Speaker, and we know that $800 million has been spent on roads in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador from the previous Administration, Mr. Speaker, a P.C. government that worked out that agreement -

Is my time up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I am sorry. I apologize.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Premier and the Minister of Works, Services, and Transportation, to take this matter very seriously. It is becoming a very dangerous road to travel on, and I hope the minister does well in his negotiations with the federal government on this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to the House of Assembly today, from the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is on behalf of Gary and Karen Smith of South River who have applied to adopt an orphan child from Kazakhstan. Gary and Karen Smith have been denied a letter of recommendation from the Department of Health and Community Services to facilitate this adoption. The pray of the petition is:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide the necessary documentation to Gary and Karen Smith allowing them to proceed with the adoption of an orphan child from Kazakhstan.

There is a long history behind Gary and Karen Smith, in their efforts to adopt a child. They were in the adoption process back in early 2000, along with a couple of other couples from this Province. They were not, however, as fortunate as some of the other couples of this Province, and I refer to one couple in particular and that is a couple from Bishop's Falls in Central Newfoundland. They were able to receive a letter of recommendation from the Department of Health and Community Services.

They went through the same onerous process as Gary and Karen Smith; however, there was an interesting twist to their process. I have it here in an e-mail from this couple from Bishop's Falls and it says: I finally got it put together. The short and sweet of it is, we had a meeting with Roger on Tuesday, March 27, 2001. We were able to get Marilyn to sign the letter of recommendation by Friday, March 30, 2001.

Now, we have to wonder why the couple from Bishop's Falls were able to get the letter of recommendation and why the couple, Gary and Karen Smith from South River, Conception Bay, in the District of Harbour Main, were not able to get a letter of recommendation.

We made some calls to the Department of Health and Community Services, and in the process I made some calls to the member - Bishop's Falls - who also happens to be in the Premier's Office, and I was told: Oh, yes we made a call to the Department of Health and Community Services but we did not put any pressure on them.

Now, I ask the hon. House: if a department in this government receives a call and says, this is the Premier's Office calling, isn't that pressure in itself ? Isn't that making a request that says it is probably in your best interest to do this because this call is coming from the Premier's Office? One would think that a call coming from the Premier's Office, that the Premier would know about this. I have every reason to believe that the Premier did, because this couple from Bishop's Falls -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you very much.

The department said that they were following, when I questioned them, in the spirit of the policy, but there isn't a policy yet in place. So I am asking, if the spirit of the policy wasn't contravened on behalf of the couple from Bishop's Falls, and they were going to stick to the spirit of the policy on behalf of the couple from Harbour Main, or not, those questions have remained unanswered.

Here is the letter of recommendation from Marilyn McCormick, the Provincial Director of Child, Youth and Family Services, that was issued, "After a meeting with Roger on Tuesday, March 27^th, 2001...".

Whether there was an error made or not, we are not quite sure. The jury is still out on this. However, we have a couple who have gone through a lot of emotional trauma. They have suffered. They have paid a dear price. They have been supported by this couple from Bishop's Falls, and I am asking the hon. the House of Assembly to please grant this couple from Harbour Main the same privileges that were granted to the couple from Bishop's Falls.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Labrador West.

The undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, the undersigned petitioners, believe that the raiding of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund is a gross violation of the purposes of the Fund and a breach of trust with the people of Labrador and hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to immediately put this $97 million back into the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund to be spent on transportation initiatives in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, many of the people in Labrador are concerned that this $97 million being taken out of the Fund and put into general revenues of the Province to reduce the deficit seriously jeopardizes the completion of Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Further than that, Mr. Speaker, people realize also that over the last number of years monies from this Fund were being used to address problems with the current existing road network in Labrador that will not be there in the future if this money is taken for that to be able to be done, thereby putting us into a position in Labrador where we will have to compete with every other portion of the Province for the meager dollars that are available for roadwork in the Province on an annual basis, monies that cannot address the problems that are being experienced now, as we hear from petitions from different parts of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is important for the roads that we have in Labrador to be maintained in an adequate manner, and in a good condition. A lot of people now, versus a few years ago, are using sections of that highway to make a livelihood. They are hauling and putting sometimes up to 200,000 kilometres a year traveling between Labrador West and Happy Valley-Goose Bay to deliver goods to the business community there.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the roads at the present time, particularly from Labrador West to the Esker turnoff, has deteriorated to the point where it has become unsafe for the public transportation, for the truckers who use that road to provide for a living for their families, and we really believe that by taking this money from this Fund is going to interfere with and jeopardize any opportunities that we have to maintain our roads in an adequate condition.

Not only that, it is going to impact greatly upon tourism, an industry that we have been trying and working hard to develop in Labrador for the past number of years. Tourists who I met last year, with broken hitches on their vehicle after traveling over sections of that road, continuously talked about how they enjoyed their trip to Labrador but they would never, ever, return again, or they would never recommend to their friends to make that trip until road conditions improve to the extent where they can do so safely, and without sustaining great damage to their personal vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, people are asking for this $97 million not to be taken from the Fund. That was put there for one purpose and one purpose only. As a matter of fact, the intent of the money in that Fund is so clear and so concise that government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: The intent of the money in that Fund is so clear and so concise that it is by a special piece of legislation in this House that protects that money, and in order to get access to that money it is unlawful for the government to take it right now. They have to pass legislation to change that act in order to be able to make the grab for that money that they seem to be intent on doing, and that the people of Labrador do not want them to do. They want this government to reconsider that and to leave the money where it is, to go towards transportation that it was intended for.

Thank you.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 2, Mr. Speaker. I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply.

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

MADAM CHAIR (Ms M. Hodder): Order, please!

Heading 2.2.07.

Shall 2.2.07. carry? Carried.

Shall 2.3.01. carry?

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I believe you called subhead 2.2.07. If you did, Madam Chair, I would like to - I don't really know who I would ask this question to, but I am sure somebody on the other side, maybe the Government House Leader, could answer me.

I noticed under 2.2.07., where it says Senior Management Development, there was no amount budgeted last year under Salaries, which is 2.2.07.01., but yet we spent $17,100. I would like to ask the minister, what exactly did we spend the $17,100 on? Who did we have hired that we paid $17,100 to? I notice under the budget 2002-2003 there is no amount budgeted again under Salaries. I would like to ask the minister what that money was spent on.

As well, under subhead 2.2.07.03., Transportation and Communications, there was $6,000 spent. I would like to know what the Transportation and Communications were. There was no money budgeted, there is no money budgeted again for this year, but yet, last year we spent $6,000 when nothing was budgeted.

Madam Chair, under 2.2.07.05., Professional Services, we did not budget anything but yet we spent $30,000, and there is no money being spent again for this year. I just want to know what that is for.

Under Purchased Services, if the minister would be kind enough to tell us exactly what they are. We budgeted $25,000 last year, but yet we spent $92,400. I would like to know what that was spent on, and we are back again to budgeting $25,000 for the upcoming year. I would like to know exactly what Purchased Services are, and why last year did we spend $92,400?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Under 2.2.07.01., Salaries of $17,100 was revised into that from zero because there were some hirings from some services that took place that were not anticipated. Now, if you want to know the names of the individuals, I can get you that. I do not think that is important in terms of answering the question.

Under 2.2.07.06., it was revised, you are correct, from $25,000, the expenditure, up to $92,400 and that level of Purchased Services is noted as being for meeting room rentals and all other associated expenses with respect to senior management activities. A further breakdown of that would require a specific additional inquiry to Treasury Board, and I could get that information if it is of sufficient importance to you. The notes that I have with respect to the explanation under these two items are the explanations that I have given you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would say to the minister: Minister, I would like to know what we spent $92,400 for, on renting boardrooms or meeting places, and why there would not be boardrooms in here that we could have used and, in actual fact, saved the taxpayers of this Province $92,400. So, Minister, I would ask you to supply me with specifics as it relates to this $92,400, the names and places of where these meetings were held, and who held them.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I take the question quite seriously and, quite honestly, it is a good question and I will undertake to get the information for you. It may be that I will have it before the Estimates hearings are concluded this afternoon, in which event I will provide the information to you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Just a few questions to the Acting Minister of Finance. This is an interesting section in terms of Senior Management Development. It is not the section, but what it refers to. In the Explanatory Notes in the Budget, it talks about this section. It says, "Appropriations provide for the development of human resource policy for management and executive groups throughout Government and includes allocations approved under Government's Organizational Development Initiatives Fund."

What are these ODI Funds? Nowhere else in the Budget, for example, within each department, do you see a subhead that says, Organizational Development Initiatives Fund. Who manages these funds? Are they in every department? What are they used for? What is the purpose of the fund? Who has control over the fund? Is it the minister? Is it the deputy minister? Again, this is an interesting section from that point of view. If you go to any department in this Budget - and lets go to the Department of Education as an example. Nowhere, that I can see, in the Department of Education, does it talk about Government's Organizational Development Initiatives Fund. Is there a fund in the Department of Education called the Organizational Development Initiatives Fund? If so, how much is in the fund? What is it being utilized and used for? The Department of Intergovernmental Affairs; does it have an Organizational Development Initiatives Fund? If so, how much is in that fund? What is it being used for?

The Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education; does that department have an Organizational Development Initiatives Fund? If so, why is it not in the Estimates presented to this House for approval? If so, how much is in that fund, in her department? What is that fund being used for? Who has access to it?

I am not going to waste the time of the House in terms of going through each and every department, but it is a legitimate and bonafide question to the minister. Does every department have such a fund, or only some departments? What is that fund and the purpose of it? What is it for? Who has access to it? Who controls the fund? Equally important, is there the same amount of money in each department, or how much money is in each department?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think the answer to the question really is this; in terms of the area of Cabinet Secretariat - Organizational Development Fund as allocated here is specific to, if you like, the central agency that revolves around the Cabinet Secretariat. It is part of the central agency of government.

Throughout the other departments of government, absolutely, there is provision made for staff training, for staff training initiatives, for language training and that sort of thing. The level of appropriation under each department varies from department to department, depending on the size of the department, and I am sure that is they type of question that is raised in the Estimates for each department as they go through the hearings with the various ministers. I cannot, obviously, quote verbatim what is in each department for staff development, or for organizational development, or for staff training. There is an allocation under all of the departments, to some extent, for those types of initiatives and that information and those questions, I think you would agree, are more appropriately asked by the committee members examining the various departments and question the various ministers as the Estimate hearings are moved forward.

On this particular one, the $92,400 under Purchased Services, which is a revision upward from the $25,000 and is considerably more than $25,000 allocated in this year's Budget that we are now debating. It is a valid question and I have asked the officials to provide me with the answer so that I can give you as detailed a response on that specific item as I can. Hopefully, I can do it before the day is out.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The answer provided by the minister may be sufficient for somebody else who may have asked the question, but it is very difficult - and I think the minister would also agree with this - when the other committees are meeting in the mornings, in the nighttime, with the appropriate departments - it would be very difficult to ask a question related to Organizational Development Initiatives Fund when you have not even bothered to list them and their amounts in the Estimates. How can - as a member of the Opposition, myself for example, as critic for Industry, Trade and Rural Development - I question an Organizational Development Fund that exists in that department when you, as the government, have not included the amount in the Estimates? It is hidden. If it is not here that means it is hidden. The only conclusion, minister, that anybody could draw. If the ODI funds, as they are called, and I have heard of their existence -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) none there.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, that is not what I am told, minister; that every department has such a fund. The questions that I asked - and they are called ODI funds.

For example, as the Minister of Government Services, is there an Organizational Development Fund, ODI fund in your department?

MR. NOEL: This is not our estimate session.

MR. E. BYRNE: So you will not answer the question. This is not our estimate session. He will not answer the question; all right fair enough. I will ask the minister again: Why is it that those funds are not included in the rest of the Estimates? Is there a million dollars in the Minister of Government Services' department for staff training, development and for whatever other purpose that fund may be used for? If there is a million dollars in his budget for the Organizational Development Initiatives Fund, then why isn't it in the Estimates under his department? - so that we, and all members of the House, have an opportunity, a rightful opportunity, to question during the budget process what that fund is being used for, what was budgeted last year, what was spent this year and what is being budgeted this year.

It is extremely difficult - even the minister has suggested that we question other ministers on it - to question other ministers when it is not included here in their estimates. So, I would like to ask him this question: Why isn't it included there? Can he make a commitment to the House today to provide to this House a listing before next week is concluded - because this is our last sitting day for this week, but before next week is concluded. Will he make a commitment on behalf of the government to table in this House a list of each department's Organizational Development Initiatives Fund, what was budgeted last year, what was actually spent from those funds last year and what each department is budgeting this year?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Let me clarify my earlier response for the member. What I was intending to convey was this; that in all of the departments there are activities carried out with respect to training in various areas, French language training specifically being one. The appropriation is made within government to pay for those items. What the hon. member is asking, I think, with respect to government as a whole: How much money do we spend for organizational development throughout the whole of the government of the Province? Whether it is at Cabinet Secretariat or whether it is in the department.

I understand, Madam Chair, that there is just one fund for this particular issue and I believe it is about $2 million. I will confirm that $2 million figure for the hon. member as what should be spent throughout government. Let me say to the hon. member, that I do undertake to get for him the information that he has asked specifically today, to the extent that I can, with respect to how much money we spend throughout government under ODI. I think that is what the member wants to know: how much do we spent throughout government, and how much of it is spent in various departments.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am going to get it?

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, you are going to get it.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am going to get it.

MR. MATTHEWS: Absolutely! The hon. member is right, the hon. member is going to get it. The hon. member is going to get it, because I am going to get it for him. If, Madam Chair, I don't get it for him, it is ungettable. So, he might as well understand now that he will get it. If it is not ungettable, he will get it and he will get it as quickly as I can retrieve it through the officials for him.

Now, if there is a more inconspicuous question that he is really trying to get at, I would ask him to - in the words of a former member from that side of the House - to come clean and tell me what it is he is really asking, so that I will really know what it is I am making a commitment to get on his behalf.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The minister may want to be a little bit too cute by half. There is something going on here - there are ministers over there looking at me, smiling - and I would like to know what it is. I don't need the minister to put my question in a context so that he could try to get me to agree with it, so that he can go back and talk to officials in departments and come back and say: We spend $4 million or $5 million throughout government on Organizational Development Initiatives. That is not what I asked.

Madam Chair, the question I asked the minister - and he refused to give me the commitment - is: Will he make a commitment today to table, before the end of next week in this House, department by department, how much money is in the Organizational Development Initiatives Fund, and why isn't it listed in the Estimates?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, let me ask the Minister of Fisheries. His colleague, the Minister of Government Services, I asked him the question, how much money is in the Organizational Development Initiatives Fund, and his response was: This is not the estimates for Government Services. Since he won't give me the information - I am going to get it from you. Whether you give it to me or not, I am going to get it somehow.

I will ask the Minister of Fisheries: Will you stand today and tell me how much money in the Organizational Development Initiatives Fund is in your department? Why isn't it listed in the Estimates for our critic and for people who are on the Resource Committee to be able to legitimately question what is here, what was budgeted last year, what you spent in that fund, and what you budgeted this year?

MR. REID: I answered all the questions.

MR. E. BYRNE: No. You may have answered - look, Madam Chair, the Minister of Fisheries just shouted across the hall, he answered all the questions that were posed to him in Resource Committee, and I assume that he did. But the problem here is this: You can't ask a question about the Estimates when government is actually hiding a fund that each department has. How can we ask a question about an Organizational Development Initiatives Fund in the Department of Fisheries, Government Services, Education, Mines and Energy, Intergovernmental Affairs, Aboriginal Affairs, Human Resources and Employment, Labour and all others, when you have, either indirectly or directly, not provided to the House, and therefore to the members of this House, and through us the people of the Province, what that fund is being used for? Who has ultimate discretion over the fund?

So, how is it, then, that we can ask the questions that we need to ask, that we are obligated to ask in performing our function as the Official Opposition, when you, as the government, won't even include, in the Estimates, what these ministerial funds are being used for, or departmental funds, whatever they are? I don't know. The reason we don't know is because you have not provided the information in the Estimates, which you are obligated to provide.

I will ask the minister this question again: In his capacity as the Acting Minister of Finance, and certainly he knows the department, he was the former Minister of Finance, will he provide to this House, by the end of next week - it will not take long; your Cabinet colleagues can provide it to you, if you request it - a breakdown of the Organizational Development Initiatives Fund, department by department?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: By the end of next week, on what was budgeted last year, presented as it would be in the Estimates. It is under three headings, what was budgeted last year, what was actually spent from that department last year, and what you have budgeted this year, department by department.

I can take out my own calculator, Minister, to be quite frank about it, and add up exactly how much you have spent, but what we want to know, and what we have a right to know, is how much of the ODI Fund is in Mines and Energy, if there is one that exists there. Seeing you are the Acting Minister of Finance today, and you are responding for the government, maybe you can speak wearing the hat that you now wear at the Cabinet table, as Minister of Mines and Energy. Do you have an ODI Fund at your discretion? How much was in it last year? How much did you spend? How much is budgeted this year?

Can you make a commitment that, department by department, that breakdown will be provided so members of this House, in particular the Official Opposition, can do the job that we have been elected to do?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do not have my own Estimates in front of me, so I obviously cannot give you that amount, but I will be happy to answer that question when I get into my own committee hearing.

To the specific question of the hon. the Member for Kilbride, I will undertake - I would like for him to pay attention to my answer as I paid attention to his question. I will undertake -

MR. E. BYRNE: I am paying attention. I am going to get your Estimates for you now and pass them over to you.

On a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister, in response to my question, has said -

MR. MATTHEWS: I never had a chance to respond.

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on.

You said that you do not have your Estimates in front of you so you cannot give me the answer related to Mines and Energy. Would he mind if I sent over my Estimates book? Then, he would have it in front of him and he will find, as I have found, there is no ODI Fund listed. Maybe he can tell me from what subheads or sources he is drawing his ODI Fund? Would you like a copy of mine, Minister? Because I can provide it to you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I must say, I am smitten to the point of almost falling as to the level of co-operation and assistance that is being offered from the hon. the member on the other side to help me do my job today on behalf of government. If he wants to send some information over, I would be glad to receive it and use it as best I can.

MR. REID: He also complimented you on your looks. He said you were cute.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the Minister of Fisheries, when the hon. member suggested that I was cute, I think he was speaking in a descriptive rather than in a very - in an acting rather than on a personal perception context.

Madam Chair, there is no difficulty with me giving an undertaking to the hon. member to ask for the information that he specifically requested, and that is, as I understand it - and, let's be clear what the question is now - he wants to know how much ODI money is allocated directly and/or indirectly under various subheads throughout the various departments of government, how it is spent, who has control over spending it and makes decisions on it.

I will attempt to get that information for him. If I cannot get it before the end of this sitting day, which I am hoping I can, I will undertake to provide it for him certainly before the end of next week. I say to him, he can hold me to that commitment on behalf of the Minister of Finance, who will be back in the House next week.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I have down this road before on other issues and that is fair enough. You will endeavour to get whatever you are going to give to me, because you are only going to provide what you want to provide anyway. So when I leave the House today, before this day is over, there is a Freedom of Information request that is going to be going out to every minister in terms of: Is there the existence of the ODI Fund in every department? How much was budgeted last year? How much was spent, and how much is budgeted this year?

It is clear to me, from even the reactions and responses across the way from government ministers and members, there is a fund in each department. It is not listed here. It is hidden throughout the subheads somewhere.

Seeing that I have the Minister of Mines and Energy, who is fulfilling a dual capacity today as Acting Minister of Finance and Minister of Mines and Energy, and I asked him a question about his own department and he, in a very nonchalant way, a disarming way, trying not to get to the answer to the question I asked of him in terms of his department, where the ODI Fund was, let me ask him this: Minister, on page 141 of the Estimates in your department - you have it there now - subhead 1.1.01., in terms of what you spend in your office, is the ODI Fund, or any of it, located in that subhead of your department?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In my own department - I do have my own Estimates here now, so thanks for the offer but I have located my own - under 1.1.01.01., Salaries in the Minister's Office, $279,200 is for salaries, end of story, full stop, nothing else, nothing more, nothing less.

The hon. the member would also note that there are other -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Chair, there is no issue here that cannot be dealt with. There is no level of information being requested that I would not be happy to provide, and I intend to provide to the hon. member, because I believe I have a duty on behalf of government, in response to his question, to respond to him and try and identify as best we can throughout government the level of Organizational Development Funding that is spent throughout government. I undertake to provide that information to him.

To his specific question as with respect to my own department, I can say under 1.1.01.01., Salaries, the amount of money allocated there is for salaries only, or salary and salary associated costs, not to do with any other professional or any other type of development.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, I will just ask one final question on it. Some members have shouted across the House: what are we badgering for, trying to create suspicions, none of which is true. This is the Estimates Committee process, and the Estimates Committee process is about asking questions. There is the existence of funds in departments that are not listed in the Estimates and I am allowed to ask those questions, as is every other member, about public money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what our role and duty is.

Minister, one final question. If it is not contained in 1.1.01, where is the ODI fund contained, because you have said there is one for your department? You said that right here today. So where is it contained in your estimates, the money spent on organizational development? I am not suggesting, in any way, shape or form, that this fund is being used for some sinister purposes. I am not suggesting, in any way, shape or form, that this fund is being used as a slush fund by ministers. All I am saying is simply this, that it is not in the Estimates. It exists in some departments and where it does exist, why isn't it included in the Estimates? How can we, as members of the Opposition or members of committees which include members opposite, ask questions about different funds within departments when you do not even provide them here for us?

The question I will ask to you is this: Where in your section of the Budget, that you, as Minister of Mines and Energy are responsible for, where is the ODI fund in this department? You said that you have one. You said that one is in existence, so under what subhead would I find it?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Speaker, thank you very much.

I have no difficulty with respect to the level of questioning that the hon. the member is putting forward. He has every right to ask questions in this House with respect -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) colleagues.

MR. MATTHEWS: And my colleagues would agree with that. What I am saying to the hon. member and what I have said in -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Chair, Hansard will indicate what I said in answer to the questions earlier. What I said to the hon. member - at least what I attempted to convey to him - is that yes, there are funds allocated for training purposes in all of the departments of government at various levels. Now, what the hon. member is saying is that there isn't a sufficient number of subheadings contained in the Estimates that sufficiently identifies, for him, how much money is being spent under organizational development. I take his point, and I have undertaken to provide to him, under what subheadings -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Hold on now.

I have undertaken to provide to him under what subheadings Organizational Development Funding, if any, in the various departments is recognized for the budget purposes. I have undertaken to identify for him, if I can, how much funding that is. I will find out where that money is in terms of subheading listings in the various departments of government, and I will find out for him how much money is involved in each department and collectively throughout government, and provide that information to him at the earliest possible moment. I hope I can do it before the House rises today, but certainly, if not, we will try and get it to him next week.

I have no difficulty with your question. I have no difficulty with what you are putting forward. You are asking a simple question: How much money does government spend for ODI? Why doesn't it identify it more clearly in the various Estimates? Where is it covered in the various departments and how much is it in total?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I appreciate the forthrightness by the minister to the extent that he has answered the question in terms of what he has undertaken. I take it as a commitment to provide it back to me in terms of the information that we are looking for;, department by department, I might add, so that we can have a sense of - you know, not that you spent $10 million last year, but department by department because there may be - and legitimately so - some departments that do not require the same level of staff training because they do not have the same numbers, I guess, vast numbers of people in terms of Organizational Development Initiatives.

I would put forward to you, Madam Chair, and to the government, that every department has every right and should be involved in in-servicing, in staffing initiatives, in developing staffing initiatives. It is good for morale. It is good for the public service. It is good for the people of the Province. The only point that I am making here today is simply this: Why haven't we outlined in the estimate procedure, in the estimate in the Budget itself, through the various headlines - for example, and I will just use an example. In the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation's department we have outlined everything that department does, I suppose; Road Maintenance, Maintenance And Repairs. We just don't say we are passing $40 million on Road Maintenance. We have identified it and broken it down even more. We have said: Maintenance And Repairs; Snow And Ice Control; Administration; Technical Support Services; Building Utilities and Maintenance. That is what a budget process should be about; providing us the details and the head-by-head of where we are spending money.

The question that I simply ask is this: Why haven't we identified these Organizational Development Initiatives Fund in the Estimates procedure? There are some departments that have them; others may not. That may be fair enough. All we are looking for and seeking, in our role in this House as the Official Opposition, in terms of playing the constitutional role that the parliamentary system outlines to us, is for the information; and we have a right to have it. We have a right to ask the questions. When we discover that such funds exist and are not outlined in detail, then we have a right to be concerned. We have a right to ask the questions department by department.

Now, there have been some suggestions here this afternoon by certain ministers, not all, that you know: I have answered all the questions in my estimate procedure; or I will do that, I have already done that. We cannot ask a question if we are not possessed with the knowledge and the facts related to the Budget or for any other topic for that matter. If we do not have the information that government is obligated - this is not your discretion. It is not up to government and how they are feeling today, if they provide it to us or not. We cannot ask questions related to the Budget, and the money government spends in the delivery and prosecution of public services, unless government provides us all of the information that you are obligated to provide us with.

I appreciate the minister's answer. Let me ask him one final question. I know in answering a series of questions, that I put forward to him, he may have inadvertently overlooked the last question I asked him. He certainly would have knowledge of this because he said his department does have an ODI fund. Where is it in the Budget, in your estimates under the Mines and Energy Department, where is the ODI fund there and what subheads or subhead is it contained in?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

No, I do not think that I did say there is an ODI fund in my department. I said that within my department there is money provided for training and that sort of thing, but I will undertake to get for the hon. member the amount of ODI funding, if any, that is included in all departments of government, where it is included in the subheads, and how much money that is in each department in total. I think that will complete the level of information that he is looking for.

If he has policy issues with respect to ODI funding - and I gather from his comments that he agrees that it is not a bad area of expenditure for government. As a matter of fact, I would suggest -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I would suggest - as he says, I agree with him - it is an absolutely essential area of expenditure to some extent within government; but he should be afforded the information of what department has what and under what subheadings it is located. I will get it for him.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a couple of comments on this heading before we move on. It is an interesting discussion between the minister and my colleague. As a point of interest and information for the minister, when we were doing the estimates on Justice, that same question came up but it was answered under Professional Services. So, all of the organizational development funding came from that category. It is obviously spread around in a number of areas.

There is one particular point here I want to raise, Madam Chair, and that is - before I do though I want to say unequivocally, that I personally think we need to spend a lot more money and invest a lot more money in developing our employees. Staff training and development, orientation and in-services are critical parts of a workplace and ensures that we have capable, competent people working in our departments.

One of the points I think is important to raise here, it is not so much what the money was spent on but I note in this particular category here under Executive Council, it falls under Senior Management Development. In the Estimates Committee when we talked about Justice, it was also in the Administrative category. The similarity between the two - last year's budgeting in Justice allocated about $15,000 for the figure, but we spent $225,000. In this category here, for Senior Management Development, there was a $25,000 budget and the department spent at the end of the day $140,000-odd.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are you now, Ross?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I am making a comment to the minister about - we are still on the same subject in terms of 2.2.02 where we talk about Senior Management Development.

MR. MATTHEWS: 2.2.02. I thought you were on 2.3.01 you said.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I am sorry, I am still on 2.2.07.

The point I am trying to make, minister, is that this category here under the Executive Council area, we are talking about Senior Management Development. I was commenting, for your benefit, that when we had the discussion around training and development within the Department of Justice Estimates, we also noted that in that department, when it came to Administrative and Senior Management Development, there was no money budgeted for last year but yet there was a significant amount spent.

I think, rather than talk a little bit about the notion of organizational development, I want to talk a little bit about the principle here, the principle of budgeting. Each year, in this House, we do what we are doing now; we debate the Budget Estimates. Every minister, every department, every government agency, develops a plan; they develop a strategy for the next twelve months. In that twelve months they talk about the kinds of programs they are going to deliver, the kinds of initiatives they will undertake, and they will attach a budget figure to that. We get in this House and have a debate around the budget. We talk about the reasonableness of the figures, we talk about the reasonableness of the program, and from that discussion this House approves a fixed amount of money for that department to stand on each expenditure category.

We assume, Mr. Minister, that when we finish this debate each department, each minister, will take that budget and they will work within that budget. They will provide services and deliver programs within that budget allocation. We assume that if there is some deviation from that plan, some deviation from that budget, and someone has to make a decision to spend more money than was actually allocated, then that is done after some serious deliberation, some real consideration around what that might be.

I think it sends the wrong message, Madam Chair - and to the minister - it sends the wrong message when you have departments which develop budgets, allocate a certain amount for certain programs, and then senior people in the department make decisions to spend more money than was actually allocated; but, when that more money gets spent, it is spent to their individual or collective benefit. I think that is a significant message and an important point to recognize, that we rely on the minister and the senior people in government departments to provide the leadership, to provide the direction to the department, and to ensure that there is prudent and effective spending of our money.

I say that, Mr. Minister, not to suggest at all that we should not be, as a government, and as an employer, spending money on organizational development. We need to invest in our employees. We need to invest in the development and growth and their education but, Mr. Minister, I suggest to you that if those decisions are going to be made by senior managers, to deviate from a budget that this House approves, we need to be very careful that the decision to invest more money into staff development and more money into staff education, that decision applies right across the board so that all government employees, and all individuals, get the collective benefit and individual benefit of that decision to spend money on education and development, and not just at the senior level.

As I said, Mr. Minister, the critical thing here is deviation from budget. It is one thing to look at a budget figure last year that this House approved that was maybe $25,000 or $30,000 and we, at the end of the year, spent another $5,000 or $6,000. That is not a significant amount of money in the broader scheme of things; but, when we start looking at large amounts of money, when we are talking about budgeting $15,000 or $20,000 and come in at the end of the year and spend $225,000, that is a very different question.

Like the Minister of Health and Community Services, we have had discussions in this House about health expenditures, and how much money we are spending on health, and we continuously get reminded that this Province is spending $1.4 billion a year on health care, and the suggestion is, that is a significant amount of money. I think, Minister, anyone in this House would acknowledge that $1.4 billion is a lot of money. Anytime you start spending 45 per cent of your program money in a particular area, like health care, that is a significant commitment.

I say to the minister, we need to have a comfort in this House when we discuss these budgets, and at the end of the day when we approve the budgets, that we are going to have good use of that money, so that when we allocate that $1.4 billion someone does not arbitrarily make the decision: Well, that is only a budget figure. That is a guideline. That is something that suggests that we need to stay in the ballpark.

We need to be careful that, when we make decisions to approve budgets and then leave this House and have our staff decide to go in a very different direction, that is a prudent expenditure and there is a mechanism in place. A mechanism in place to ensure that if we are taking it from one area and spending it in another, that is going to give us value for our money.

I think what we are talking about here, Minister, is the difference between it being effective and it being efficient. Inasmuch as I do not for a moment suggest that we discontinue spending money on staff development, I suggest that we need to look at budgets more seriously. Given the history of last year and this year in deficits, and organizations running deficits, we need to be very conscious of the role of budget, what it really means, and take the process seriously; and, when the allocation is done, to recognize that senior staff - particularly, senior staff, because they are the organization's leaders. They are the department people. I rely on you, Minister, and your colleagues and your senior people in departments to ensure that they, in fact, comply with the budgets that are being approved by this House and that they do not arbitrarily make decisions to go out and to indiscriminately spend money without having prior approval of this House, particularly when this House takes line by line, department by department, and debates and discusses each of the issues in the Budget document.

Therefore, Minister, we assume that this year when we are debating the Budget and Estimates here, that, at the end of the day, if this House decides to give approval to your department or any other minister's department, that their allocation, their request, is being approved as they submitted it, and they, in turn, will go out in the next twelve months and not just use it as a guideline but recognize that it is a directive from this department and that they need to comply with that directive, and that they need to spend the money prudently and as directed by the House, which means to deliver a balanced budget.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the hon. the Member for Trinity North for his comments and suggestions.

In part answer to the question asked just a few minutes ago by the hon. the Member for Kilbride, the Opposition House Leader, I would refer him, for part of the information that he is looking for, to page 25 of the Estimates, the Treasury Board Secretariat. He will see there that the full budget for Organizational Development Funding is $2 million, and that is allocated throughout the various departments of government. I will try, as I said earlier, to get what is allocated under the various departments for him, on a department by department basis, so that he can have a greater level of detailed knowledge and information as to who spends what out of this fund. As I have said to him, on page 25, under Executive Council, Treasury Board Secretariat, the global budget of $2 million has been identified. That is the big figure; the breakdown will come.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, under this Senior Management Development, I certainly am very supportive of any initiatives that can help the staff development. I am looking at it and it says, I guess, "...human resource policy for management and executive groups...". I would ask the minister: Is that simply just for top management, or does it filter down through the whole department? Would it be workshops, staff development, professional days? Also, what would be the process whereby a department, a particular part of the department, would apply for this type of development initiative? Would it come from the top down or from the bottom up, so to speak; if you know what I mean, Minister? I don't know. Who administers the fund? Who makes the decisions? Is it someone in-house or is it some consultants who basically come in and advise the people in the various departments as to what - what is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, and this is another thing I am looking at. When it comes to development, you are going to, I assume, look at what is going on in the corporate world, in the outside world. Are there provisions made, Minister, for consultants to be brought in to, I guess, take some of these funds and perform various workshops, professional development, or otherwise? Minister?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

What I hear from the hon. the member is an observation that the Opposition generally supports government spending money for organizational development purposes. That is good to hear, because I think it is only common sense that we would all support that, and I appreciate the Opposition's indication of support for the $2 million that is identified under the Treasury Board Secretariat, page 25 of the Estimates. That is the big figure.

The question that the hon. the critic for the Department of Education is asking is: On a policy basis, how do we spend that money? What are the policy drivers that dictate how it is we go about providing the services that we procure under this $2 million?

I would say to him, that some of the answers to his questions are located on page 25, under the Treasury Board Secretariat Estimates, where it indicates that, yes, we pay some salary to in-house people out of this; yes, we do bring in professional people to help out. Professional Services, obviously, are under 3.1.08.05. We do acquire Purchased Services which includes some level of professional services attached to the previous $390,000. So, we do bring in outside people, we do acquire outside services, to discharge the training and the development that goes forward in the name of, and on behalf of, government.

With respect to the broad policy that covers why it is we have an ODI Fund and how it is it has to be managed and delivered throughout the department, I can probably get that for him in terms of a policy statement. I am sure there is one in existence in Treasury Board somewhere that would satisfy his needs. I will undertake to get that for him. It is not a budget question per se, it is a policy question. We will endeavour, even in the Budget Debate - we will extend latitude in the Budget Debate to allow for some questions that are quasi-budget debatable questions and get into policy issues and we will see if we can get the policy for him.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, I say to the minister, you were correct in assuming that the people on this side would support initiatives that would make for better, I guess, employees, better management, better executive groups, but I say to the minister, as well - because again my curiosity is peaked when it comes to this Organizational Development Initiatives Fund. I say to the minister: Does it extend beyond the departments? Why I say that is because when I look - and you mention, of course, as the Education critic, that is probably an area that I would be curious about. But with regard to the Initiative Fund; let's just take, for example, the directors and assistant directors of our school boards. They are on the leading edge of education in many, many ways, and we have eleven of them in the Province. I am wondering, this Initiative Fund, could that extend beyond just the department border, so to speak, and out into - and of course, the health boards and other boards that are out there. Do they have an opportunity or is there any initiatives that would allow senior management from these areas - even so far as to say our school trustees, because they, too, are part of the management of the school system in Newfoundland and Labrador. Many times they are not, necessarily, I guess, skilled at organizational situations and that sort of thing. Is it possible or is there anything in this Initiative Fund that would allow for, let's say, people like board directors, school board directors, trustees, to avail of this opportunity, to become better skilled in management?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

This ODI Fund is essentially to deal with training within, let's say, central agencies or the departments of government; government as a centre. This is an activity, I might point out, that has been, in previous years, delivered - I am not sure when we made the change. I can find that out for you but, once upon a time, this type of activity was done under the Public Service Commission. A number of years ago the scope and extent and the activities of the Public Service Commission were changed and there was a lot less money allocated over there.

To his specific question with respect to directors and assistant directors; the boards have their own budgets that account for and allow for a level of professional development and training and all that sort of thing. The only way that this fund could respond to a request from a school board, or the NLSBA representing all the school boards, would be to the extent that it was thought appropriate through the Department of Education, the line department, to make a request for assistance under this fund, and if the minister and the department thought it was appropriate to bring it forward, they would do so and it would be considered. The bulk of the training - if not 100 per cent of the training - training funds, professional development funds that is used to benefit directors and assistant directors is contained in a separate budget in the various school boards' budgets specifically.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to get back to the Estimates, minister; I am just looking down at the lines, and I do not know if I have missed it or not but I do know that the budget process means that you have to look ahead and you have to make projections and whatever. Now, under this section, this whole section, I will just take it as a section. Obviously, someone underestimated last year because there was only one line filled really and that was line 06, in Purchased Services, which was $25,000; but then when you went to the actual, what was actually spent, you are looking at $149,000, and then it is back to $25,000 this year. Again, the question I would have to ask the minister is: Why is that difference? I would assume that - why would you go with just $25,000 this year when last year it was bumped up to almost $150,000? Is there something that I am missing here? Is there something that happened last year that is out of the ordinary? I am just looking for an explanation as to why nothing is budgeted this year, whereas last year you did spend a fair number of dollars.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The question is really part of the questions that were put forward by the hon. the Opposition House Leader. He asked for specific details with respect to the $92,400 that was revised up into the Budget last year, plus the $30,000 for Professional Services that was revised up into the Budget last year, none of which is accommodated in this year's Budget because it is not anticipated that it be required for expenditure.

There was a reason for the $92,400, and there was a reason for the $30,000, and there was a reason for the $17,000 in Salaries. I have undertaken already to get the details of that for the hon. the Opposition House Leader so that he can have complete clarity and certainty as to why that money was appropriated here last year, while not put in the original Budget, and why it is not accommodated in the current year's Budget that we are now debating. Obviously, there does not seem to be a continued requirement for it this year.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to also make a few comments with respect to this subhead, 2.2.07, Senior Management Development, to the minister. Of course, by now people are understanding that in this House of Assembly we have procedures we follow with respect to the Budget. We have the Budget Debate itself, Madam Chair, whereby it is a general type of thing and in certain departments we have Estimates Committee meetings. For example, the other evening we were here with the Department of Environment, I believe, until 9 o'clock in the evening. The other morning we did Municipal and Provincial Affairs. We did the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and we had some very interesting responses from the minister, I would say, and his staff; but, today in the House of Assembly we are doing the Executive Council and we go basically subhead to subhead.

With respect to Senior Management Development; I have a few questions, I suppose, to the minister. This Organizational Development Initiatives Fund, I would take that to be for the training of people within the various departments. For any of number of reasons - they could need to advance themselves with respect to a new position they might have, I will say to the minister. Oftentimes - and I brought this up in many, many instances in the Estimates Committee meetings themselves - it is the computers, and the money that we spend on computers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador within the civil service. Every year there seems to be millions and millions of dollars being spent on computers. I am wondering if some of this Organizational Development Initiatives Fund - would any money go towards the training of individuals within government departments for these new computers and new computer systems and the millions of dollars that we spend each year? Of course, when we buy computers within the civil service, Madam Chair, when we purchase them they are almost out of date. That seems to be a major problem. When are we going to get a point where what we have will suffice? When are we going to get to a point that the government is going to say: listen, we have enough computers, we have enough training to do the job. I ask the minister: Is there any money with respect to that Organizational Development Initiatives Fund that go towards the training of individuals within departments for new computers and new programs and what have you?

Also, we have seen over the past few years, Madam Chair, that this Administration has had various policies. One, of course, within the past years are the layoffs within the civil servants themselves. Oftentimes, we see these cutbacks cause problems within the departments also. We have people (inaudible) almost forced retirement, and we have new people coming into these positions or moving up to these positions because theoretically they are not supposed to be rehiring. I have to say, Madam Chair, when I walk around this building - I have been here nine years now - I do see a lot of new faces, and then government talks about cutbacks and saving money. It seems oftentimes that the place where we cut first is the front line workers.

When you go to the minister's office and the Premier's Office - for example, Madam Chair, the other day, I think, the Salaries in the Premier's Office and his expenses have gone up by $300,000 - Is that correct? - I say to you, Madam Chair. So, we have to look at that.

A couple of years ago this Administration brought in, of course, a new policy and that was the relocation of the civil service and basically, the decentralization of government offices to different areas within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am wondering, does this Organizational Development Initiatives Fund play any part in that? Because we have seen a number of people - because of that policy, because of that program - resign, left government altogether. We seen people being moved into positions that they were not trained for. We know in the civil service and I know, particularly, some that were moved from one department to another department in a position that they had no training for, no experience in, but saved a job for them. To a certain extent I am glad to see that these individuals saved their jobs, but again, how much money did we spend to retrain these individuals? How much money did we use to reorganize the departments to compliment or to suffice, I suppose, the problems that were brought into play because of these situations?

Many people, as I said, Madam Chair, had job transfers. All over the Province, within various government departments, we saw people move up to new positions, people move laterally to certain positions, people taking jobs for salaries less than what they were accustomed to, to keep a job. Again, this senior management development, or Organizational Development Initiatives Fund, I would say, was used there.

The members on this side of the House have mentioned a number of times the Purchased Services, and the minister has agreed, basically, to inform this House of what this $92,400 was used for; and, rightly so. I am curious.

When we do these Estimates Committee meetings, normally what I do, and the people do not see this here, we have a book whereby we show what was budgeted last year, what is budgeted this year, and what was actually spent. For example, we have some where there was $50,000 budgeted last year in 2001-2002, we have $140,000 that was actually spent, and this year we have $170,000 budgeted, which is a difference of some $30,000. That is the type of stuff that we get into when we are in the House of Assembly, when we are in the Estimates Committee meetings.

I look forward, actually, Madam Chair, to Monday morning, where I am the critic for Works, Services and Transportation. The Minister of Environment is quite familiar with the way I handle myself in these Estimates Committee meetings. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I do not believe - he was not minister any time that I have appeared at these Estimates Committee meetings for questions. The Minister of Environment, and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs would agree, that when I ask questions, because I think he was the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs before -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, when I was critic for Government Services and Lands and I asked the Minister of Government Services and Lands, the member for Labrador, these questions - he is now the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs - I go into quite a lot of detail because I take this very, very seriously, this issue with respect to the Budget.

The Government House Leader is on side saying, so I should. I do, and I always have, Madam Chair. I have many questions lined up for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation when, Monday morning, we have the Estimates Committee meetings in this House of Assembly. I will be going through the budget -

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible)

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't know if the Government House Leader is giving me a compliment or if he is trying to -

MR. MERCER: I would be cautious, Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Humber East is saying I should be cautious when the Government House Leader is interjecting across the House in the form of a compliment. He said I should be very weary.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: In the PAC?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, I understand now. I understand what the Government House Leader is saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: He got the two Byrnes mixed up.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, he didn't. He didn't get the two Byrnes mixed up, Madam Chair. Not at all. He is saying that when I was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, before the Member for Bay of Islands became very - what is the right word?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sookey.

MR. J. BYRNE: Sookey, I suppose, and would not meet, refused to meet, because I was doing such a good job, and the members on this side of the House, in asking questions with the PAC. I was doing the job that I was being paid to do and the job that I was supposed to be doing, but they refused to do. Now it all comes out. It is coming out now, when my vice-chair, the now present Government House Leader, is saying that I was the best PAC Chair that he has ever dealt with. That speaks for itself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: That, Madam Chair, tells me that the Member for Bay of Islands, when there was a committee, was absolutely wrong not to meet with members on this side of the House on the very serious issue of government business, and issues that the Auditor General used to bring forward, and still does. I hope that the new Auditor General who was appointed here today in this House of Assembly, John Noseworthy - I have had a lot of dealings with Mr. Noseworthy over the past few years when I was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and I expect that he is going to be a very good, competent individual to fill the shoes of Ms Marshall who just finished up her term of ten years and did an excellent job in holding the government accountable in her reports each year.

Madam Chair, I could go on for a few more minutes but I think there may be some people on this side of the House who would like to speak to this, and we have a number of other issues here today.

Madam Chair, the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat is next to be discussed here and I think the Government House Leader, who just paid me a very nice, kind compliment, is the minister of that department and I look forward to asking him some questions with respect to this.

With those few words, I will -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Chair, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is saying now that we will see on Monday what a nice fellow I am. Well, I will say this, Madam Chair. It is like this. The meetings that we are going to have Monday morning in this House of Assembly to discuss the budget for the Department of Works, Services and Transportation - and he is concerned what a nice fella I am going to be after Monday morning. Well, I can tell the minister this, Madam Chair, that he has no worry about Monday morning and what a nice fella I am going to be. I am going to do the job in this House of Assembly that I am elected to do -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: - and I will be asking the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, maybe, Madam Chair, hundreds and hundreds of questions with respect to his budget, that he is responsible for. From what I can understand -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) still be here in June, Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: Maybe I will still be here in June.

From what I can understand, and from the actions of that minister - and I really do not want to get into it today because it really upsets me - that minister, Madam Chair, the way.... I have to tell you this. I have dealt with many ministers in this House of Assembly over nine years. For example, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I have had some dealings with him very recently. Quite co-operative, because he understands that the people on both sides of the House are elected - the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs - to represent the people of this Province, the districts they represent, and he, as minister, is supposed to represent all the people in the Province within that department. I am afraid that this minister - and maybe on Monday morning - is a little bit too political. A little bit too political. I think that is as far as I will go now and I will leave it until Monday morning and see what the minister is going to be doing. Hopefully he will be fair with my district this year, that he certainly wasn't fair with in the last Budget, I will say to you, Madam Chair.

We will stand by and we will be asking many questions, and the minister will see on Monday morning how fair I am, or how fair -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Chair, what is the point? What is the point?

We will see Monday what is going to happen and how fair this minister is. Hopefully, he will give respect to the position that he holds as minister of this department, give it the proper respect due to that position.

With those few words, I will sit down and see if anyone on this side of the House has anything to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis makes a great speech but he asks no questions, and I appreciate that. As a matter of fact -

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

You cannot have it both ways. The minister cannot sit in his seat - now, I asked a number of questions when I was on my feet - and not pay attention, then stand up and say I did not ask any questions. I expect what he should do, Madam Chair, is get a copy of Hansard and just see how many questions I did ask.

Further to that, Madam Chair, the Government House Leader, himself, interjected across the House what good questions I was asking.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I say, again, that the hon. member makes a great speech. Actually it ranges in terms of the speeches he makes in this House - not only today, but a lot of times - it ranges all the way from riveting to baffling in terms of the scope of the verbiage that he puts forward for our consumption. It is always interesting to listen to him. Some days when he is not fed as well as he is other days, he makes a louder and a more boisterous speech. It is nice, I am sure, and comforting that he gives the members of the committee, the ministers which his committee will be working with Monday, a heads-up, that he is going to be quite direct and quite pointed and quite challenging in his questions. I almost regret that I cannot be at his committee hearings on Monday morning. I do not quite regret it, but I know that the ministers and the officials will be challenged as the member makes his points.

Madam Chair, I move that we move on, providing that we have covered all that needs to be covered under this particular section, because I take it from the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis that he wants to move on to the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat area for questions.

The Opposition House Leader asks the questions, he gets an undertaking and he leaves the House. I come back with half the information he asked for, and then he says I give no answers to the questions. As I said when you were out, or when you were coming back, I obtained the information with respect to the global budget for the ODI Fund. It is a $2 million global budget. It is administered under the Treasury Board Secretariat, and it is made available to the various departments as they apply for it. I understand, verbally from my officials, that the details in terms of how that money was spent last year and that sort of thing, is a sixteen-page list of information, and I have undertaken to provide that to him, as best I can, next week. That information will come forward.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall 2.2.07 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Against.

On motion, subhead 2.02.07 carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall 2.3.01 carry?

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, at this time we are spending a few minutes, and perhaps for the next little while this afternoon, discussing, under the Office of the Executive Council, the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat. As we can see, it includes almost two pages of the Budget Estimates. I think it is safe to say, Madam Chair, this is perhaps one department that is perhaps least known and least understood by the citizens of this Province. In fact, there are many jurisdictions and certain provinces in Canada where the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs is a responsibility that is assumed by the leader of the government. Often a premier of a province assumes the role of dealings and relationships between the provinces and the federal government. However, in this particular Province, Madam Chair, the government has chosen to appoint a Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and, of course, that minister is here this afternoon. I am sure that he will be more than pleased to answer questions that are raised by members on this side of the House.

I understand Madam Chair has left, so now we are back to Mr. Chairman. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that there are going to be a number of my colleagues on this side of the House who will, for the next little while, raise issues and pose questions of the minister with respect to the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat.

However, I have to say, Mr. Chair, referring to my earlier comment, it is perhaps one area that is least known and least understood generally. We do not hear about the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs on a daily basis. We hear about the Department of Health, we hear about the Department of Education, we hear about the Department of Mines and Energy and I am sure others, because the people of the Province deal with these departments and have a relationship with these departments on a day-to-day basis as they go about their lives. However, Intergovernmental Affairs is not, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, in that same category.

It is interesting though, under 2.3.03, Policy Analysis and Coordination, there is a description that helps the public perhaps understand what the nature of this particular department is, and I refer to it briefly. It talks about the review and analysis of intergovernmental issues relating to social, fiscal, resource and economic policy, constitutional and francophone affairs, and for the coordination of intergovernmental negotiations in these areas.

I would like to ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs if he could be more specific and perhaps shed some light on this topic and share with us this afternoon, in this House, and by doing so share with the people of the Province, exactly the extent to which his department has dealings with the federal government as it relates to social, fiscal, resource and economic policy, constitutional and francophone affairs, for the coordination of intergovernmental negotiations in these particular areas.

I note, Mr. Chair, that the appropriations that have been estimated and allocated for the fiscal year 2002-2003 is an amount approaching some $2.3 million, which an increase of approximately $700,000 from both the budgeted and revised figures of the fiscal year 2001-2002. In the scheme of things, I realize the budget is not overly significant when we look at the overall provincial Budget, but for a department that, it is fair to say, is relatively small, and perhaps it is also fair to say relatively unknown, $2.3 million is an amount of money that has to be accounted for, and I am sure the minister will be helpful this afternoon in addressing some of the issues and questions that are raised.

I will begin, perhaps, by asking the hon. minister if he could shed some light and be more specific when the description, as found in the Estimates, talks about social fiscal resource and economic policy and so on. If he could, in some detail, break down for the members of the House, exactly what involvement his department has as it relates to each of those headings beginning with social and then going through that list as is found in 2.3.03.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR (Mercer): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the questions and the comments by the hon. the member. First of all, the hon. member made illusion to the notion that the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs was probably not known, probably the least known, and probably the least understood by the people of the Province; that it certainly hasn't had a profile like the Department of Health, the Department of Education, and the Department of Municipal Affairs. That is probably correct, because it does not touch upon our daily lives to the same extent that health does or that education does. Nevertheless, it plays a very, very important role, a very significant role, a very pivotal role, in the government of this Province.

I will proceed to tell how it does, and to answer in more detail the latter question which really was to elaborate and describe and enlighten members and the general public as to precisely what the department does. He made illusion also to the notion that in most other Provinces that maybe the department was taken over by the Premier. That is true, to a degree, but increasingly more of the governments are having an individual minister, some other person of Cabinet, other than the Premier, to take the portfolio. The fact that it is done by the Premier demonstrates the importance of it, and it is at the level of the Premier of dealing with the federal government and with other provincial governments and with other national governments throughout the world, really.

Premiers are becoming so overworked these days, in the issues that concern Premiers, that they are finding it necessary to have a minister to help them with this work. For example, I have it here right now, and I am looking at Nova Scotia, it is the Premier who is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs there, and in New Brunswick and in P.E.I. In these three other Atlantic Provinces, the Premiers assume the responsibility for Intergovernmental Affairs. In Quebec, they have their own Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. In Ontario, their own Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. In Manitoba, they have their Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. In Saskatchewan, they have their Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. In Alberta, they have their Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and in B.C. The breakdown works to about five and six. Five with the Premiers and six with their own individual Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs.

It is becoming popular. It is becoming the trend that ministers are now assigned, other than the Premier, to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, to help in the tremendous job today of working with problems of a national concern. Specifically, Mr. Chair, Intergovernmental Affairs in this Province is one of co-ordinating, one of assisting, one of facilitating all of the other departments, all of the other line departments that have reason to deal with the national government. If they are involved in policy, if they are involved in a presentation to the federal government, it is Intergovernmental Affairs that will assist in making a presentation. For example, in the matter of equalization, touching upon resource development, it is Intergovernmental Affairs that will do the preparation for most of those documents, for most of the presentations to the federal government in this case.

Also, selling it to other provinces. In many cases I have gone to visit every, or most, ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs to advance our cause with equalization, because it is something we have to move the whole country on to make sure that they understand our position. I have visited most of the Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs, all of those ministers in the federal government that would help our cause in - let's use that example - Intergovernmental Affairs.

Also, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I am the minister responsible in this Province for what is called SUFA, the Social Union Framework Agreement. This is an organization put together by the federal government to promote social policy in the country. I am the representative of Cabinet, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, our representative there developing social policy for the nation dealing with health, dealing with education, and dealing with social programs. For example, one of the biggest initiatives of that initiative, the Social Union Framework Agreement, one of the biggest initiatives to come out of that was early childhood education and early childhood care, which has been a big national program that came from that particular organization.

Mr. Chair, the department, then, is in the role of assisting, co-ordinating and facilitating other departments in their effort, in their initiative, to get things for this Province, in advancing the cause of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The department reviews all intergovernmental agreements and all relevant legislation pertaining to these policies, programs, activities and agreements. There is not a program, not a policy, that is entered into with the federal government but we are there scrutinizing, evaluating and appraising these programs.

Mr. Chair, we are signatories to every agreement entered into by line departments. If the Department of Fisheries has entered into agreement with the federal government, we are there as signatories to that particular agreement. Mr. Chair, we take whatever action is necessary to initiate and maintain intergovernmental relations between the Province, the federal government and other sovereign governments in the world, to promote good relations, harmonious relations, and to sell Newfoundland and Labrador, to promote Newfoundland and Labrador. That is one of the initiatives of the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Mr. Chair, we assist the Premier in a lot of the work that the Premier has to do. Throughout the year the Premier attends some major conferences, makes some major presentations, meets with the Prime Minister and other provincial premiers. The Team Canada Trade Mission, Council of Atlantic Premiers, Annual Premiers' Conferences, New England Governors, Eastern Canadian Premiers' Conferences, all of these things, we, the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, assist the Premier in. Getting together presentations, formulating policies, to be presented at these various groups, the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs is there, left, right and center, facilitating, supporting and assisting the Premier and his officials in making these presentations to promote the cause of Newfoundland and Labrador before all of these various officials, conferences and meetings through the nation and throughout the United States, in the case of the New England Governors and the Eastern Canadian Premiers' Conferences.

Mr. Chair, it becomes very involved. As a matter of fact, I have enjoyed this particular year and the number of activities that the department has been engaged in. It cuts right across the whole gamut of government operations. It criss-crosses almost with every department. I have mentioned SUFA, the social program, education, health, and social programs for our people. The Council of Atlantic Premiers advancing the cause of Atlantic Canada. I mentioned, I think, and I should just reiterate that again about the Social Union Framework Agreement, the one policy of which this Province has seen the benefit of, and that is the early childhood education and child care. That is a major program throughout Canada.

The Premier, in the last Premiers' Conference in Vancouver, advanced two major initiatives: the equalization, and post-secondary education. He advanced that, Mr. Chair, and we were there in support. We were there helping with the presentation of trying to convince the rest of the country of the necessity of investing in post-secondary education; making post-secondary education more accessible to the students of Newfoundland and Labrador and indeed all of Canada; of improving accessibility; of improving our buildings in post-secondary institutions. Many of our buildings are old and need repair - a lot of our universities and other places of training - and we are going to need an infusion of money. It is going to take more money than the Province can afford. It is going to take federal initiative, so we have been advancing those causes.

Mr. Chairman, that is sort of a review, a brief analysis of some of the things that the department is involved in and has been involved in. I want to mention one other, which is very important, and that is the labour mobility. This is, all of the Ministers of Labour throughout the country, throughout Canada, have an organization where they are trying to promote and trying to encourage availability of opportunity throughout the country, making it easier for people to move from job to job. We have been involved in that. We have been involved in that initiative in the labour mobility, working with the federal-provincial-territories committee on eliminating - and this is one of the ones I wanted to comment on - residency-based policies which restrict access to services throughout Canada in the areas of health, post-secondary education, training, social services, and income support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, these things are all very important. When people move from one area of Canada to the other, they find that they cannot make a smooth transition into a lot of these things. So, with the Labour Ministers, we are working together to try and make it easier for people when they move from one area of Canada, to make a transition from one provincial health system to another, from one income support program to another; making things more harmonious in the country. These are some of the initiatives, Mr. Chair, that Intergovernmental Affairs has been engaged in, in its role of co-ordinating, assisting and facilitating other departments in terms of promoting policy and programs for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will just finish up with two other initiatives, Mr. Chair, that are actually line - the department is involved in directly. We have line authority in two others. That is, Mr. Chair, with respect to the military, in improving and trying to encourage the buildup of military training in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have put on a tremendous effort in trying to promote Goose Bay as a military training area. That is directly under the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The other one is immigration. We have been trying to encourage immigrants to come to Newfoundland, to enrich our culture, so that we can become a part of the immigration policy of Canada which is trying to encourage more immigrants to come to the country. We have not been getting our share. We have been getting less than our share. We have been working in that area to ensure that we get people with needed skills, people who can make a contribution to the growth and the economy of this Province and to enrich our lives.

Just to finish, Mr. Chair, we have just finished, just before the House opened - I just finished visiting the ministers concerned in both of those area, both the immigration and with respect to the military, working hard, Mr. Chairman, to ensure that we try to improve the social and the economic development of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a few words on this particular topic. The minister spent some time outlining the many areas which his department is responsible for, and the last one he mentioned is one I want to talk about in two aspects, the issue of the Intergovernmental Affairs responsibility for issues related to the military.

There are two points I want to bring up. One is with respect to veterans in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chairman, and how they are supported by the Government of Canada, and in particular how they achieve their pensions and appeal any rulings that they have. That is done in this Province by the Office of the Pensions Advocate. The Pensions Advocate is a lawyer who is hired by Veterans Affairs. It is kind of an interesting position. Veterans Affairs hires and pays lawyers to make appeals on behalf of veterans to the Veterans Appeal Board. We have, of course, in this Province, many veterans of not only the Second World War and what is known as the Korean Conflict, but we also have survivors of veterans. We have also covered, under the same department, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their retirees who have service related disabilities or service related injuries, and they have the right to apply for a pension or to appeal a decision to turn down a pension. That is usually what happens.

Under the Office of the Pensions Advocate, it is called, we have a full-time Pensions Advocate, a full-time lawyer, here in Newfoundland and Labrador, to serve the needs of veterans and also veterans of regular forces. We have regular forces personnel and, as every member of this House knows - Mr. Chairman, I do not normally do this, but I cannot hear myself very well. There seems to be a bit of noise in the House.

CHAIR: Order, please!

If the members could just keep it down a little bit, the Chair is having some difficulty in hearing the member.

MR. HARRIS: The Office of the Pensions Advocate looks after regular forces members as well, who may have service related injuries and, of course, as every member in this House knows, there is a high proportion of the regular forces in Canada, in fact, staffed by people from this Province who serve in the military or serve in the reserves. If they have a service related injury, or if they, when they retire, have an issue related to their pension, and their ability to get a pension, it would be to the Pensions Advocate that they would go.

In fact, just with veterans alone, Mr. Chairman, there are over 3,000 veterans who are served by the Newfoundland office, in addition to which there are about 2,000 who are in receipt of disability pension. So, there are about 5,000 people just with the regular forces alone, not counting the RCMP and the retired RCMP officers, who are served by this Pensions Advocate.

The reason that I bring it up is that this office is slated to be closed at the end of the next fiscal year and the services to veterans and regular forces personnel in Newfoundland and Labrador will no longer be available in the Province. In fact, they will be served from outside the Province, perhaps in Nova Scotia or elsewhere, like a lot of other services that the federal government is trying to regionalize or save money on, or cut back on, and there is no need for it because this office can handle, not only the work that is here, and if there is other work that is being done - in fact, it can be done by the pensions advocate here for outside the Province to do hearings elsewhere. I understand that is even being done as we speak.

I just wanted to raise it publicly here in the House this afternoon. I intend to let all hon. members know because I have some knowledge of this office and how it operates. I want to bring all individual member's attention to this fact that the federal government plans to close this office in St. John's and service veterans in Newfoundland and Labrador from outside the Province. This service has been here for decades, Mr. Chairman. Pensioners and veterans in this Province deserve to have local access to the pensions advocate office.

I will be sending a little briefing note around to all members in the not too distant future outlining the services provided in the Province, and urging all members to play a role in encouraging the federal MPs and the Government of Canada not to make this move. It has only recently come to light, this plan has only recently come to light, Mr. Chairman, so it is something that most hon. members would not be aware of, but I will be making them aware by letter over the next number of days. That is something that I did bring privately to the attention of the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister to give him a heads up on it. I understand the Municipal Affairs office has some involvement with veterans matters as well; but that's something that I would urge the minister to take up with his federal counterparts in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Also, when we are talking about the military - I only have a few minutes left to speak, but I want to say a little bit about Goose Bay. Goose Bay is one of these situations where the Government of Canada, again, has done something in Goose Bay with the Goose Bay base that it cannot do elsewhere, that it tried to do elsewhere but it cannot do, and that was to privatize the base by taking away the operation from DND and actually contracting it out for a five year period. That was done in Happy Valley-Goose Bay -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: They were looking at doing it elsewhere but the experience in Happy Valley-Goose Bay was so bad that they would not let them do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: They may be trying again.

The position that I would urge this government to take is - if the contract is about to expire, I would urge this government to take the position that it should be re-publicized because the service that is being provided up there to a contractor - what happened was, they took the civilian employees of DND and gave most of them back their jobs but at a lesser rate of pay. They had a strike up there a couple of years ago. The system is not working very well. We have a lot of families that were disrupted as a result of that. That is an issue. I recognize that the government has an interest in promoting Happy Valley-Goose Bay, but in terms of the people who are actually doing the work on the ground, supplying and supporting that base, they were federal public servants until DND decided to contract out the supply and services work for that air base. They tried to do it in New Brunswick a couple of years ago, Mr. Chairman, and the outcry was so strong that the government admitted that it had made a mistake in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and that they were not going to do it again.

Why, Mr. Chairman, should we be, in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, victims of that policy which was only for one five year period? The contract was only for five years, and it is about to expire. They renewed it for a year or so while they were doing negotiations, but we should take a very strong position in this Province that the civilian support for Five Wing Goose Bay should be on the same basis as other bases in Canada. It should be by public servants, by the Department of Defense employees doing a job at the same rate of pay as employees of the Government of Canada are getting elsewhere across the country, and not some cut rate jobs where they would get much, much less than what they are being paid by the Government of Canada through DND. It is something that was allowed to happen in this Province, Mr. Chairman, by a previous government, and this government has an opportunity to try and correct that.

I would urge the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to take that on as a very important role. That is something that needs to be done. The workers in Happy Valley-Goose Bay have been asking for that for many years, and I would like to have the minister's response to that. Also, whatever comments he may have on this issue of the pensions advocate that we just recently learned about.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am moved to get to my feet for a few minutes in discussing the estimates of Intergovernmental Affairs. Having heard my long-time friend, the present minister, give us an exposé of the responsibilities of the department, and then being reminded by some remarks just made by my friend from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, of a couple of matters that are very, very important. They were raised by the minister and referred to again by my friend from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The first one I want to mention is Veterans Affairs. You know after twenty years in politics, in public life, I was floored a few weeks ago, really floored, to find that the spouses of veterans who pass on in Canada are not taken care of once the veteran passes away. I could not believe that in a country that prides itself on the value and the effort that was made by our veterans on behalf of us all, did not have a social program that took care of the spouse of a veteran once the veteran passed away.

Let me give the House, Mr. Chairman, what I consider to be a shocking example of the Government of Canada walking away from a responsibility to the spouses of those veterans. Let me give the House just a brief example. I ran into a constituent a few weeks ago in Lewisporte whose husband was a veteran, a Newfoundlander enlisted in the Newfoundland Regiment and then transferred over to the Royal Air Force and fought all the way through to the end of the Second World War for Newfoundland, the British Commonwealth and Canada. That veteran passed away four or five years ago - I think it was eight or nine years ago - and you know, when that veteran passed away and his spouse needed home care, while he was alive they collectively had all the home care they wanted. All the veteran's benefits that were available to the veteran, the living veteran, was available to the spouse but when the veteran passes away, the only thing that is available to the surviving spouse is maybe some of the Veterans Affairs Pension that he was entitled to, depending though, on the income that she has from other sources; but what is not available to the spouse of that veteran is home care.

I ran into a situation in Lewisporte District just a few weeks ago where a surviving spouse, over the last eight or nine years, has spent in excess of $400,000 of her own money. The last saved, plugged nickel that they had to the world, she had to spend because she had to have twenty-four hour care; twenty-four-hour-a-day care. She is confined to a wheelchair. She is an older lady. She is as bright as a tack in her mind, but she cannot do anything for herself. She has to have twenty-four-hour-a-day care and now her money is gone. In excess of $400,000 spent. Her life savings. Everything they had she had to liquidate. All she has left is the home, and it is all gone. Now she has to turn to whom? She has to turn to the Province, and she is the spouse of a veteran. The spouse of a person who risked his life so that we can do what we are doing here today. I, of course, immediately contacted Veterans Affairs. As I said, it was the first time I ever had this presented to me in my twenty years in public life, and I was astounded, shocked, to find that there was no program to take care of the social needs of that spouse once the veteran had passed on; other than, perhaps a little bit of pension, depending on her income.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is good enough in this country, in 2002. I think it is a shame. I think it is a blight on this country, and I know that it is not the responsibility of this government but it is one of the areas that Intergovernmental Affairs has responsibility for. I believe that this minister, who I know is a compassionate and understanding minister, should take up the cause for people in that category, like the individual example I just gave to the House. I believe the minister should take up the cause.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are not a lot of them left.

MR. RIDEOUT: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: There are an awful lot of them left.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, not a lot of them. There wouldn't be a lot of them left.

I am all for doing for what the federal government and Veterans Affairs did for the Merchant Navy and what it did for the forestry service and stuff like that, if it is all done, but what about the spouse who kept the family together, who raised the children, who kept the home fires burning while the veterans were doing what they had to do on behalf of us all overseas? To drop them after the veteran passes on, I think is a terrible, terrible blight on this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I believe that we should try to do something about it. Imagine a poor old widow out in Lewisporte or Twillingate, or anywhere. Not all of them would have had the resources that this lady had, but to have to spend the last plug nickel she had and then have to turn to her church and then turn to social services. Well, social services is not going to do anything for her because her income is a little bit too much. So she is out there now trembling because she is probably going to have to be confined to a home. She does not want to be confined to a home, and she should not be confined to a home. She does not need to be confined to a home. She should be allowed to stay in her own home, with dignity, until she can no longer stay there. A country as rich and as great and as powerful as Canada, not to have a program that treats those people with dignity, Mr. Chairman, I say is wrong and is something that I did not really have a handle on until a few weeks ago.

I want to briefly mention one other matter, if I have any time left in my allotment. That is, the minister made reference to the military, and Happy Valley-Goose Bay in particular. Happy Valley-Goose Bay is a very important part of the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, from a military perspective. Of course, we have various air forces from around - NATO in particular - who are still doing their training in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

My understanding and my recollection is that over the last several years there has been some reduction. Germany, I believe, in particular, has downgraded some of the numbers that they have there. I do not know what is happening at the moment with the British Air Force and the Italians and others. There seems to be some tightening up of the NATO experience and expenditures as it relates to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Perhaps the minister might take a few moments when he is on his feet to tell us what is happening and what the government is doing in consultation with the Government of Canada to promote Happy Valley-Goose Bay, because training has to be done somewhere. We have the facility, we have the people, we have the personnel, we have the location, we have the base, and I think we can continue to sell the facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay to the benefit of all the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Chairman, with those few remarks, I would be interested to hear what the minister has to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the two previous speakers for their contribution, and just say that I am very concerned with what is happening to Veterans Affairs in this Province. It is only recently that it has been brought to our attention with respect to the matters raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the apparent downgrading of some of the services to veterans. I can assure you that we are committed to doing everything we can to ensure that the services in this Province - the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - to veterans are not downgraded.

We have a special type of veteran in this Province, only in the country, in Canada, because we were our own country, our own sovereign nation, when we joined Confederation. We brought with us people who the military people call Imperials. They belonged to the British Armed Forces, the British Navy and the British Army, and the only people in the country who had it, as a group, because we were a nation at the time. That points out our uniqueness. We have those records here now. I understand that there is some movement underfoot with the downgrading to move these records to some other part of Canada. Our veterans do not want that. These records that have been here are part of our history and they must, and should, stay in this Province.

We are concerned. I can assure every veteran in this Province that we are not going to relent in our effort towards convincing the federal government that every service that is available to the veterans in this Province must stay here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: There is absolutely no reason as to why they should have to report to some other province in Atlantic Canada when we have people here who made the great sacrifice, people who fought for our country, and who continue to fight for our nation.

I do not know if hon. members would be aware of this fact. When I talked about it, I did not want to demonstrate my compassion and my intimacy here this afternoon, or get emotional. I wanted to be very rational, but when I talk about this issue sometimes you cannot help but get animated.

We comprise, as a Province, Newfoundland and Labrador, 1 per cent of the population of Canada. I want hon. members to get that. Some may already know the comparison I am making. In Canada, we comprise less than 1 per cent of the total population of Canada. Yet, in the military, the military is comprised of 10 per cent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Comprising less than 1 per cent of the population; yet, we comprise 10 per cent of the military. Under those circumstances, there is no way that I want to hear of a downgrading of any military activity in this Province. That is why we have been fighting to promote Labrador, Gander, St. John's, wherever there is a division of the military, we are working to improve the presence of the military in this Province, and demonstrating to this Province, demonstrating to its people, that the nation is grateful for the contribution that our people make to the military in the Province. Labrador is an excellent place. All of the allies like it. I am addressing what the hon. Member for Lewisporte was just saying.

It is a highly competitive field today, and the technology is changing. In Labrador, we started in the low-level flying. Now we are moving to a high-level fly and we want to get into the - I am trying to find the right language. In the high-level flying they let go these smart bombs, I think they call them, and this is what we are getting into now. We are looking for more land to do that because, when you are shooting from these higher heights, you need more land. We have just finished looking into that, working with the Innu and working with all of the officials there to get this approved. The allies want to be in Labrador. They love Labrador, Goose Bay-Happy Valley area.

Last year, I think the reduction was with the British, but the Department of National Defence did not think it would affect the operation too much in so much as they would contract out the work their military people would normally do, and the people in the Goose Bay area would get that employment, so there were certain parts of it that were good.

In the meantime, we are trying to promote it, trying to give it every advantage we can so that we can get all of the allies there and participating in flight training. The hon. member mentioned what it meant to us last year. It meant to the economy of Newfoundland, $90 million. That is what the military activity in Labrador meant to the economy of this Province, $90 million..

I will finish by saying that, with his concern with the spouses, again, it is something that we have to look into. They do not deserve that kind of treatment, and I thank the hon. member for raising it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR (Ms M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Madam Chairperson, I am going to change the kind of agenda for awhile and get away from the type of questions we have been asking. I would like to ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs some questions on some of the subheads, and I go to 2.3.02., Executive Support. I would like to ask the minister, under 06., in 2002 we budgeted $27,800 for Purchased Services and we only spent $19,000 and this year we are going to spend $47,800.

MR. LUSH: I just got my earphones. Would the hon. member mind repeating that for me?

MR. FRENCH: Yes, Minister, Executive Support, 2.3.02.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I would remind the member that we have not finished on 2.3.01. yet. Will we vote on 2.3.01. before you carry on with 2.3.02.?

MR. FRENCH: There are only three sections so I guess we are at liberty to kind of go to whatever section we like.

MADAM CHAIR: Okay, continue.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Mr. Minister, under Purchased Services, as I said, last year we budged $27,800, we only spent $19,000, and this year we are going to spend $47,800. Can the minister tell us exactly what these Purchased Services are, who receives this money, and exactly what this particular amount of the money is allocated and spent on?

As well, Minister, under the same heading, 2.3.02., Executive Support, 10., is Grants and Subsidies. Last year we budgeted $57,800. We only spent $46,100 but this year, Minister, we have pretty close to a 500 per cent increase and we are going to go to $257,800 for Grants and Subsidies. I would like to know what these Grants and Subsidies are, exactly what kind of work they are paid for, who in this Province qualifies under Grants and Subsidies to refuse this money, and what is the criteria for getting a grant and a subsidy? Exactly what is it to be spent on?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Taking the first one, 06., Purchased Services, that is to pay for photocopier charges, printing costs, and this kind of thing, in the particular department, Executive Support, and also for entertainment and professional training. All of these components are taken into consideration.

The Estimates have increased by $20,000 basically this year because it is the Province's turn to host the Conference on Francophone Affairs. By the way, when I was talking about the duties and the things that the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs was involved in, I omitted many smaller issues, but there was a big one that I did not mention and that is the Constitution and the francophone. That comes under the department as well, and it is an area that I enjoy working in, with Quebec in this particular instance. I have a close relationship with Quebec, and over the last eight or ten months I have had a few meetings with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in Quebec and have developed a keen interest in francophone affairs. So, we will be sponsoring the conference. They have an annual conference. The hon. member will be familiar with that, the various conferences that we have, so we are sponsoring the national conference here in Newfoundland this year, and that is what the $20,000 is for. It is for that conference.

Oh, I am sorry, you wanted another. The other one was the Grants and Subsidies. The hon. member said we have gone from, yes, $57,800 to $257,800 this year, and the revised for 2001-2002 was $46,100. He wanted to know why the large increase from what we spent, really, $46,100 to $257,800 in Grants and Subsidies. That, again, is paying for membership into some of the organizations that the Province is in as a result of being a part of Canada. I can list some for the hon. gentleman. For example, there is the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. That is the national Intergovernmental Secretariat and we are a part of that and we pay $35,000 a year to be - so that is the grant. It is not grants to people. We call them Grants and Subsidies. It is what Intergovernmental Affairs have to pay to be members of these various organizations. The New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers' Secretariat, we pay $9,500 a year to be members of that organization. The big one is - and we have just joined it, for the hon. member's information - the Council of Atlantic Premiers. We just joined that in the last eight or ten months. Maybe it might be longer than that, but we haven't paid. We have been sort of debating whether or not we would become full-fledged members. We have been there for some time; I do not know how long we have been there. We have decided that we would pay up our fee, and that is going to cost us in the area of about $200,000 this year, since we haven't paid. So, we are going to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: I beg you pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this something new?

MR. LUSH: Yes, we have been members but we haven't been full-fledged. We haven't been paid-up members. We have been there, and this year we thought, if we are going to be a part of the Atlantic Premiers for promoting Atlantic Canada, for promoting this Province, and we are in this together promoting Atlantic Canada throughout the country, the fee for this year - and I do not think that is an annual fee, but I think it is because we have been there for a couple of years - our fee for this year is going to be upwards of a couple of hundred thousand. That is why that has jumped from that figure of $47,000 to $257,000, to pay the fees that I have talked about; and the $200,000 to belong to the Council of Atlantic Premiers.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Just one question here, minister. What benefits does that derive for the people of our Province? If we are going to pay $200,000, which to me is - I wish I was chairman of an organization that had to pay a membership fee of $200,000. Exactly what benefits are there for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? What benefits do we derive from being part of this organization? Is it really worth $200,000 to be part of it, or is it not?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: It depends on - there are some people who would not subscribe to belonging to that organization. We happen to believe that, yes, it is beneficial; that we are a part of Canada, we are a part of the Atlantic region. You know the Atlantic region, I think most people would agree, is probably the most underdeveloped part of the country.

There was some time before we decided to go it together. I think Premier Smallwood always resisted joining the Atlantic Premiers. I think it was only in the last - I think Premier Wells, maybe, decided he would join it; but we have not paid a fee. We believe that it is better together. We believe that we are better together, working together, than we are working as one. For example, on the offshore, the equalization, Premier Grimes and Premier Hamm decided that they would go together, that they would team up. We do this, promote Atlantic Canada, together on a national basis.

As a matter of fact, I recommend for hon. members, this is a booklet put out by the Council and it is called, Working Together for Atlantic Canada: An Action Plan for Regional Co-operation. It outlines some of the initiatives that this Council will take, the Premiers will take, to try and develop the economy, to make the economy of Atlantic Canada strong and vibrant. This booklet describes some of the things that we have done.

We work together in education. We try to promote education in Atlantic Canada; try to develop and try to train our young people and making sure that we have maximum training for the people of Atlantic Canada. We want to make sure that we have a health care system that is equal to anything else in Canada. We believe - for the Member of Conception Bay South and others - that we can do these things together in a more effective and a more efficient way; that we can tell our story to the rest of Canada in a unified way more than we could just separately. That is the rationale, that is the philosophy.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is certainly an opportunity to make a few comments on the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. I listened with interest as the minister explained the department, and went through the different procedures and things that are involved with his department. I am sure that many people in the Province are not fully familiar with the workings of the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. It is an opportunity here in the House today to ask some questions of the minister, to delve into the different parts of the department and the things that they are involved in. It certainly gives us an opportunity, on this side of the House, to question some of the financial aspects of the department; not only the financial aspects as much as the purpose of the department itself.

I was very pleased to hear the minister talk about his department being a catalyst in forging new alliances with different provinces in the country; to bring concerns, such as education, health, and social services - and instead of operating on our own, as we all know, we are on an island here, but to use that word in another way, to operate on our own and trying to bring concerns of ours to Canada, to Ottawa, and to the powers that be in Ottawa. It is an opportunity to speak as a voice in Atlantic Canada. It is an opportunity to bring the provinces together. The more numbers we have, the stronger our message will be. It was certainly interesting to listen to the minister as he explained the different parts of his department.

I am concerned, a great deal, with not only the relationships that we have, Madam Chair, with different provinces in Atlantic Canada but our relationships within Canada itself. It certainly is something that I would like to make a few comments on in relation to the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs and the work they do in providing a positive relationship and something of a beneficial nature to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Realizing that our time is limited for today - and I know that many members on the opposite side are waiting with interest to what I have to say on that relationship and the concerns that I have with it, especially with the relationship with some members on the other side. You will have to wait now until Monday because I am going to move that we adjourn debate until Monday on this issue.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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 Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Whole on Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have made some 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, I have an announcement to make here, re committees. The Government Services Committee will meet on Monday, April 29, at 9:00 a.m. in the House to review the Estimates of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation and the Social Services Committee will meet at 7:00 p.m. also in the House to review the Estimates of the Department of Human Resources and Employment. It says: please note that the meeting of the Social Services Committee scheduled for 11:00 a.m. to continue the review of the Estimates of the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education has been postponed to Wednesday, May 1, immediately following the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday at 1:30 p.m.