March 21, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 3


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, I would first of all like to introduce to all hon. members our newest Page, Ms Farrah Carrim, who is a student at Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I also would like to welcome to the gallery today, 100 students of Grade IX Social Studies from Holy Trinity High School, Torbay, in the District of Cape St. Francis. They are accompanied by their teachers, Bob Hancott, Jim Moore, Katrina Moores and Rob Belliveau.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we call on Members Statements, the Chair would also like to rule on a couple of issues that have been raised on a number of occasions in the past. Members have raised the question about the application of the Rule of Anticipation.

The Rule is that: "...a matter must not be anticipated if it is contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated, but it may be anticipated if it is contained in an equally or less effective form." That is from Erskine May, Twenty-first Edition, page 327. The rationale behind the rule is to ensure that the time spent in discussion in the House is used effectively. The rule "...is dependent on the same principle as that which forbids the same question from being raised twice within the same session." I refer hon. members to Beauchesne, 6th Edition, Paragraph 512(1).

As was stated in a ruling of the House of Commons in 1936 by Mr. Speaker Casgrain, quoting Campion: "...in applying the anticipation rule preference is given to the discussion which leads to the most effective results and this has established a descending scal

e", House of Commons Debates, February 24th, 1936, page 68. A bill therefore would be more effective than a motion and a motion more effective than a question.

In the House of Assembly in the past, the rule has been strictly applied. For example, a bill on the Order Paper would effectively block questions on the matter being dealt with in the bill. It would theoretically be possible, therefore, to block questions on a given subject by ensuring that a bill relating to the matter was on the Order Paper. Because of this difficulty, many jurisdictions have relaxed the rule. For example, in Ottawa, the Standing Committee on Procedure recommended that the rule be abolished so that questions anticipating Orders of the Day would not be ruled out of order on that basis alone. In other jurisdictions, a question would be blocked only if the bill was scheduled to be debated on the same day or if there was a reasonable probability of the matter being debated on the same day.

Having given the matter considerable thought, and having consulted the authorities and other jurisdictions, the Chair is of the view that the House of Assembly should adopt the practice now being applied in many legislatures, namely that a question will not be ruled out of order if it anticipates a matter set down in the Orders of the Day -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: - unless the matter is debated on the day the question is to be asked.

As well, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, has asked the Chair to consider the party's request for greater recognition in Question Period. We have done some research on the practices in other jurisdictions with respect to the allocation of questions to third parties, and it appears that in many jurisdictions members other than members of the Official Opposition are recognized even if not members of a recognized parliamentary group. The matter is generally decided either by agreement among members or by the Speaker using his or her discretion in a particular setting in which he finds himself. There are no hard and fast rules, and the practice can change as circumstances change.

In our House, as a rule, there has been an average of five questions with a couple of supplementaries asked each day. The Chair believes that it would be fair and appropriate at this time to recognize representatives of the parliamentary group represented by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to assign to him the fourth question each day, and in the future will follow this practice. As circumstances change the matter might have to be reviewed, but for now the Chair will recognize a member of the New Democratic Party once a day to ask the fourth question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This might be an appropriate time as well to remind all hon. members to try to make their questions and answers succinct, to enable the maximum number of questions to be asked. There is a tendency on times for members to make speeches rather than elicit and provide information.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order with respect to a matter which was before the House on Wednesday afternoon, March 15, 2000. In doing so, my objective is to seek clarification of a ruling made by your Honour with regard to a point of order raised by the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it quite clear that my purpose is not to challenge the decision made by the Speaker but to seek clarification relevant to an application of The Sub Judice Convention that will assist all parliamentarians during their deliberations in this House.

Last Wednesday, the Leader of the Opposition, during Question Period, was directing questions to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation regarding tendering practices in his department. Puddister Trading Co. Ltd. has filed an application for judicial review of the manner in which the department conducted the tender.

The Government House Leader rose on a point of order asking the Chair to rule the line of questioning out of order under the provisions of the sub judice convention. The Government House Leader referred to Beauchesne's Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, 6th edition, when he rose on his point of order.

Specifically he noted §409(9) which says "A question cannot deal with a matter that is before a court," and §410(15) which reads, "Questions should not offend the sub judice principle." Although the Government House Leader did not use other references from Beauchesne in making his point of order, I will note that the sub judice convention is covered extensively in §505 to §511.

Much has been said, Mr. Speaker, in this House and in our sister Parliaments in Ottawa and London, regarding the precedents that govern the restrictions and disqualifications or interferences with the right of members to ask questions during Question Period or to participate unfettered in other forms of debate.

To quote the Speaker of the House of Commons in Ottawa on April 14, 1975 when a similar circumstance was being reviewed, he said the following relative to the establishment of a rational approach as to how Question Period should operate. I quote: "I much prefer to take the positive approach of attempting to arrive at a statement of principle within which questions can be put and to reduce to an absolute minimum the negative disqualifications that may limit or restrict a Member's right to do so."

Mr. Speaker, fundamental to the operation of a parliamentary system is our freedom of speech principles, conventions and precedents. Freedom of speech is a basic right without which we would be hampered in the performance of our duties. It permits parliamentarians to refer to any matter, express any opinion as they see fit, and to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the interests of their constituents, their province, or their nation.

This basic parliamentary freedom is, to some extent, limited by the sub judice convention. The central purpose of this convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial or persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House on itself in the interest of justice and fair play. It is important to note, as did the Speaker in the House of Commons on April 29, 1977, that it is a convention and not a rule. Thus parliamentarians are free to disregard it should they so resolve.

This House is not alone in seeking ways to assure all hon. members the widest scope possible in advancing our right to speak openly and unfettered while at the same time assuring that anything we say does not affect negatively the rights of others to a fair trial or an impartial hearing at a tribunal of inquiry.

On December 13, 1976, the House of Commons appointed a Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members. Very specifically, the Committee studied extensively how the rights and immunities of members are affected by the sub judice convention.

This Committee consulted extensively with our Commonwealth parliamentary partners and reviewed precedents in the British and Canadian Houses of Parliament as well as a thorough review of all pertinent research literature.

The Report of this Committee was tabled in the House of Commons in Ottawa on April 29, 1977, by the Speaker. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the House of Commons Journals for that day, and more specifically to pages 720-729.

While I will not mention all twenty-four statements of principle may with regard with the sub judice convention, I will highlight some of the salient points.

The Committee found it difficult to determine what effect a parliamentary discussion would have on "the Court, the jury, the witnesses and parties to an action," but the Committee concluded: "One thing that can be stated with certainty is that the courts in interpreting statutes have no regard for anything that might have been said in the course of parliamentary debate."

Thus, by inference, we can say that any comments that may have been said in this House last week by the Leader of the Opposition in the asking of questions, or the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation in his reply relevant to an application by Puddister Trading Co. Limited for judicial review of a tender, would not have been affected whatsoever by the proceedings in this House.

The sub judice convention has been consistently applied in criminal cases. Criminal cases that are before the courts are outside the purview of the House. This interpretation of the sub judice convention is readily understood and accepted as standard parliamentary practice. Numerous references can be placed before the House where the Speaker, in fulfilling his or her parliamentary duty, has invoked the sub judice convention to protect the interests of all parties to a criminal proceeding.

However, as noted in Beauchesne, §507(1): "No settled practice has been developed in relation to civil cases, as the convention has been applied in some cases but not in others." In §507(2) it reads: "In civil cases the convention does not apply until the matter has reached the trial stage."

Although the sub judice convention was invoked in 1938 in the Canadian House of Commons in order to prevent reference to an action for damages by stockholders of the Grand Trunk Railway, it was not invoked in May 1973 when certain foreclosure proceedings formed the subject of an adjournment debate in Ottawa.

Neither was it invoked in July 1973 in the House of Commons in Ottawa when questions were asked in the House concerning specific tendering practices, the questions being asked based on evidence which had been given by a party to an action then currently being heard in the court.

On February 11, 1976, in the House of Commons in Ottawa, on a matter raised by the Member for Central Nova, Elmer MacKay, the Speaker made the following statement: "...no restriction ought to exist on the right of any member to put questions respecting any matter before the courts particularly those relating to a civil matter, unless and until that matter is at least at trial."

Bearing in mind, Mr. Speaker, the customary practices of the courts and from a reading of the House of Commons Journals relevant to both matters in 1973 and for those debates immediately preceding the February 11, 1976, ruling, it would be some time in the future, if at all, before the tendering practices referred to last week in this House by the Leader of the Opposition would meet the accepted practices for inclusion in those matters protected under the sub judice convention.

I refer again to the 1977 Report of the House of Commons Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members. I wish to quote the entire text of section 22 of the report as found in the Journals of the House of Commons. It reads:

"It is the view of your Committee the justification for the convention has not been established beyond all doubt, although it would not go as far as to recommend that it be totally abolished. Your Committee believes, however, that any modification of the practice should be in the direction of greater flexibility rather than in stricter application.

It is not possible to determine whether or to what extent comments made in Parliament might affect the outcome of a trial or an inquiry. The Chair is seldom in possession of the necessary information to determine whether or not prejudicial effect is likely. It follows that the House should not be unduly fettered by a convention the basis of which is uncertain. On no account should the convention, which has been applied infrequently in years past, come to be regarded as a fixed and binding rule. It is not reasonable, for example, that Parliament should be any more limited in its debates concerning judicial proceedings than the press in reporting such proceedings."

Mr. Speaker, I also note Section 23 of the same report from which I will quote extensively; it specifically deals with the role of the Speaker in the application of the convention. It reads:

"It is submitted that, while there can be no substitute for the discretion of the Chair in the last resort, all Members of the House should share in the responsibility of exercising restraint when it seems to be called for. A Member who feels that there could be a risk of causing prejudice in referring to a particular case or inquiry should refrain from raising the matter. Additionally, a Member who calls for the suppression of discussion of a matter on the grounds of sub judice should be obliged to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Chair that he has reasonable grounds for fearing that a prejudice might result. Should a question to a minister touch upon a matter sub judice, it is likely that the minister involved will have more information concerning the matter than the Speaker. The minister might be better able to judge whether answering the question might cause prejudice. In such a situation, the minister could refuse to answer the question on these grounds, bearing in mind that refusal to answer a question is his prerogative in any event. It is the view of your Committee that the response of the Chair during question period should be minimal as regards the sub-judice convention, and that responsibility should principally rest upon the Member who asks the question and the minister to whom it is addressed."

In section 24, Mr. Speaker, the Committee further commented on the role of the Speaker to say that he should only exercise his discretion to apply the sub judice convention in exceptional cases where it is clear to him that to do otherwise could be harmful to specific individuals and that where there is doubt in the mind of the Chair, a presumption should exist in favour of allowing the debate and against the application of the convention. Furthermore, the Committee noted that prejudice is most likely to occur in respect of criminal cases and in civil cases of defamation where juries are involved.

The application by Puddister Trading Company Limited for judicial review is clearly not a criminal matter. There are no juries involved and the civil matter does not involve defamation of character of individuals.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is insufficient for the Government House Leader to ask the Chair to impose the sub judice convention. He has a responsibility to demonstrate clearly to the Chair how the discussion of a specific matter, in this case the tendering practices of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, would be prejudicial and not therefore in the public interest. Clearly, the Government House Leader did not meet this criteria in raising a point of order last Wednesday.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I seek clarification of your decision on the point of order raised by the Government House Leader on March 15th. In doing so, I acknowledge your exclusive role as the sole arbiter of parliamentary rules in this House. I believe the ruling of March 15th interfered with the accustomed freedoms of speech according to all Members of the House of Assembly and that to let the ruling stand without clarification would not only set a precedent that is inconsistent with current practices in our sister Parliament in Ottawa, but would also set a precedent that is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of sections 505 to 511 of Beauchesne.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I won't take quite as long as the hon. gentleman did in his dissertation to the Speaker. Let me just say that one of the rules of this House that the hon. gentleman should keep in mind is not to attribute motives to any member of this House, as he just did in his closing statements.

His dissertation was a great dissertation until he got to the end, where he had to throw in a little bit of politics and try to question the motives of the Government House Leader. He was great up to that point.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman that there are two sides -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, I did not interrupt you. I sat and listened to you.

Let me just say to the hon. gentleman that I have the right, as does every other member of this House, to raise a point of order when I think somebody is out of order. If I think that asking a question is out of order, I have the right to raise that point of order. That I did and that, I say to the hon. gentleman, I will continue to do as long as it is within the rules of this House; and I used, yes, two rules. I could have gone out and spent a week researching the thing, or had Ottawa on notice researching the thing, or had the Clerk on notice, or had somebody else on notice to research all this, but the truth of the matter is that there is a very simple statement in Beauchesne, very simple, §409.(9) which says: "A question cannot deal with a matter that is before a court."

Now, I don't know how much simpler you can have it than that. It is almost all four-letter words. I raised the issue on that point of order and the Speaker went out and ruled, and came back and said that the hon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, was out of order. It is the right of the Member for Waterford Valley to seek clarification, and it is his right to come in here and put forward dissertations. I have done it myself, as the Leader of the Opposition knows. I have done it myself, when he had to leave this Chamber, and I did it from almost up in the gallery.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to your ruling. I suspect, if I could joke a little here, given the dissertation and the fact that the hon. gentleman must have been up all weekend putting together that dissertation, that it will take you some time.

We look forward to the ruling, we look forward to the clarification, and whatever it is that the Speaker decides after doing that, we, like everybody else in this House, will live with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to comment briefly on the intervention of the Member for Waterford Valley. I think he has a number of important points to make. I think the principal one was clearly that when Your Honour was called upon to make a ruling, the exact nature of the legal proceedings was not quite put before Your Honour by the Government House Leader, and perhaps he did not have them in hand either. I guess it outlines the danger of being forced to make rulings without that in front of you.

I would also urge you, in considering this, to consider the same type of consideration in your first ruling today when you indicated that a practice ought not to restrict questions unless it is absolutely necessary. I look forward to hearing Your Honour's considered opinion on this when you have had time to consider it and do further research.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the Chair will certainly take the points that have been raised by the hon. Member of Waterford Valley under advisement; but on Wednesday of last week when the matter was raised, the hon. minister, I believe, indicated that he would not answer the questions because the matter had been before the court. The Chair recessed briefly to listen to the tapes to see exactly, to review again and to hear the questions again that the hon. member had asked, to see if they were directly related to the contract that, as the Chair understood it at the time, was in front of the courts. Based on that, the Chair ruled that a matter that was before the court ought not to be raised here in Question Period.

I refer hon. members as well - because the minister did say that he would not answer these questions - to Beauchesne §416.(2), "An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon if the answer be refused by the Minister on the ground of the public interest...."

As well, "A Minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for refusing, and insistence on an answer is out of order, with no debate being allowed.... A Member may put a question but has no right to insist upon an answer."

Based upon the information that the Chair had at that time, the Chair made that ruling. The ruling still stands, but I will certainly take the hon. member's points under consideration and review the whole sub judice convention.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want today to congratulate the Town of Gambo for their victory in the 1999 Tidy Town Competition in the 1,000 to 2,500 population category.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: The competition is a joint project of the Newfoundland and Labrador Parks and Recreation Association and the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes, in cooperation with the National Communities in Bloom Committee, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Landscape Architects, and the Federation of Municipalities.

Gambo received a five pitcher plant status in winning this category. The community was evaluated on such features as tidiness, environmental effort, community involvement, landscaped areas, and was recognized for heritage projects such as the tribute to our first Premier, the hon. J.R. Smallwood, as well as the Newfoundland railway.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the citizens and businesses of Gambo for their efforts in making their community one of the tidiest towns in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, March 21, has been designated as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. People across the country and around the world are participating in hundreds of activities to end racism.

To bring local attention to this event, Gonzaga High School, which is a school in my district of St. John's East, has organized its own activity. It is that school's goal to collect hand prints from people within the community. These hand prints are being displayed on a giant canvas in the school for the students and the entire community to see, and hopefully these prints will illustrate the united effort that people are making in the fight against racism.

I would simply like to congratulate the leadership being shown by Gonzaga High School and the students who are involved in this activity with respect to celebrating International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

In speaking with students prior to the House opening this afternoon, an invitation has been made to any Member of the House of Assembly, on either side, to attend Gonzaga High School before 5:00 p.m. this afternoon and to show their support for their very worthwhile cause.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, last week in my reply to the Throne Speech I acknowledged the celebration of the Labrador Winter Games 2000. Today, I would like to acknowledge the participation and sportsmanship of the men and women involved. So, on behalf of my colleagues from Labrador and all those in the House, I offer our congratulations to the Board of Directors, the staff and the volunteers. I also offer congratulations to all the medal winners at this year's games, and I also want to acknowledge the award winners: the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay on winning the Labrador Cup, which is the highest achievement overall combined events; the Community of Nain on winning the best dressed team; the Community of Cartwright for winning the most spirited team; and the Community of Davis Inlet on being the most improved team at the Labrador Winter Games 2000.

As in every games there is always one athlete who stands out in competition and, in the Labrador Winter Games 2000, that award went to Alf Parsons of Labrador City. Mr. Parsons was also the recipient of the outstanding athlete award for the District of Labrador West.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you.

He is no stranger at the Labrador Winter Games, and is known for his high endurance skills in skiing, skating and snowshoeing. He has become a role model to many young athletes and over the years has challenged them to perform their very best.

The most outstanding athlete for the District of Torngat Mountains was awarded to Dawn Marie Rich of Davis Inlet; for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair it was awarded to Dean Burden of Port Hope Simpson; and in the District of Lake Melville it was awarded to Shane Byrne of Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Winter Games bring together young and old from all corners of Labrador. It allows them the opportunity to share in competition and in culture. Today we offer our congratulations to all people involved in the Labrador Winter Games, from the 500 volunteers to the 540 athletes, for it takes a team to make it a success.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to a resident of Labrador City who sadly passed away this weekend. Marie Green resided in Labrador City all of her adult life, and contributed in many ways to our community.

When Marie was forty-one, with the unquestionable support of her husband, Leo, and her children, Marie decided to return to school. She successfully completed three years of high school, while at the same time providing support and advice to younger students. Following high school graduation, Marie attended Carleton University and obtained a degree. She later attended the University of Ottawa and graduated with a degree in law. She then returned to Labrador City and established her own practice.

 

Shortly after setting up her practice, she was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease; however, Marie refused to give up. She lost her voice a year ago and used an electronic link to speak after typing what she wanted to say. Marie provided legal representation for her clients right to the end.

Mr. Speaker, in today's world people of all ages are looking for heroes and mentors. Many times they can be found in our own communities and neighborhoods.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Marie's life is a real example of what we can achieve if we are determined and committed to pursue our dreams.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that a person's life is measured by what they accomplish, not by the number of years they live. If that is true, Marie Green certainly lived longer than her fifty-six years with us.

Marie leaves behind her sons, Leo Jr., and Stephen, daughter Lisa, husband Leo, and a large circle of friends.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I rise today for just a few moments to make some comments on behalf of George and Millie Walsh of Fleur de Lys, who are very good friends of mine. We all know of the tragic death of their daughter just a short while ago.

Over the weekend I spent several hours with the family in their home and they requested that I make these comments today to help them out in a small way, any way we can. They wanted two things. One was to acknowledge the tremendous support they received from all across the Province, and indeed across the country, over 7,000 letters and cards to date, boxes of them in the corner, and they are trying to read every single one of them but they know they cannot respond. They felt so much support from all of these people. There are poems, sketches done by artists, songs, paintings, and they wanted to first of all thank those many people. The age range, they told me, was from a young four-year-old in Bonavista to a ninety-two-year-old lady on the Northern Peninsula. It was far-reaching and, of course, affected a lot of people as we all know.

The second thing they wanted me to do was to thank some members in this House of Assembly. First of all, the Minister of Fisheries; my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: - and the Member for Conception Bay South, who attended the funeral personally. They also wanted me to thank the Premier, who gave a personal message and spoke to Mr. and Mrs. Walsh. They also wanted me to recognize the Member for Torngat, as a person who called them personally and called me. Of course, with the situation in his own district, to respond to them, they really appreciated that.

Today, they asked me to rise in this House and thank members, and indeed people from across the Province, for their support which has helped a lot through this long ordeal that took some twenty-six days; and, of course, it will go on for a long time with this family. I want to thank everybody on behalf of that family.

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is with deepest regret that I inform the House today that the life of Mr. Charlie Phillips of Conception Harbour was lost Saturday night while operating snow- clearing equipment in the Harbour Main area.

Mr. Phillips was a long-term employee of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, with twenty-nine years of service.

It is tragic that Mr. Phillips lost his life while working to make roads safe for others. The department, in conjunction with the RCMP, is currently investigating the accident.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my deepest sympathies to his wife, Rose, and his two children, Leslie and Deirdre. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members when I say our thoughts and prayers are with them.

Thank you.

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

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

I rise on behalf of my colleague, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, who is a personal friend of the Phillips family, who is attending the funeral function. I, too, know some of his family and I want to concur and be associated certainly with the remarks made by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and ask the Speaker, if he could, to send on behalf of all Members of the Legislature our deepest sympathies to the Phillips family.

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

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we, too, offer our deepest sympathies to the family of Mr. Phillips. That is why, in work environments all across this Province, the most important thing is occupational health and safety. The more we are made aware of this, and the more practices we have in place, the less things like this will happen.

From personal experience, I can say that during my years connected with the mining industry, many times I have been faced with visiting the families of people who were tragically killed on the job. I certainly know to some degree what his co-workers and family are going through at this time, and our thoughts are with them.

Thank you.

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

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to update my honourable colleagues about several new developments taking place in our technology sector, which will have a positive impact on our rural communities and rural-based businesses.

Recently, NewTel Communications announced a $40 million network enhancement program, Network 2000, which will enable a total of 310 communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador to benefit from the latest in telecommunications technology. This is in keeping with a commitment NewTel made to government in 1997 to have completed a 100 per cent digital network by the end of 2000. The completion of the upgrade had to be extended slightly, until early 2001, because of emergency upgrades. To date, NewTel has recruited fifty new employees to work on the project.

Mr. Speaker, as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne last week, this is something we have been strongly encouraging the company to do for quite some time, and we are pleased that they are implementing these upgrades.

The Network 2000 program has already begun. The company has told us that they have condensed the implementation from four years to eighteen months, the shortest time frame that is physically possible, given that lines must be upgraded in sequence.

The program is intended to provide enhanced telecommunication services to virtually all areas of our Province during the next two years.

As my hon. colleagues are aware, in many rural communities throughout our Province, network congestion and lack of local dial access to the Internet have been major problems. These concerns were expressed by many people during the Jobs and Growth Consultations last fall, and during the BayBYTES Rural Technology Forum held in Port Blandford last September.

These investments made by NewTel help to address these issues. While the upgrades will take a while to complete, they are an important step in providing rural Newfoundland and Labrador with better service, which is particularly important during emergencies. When completed, the upgrades should also open up new opportunities for rural businesses, especially in our growing technology industry.

Mr. Speaker, these upgrades represent a recognition of the importance of technology to businesses in all areas of our Province. Through Operation ONLINE, an organization that advances and promotes our IT sector, my department is also working to open up new opportunities in rural areas.

Operation ONLINE is currently hosting a series of workshops on starting a new information technology business and on using IT as a business enabler through Internet-based applications and web sites. Conducted in partnership with the Genesis Centre, the Canadian Technology Network and the Y-Enterprise, the first sessions were recently held in the central region and approximately 100 people attended the three workshops.

Operation ONLINE is planning more workshops throughout the Province, with the next series scheduled for the West Coast and the Northern Peninsula at the end of April.

Operation ONLINE is also working with the four Avalon Zonal Boards to develop an e-commerce pilot project. The focus will be mainly for tourism and small manufacturing companies, such as craft producers. To date, thirty companies have been identified to go through the pilot project, which will show them how to use e-commerce for their businesses. When the project is completed, the businesses will be fully e-commerce enabled. The project will also serve as a model for other areas throughout our Province.

Mr. Speaker, the initiatives I have outline today are important steps in further integrating technology into our rural communities. Through these and other initiatives, businesses throughout our Province will be better equipped to use technology to compete in the global arena.

Thank you.

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

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

I would like to congratulate the minister on her new role as PR person for NewTel.

While I recognize the importance of upgraded services in rural areas, not only for emergency purposes but to ensure that businesses in rural areas are online and have equal opportunity as businesses in St. John's, I have to say that I read The Telegram this weekend and I saw the comments by CRTC, how they had to push NewTel to make these upgrades, how they had to pressure NewTel to do it in a quicker period of time. For the minister to stand in her place today and try to take credit for something that NewTel and CRTC have worked out between them is beyond me. How this government try to attach their name to every good news story that happens in this Province, whether they have had any involvement in it or not, is unbelievable.

This government should have been pushing NewTel years ago to upgrade the services to alleviate any emergency concerns in rural areas in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: We have seen stories of how communities have experienced emergencies and emergency response units could not be contacted; how people had to go door to door to notify firefighters to respond to an emergency. This should have been done years ago and your department, minister, should have pushed for this to take place years ago instead of standing in your place today trying to take credit for something that is happening far too late.

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.

We are certainly pleased to see that some progress is being made. Obviously there are terrific deficiencies, particularly in rural Newfoundland, with respect to service, but I too wonder whether this is just a press release for NewTel or the government trying to make up for the fact that since the CRTC has taken control over the regulation of NewTel this government has failed to really take a serious approach to ensuring that this Province has adequate participation at these hearings in Hull, Quebec, hen they are held. They have moved it from the Public Utilities Board, no local control over it, and perhaps the minister can tell this House what she and her government have done to ensure that there has been strong representation before the CRTC by this government about these issues. Obviously in Newfoundland Operation ONLINE is doing great, making great strides, and we are pleased to see that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I am pleased to inform the Legislature that government is providing $1.5 million in provincial funding towards construction of a new $3.5 million, 30-unit Janeway Hostel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am sure they will look forward to hearing more details about it tomorrow in the Budget. They will hear it again tomorrow.

This facility will be located near the new Janeway Hospital which is currently under construction at the Health Sciences complex in St. John's and will replace the services currently provided by the existing hostel at Pleasantville.

The remaining $2 million for this hostel for estimated construction costs will be offset through fund-raising initiatives and revenue from room rentals. The hostel is expected to be operational one year after construction commences. Meanwhile, work is progressing on schedule at the new Janeway Hospital and it is slated to be officially opened this coming September.

We believe it is important for parents and families to be close to their children while they are hospitalized. The hostel will provide families with both a place to stay and a level of comfort in knowing they are near their children while they receive treatment.

Mr. Speaker, this project is just another example of this government's commitment to quality health care services for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Finance got two years out of that announcement, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs got almost three years out of that announcement, and now the new Minister of Health and Community Services is going to try it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a shame.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, what a shame. When the Health Care Corporation said on October 14th in The Telegram in response to my news release: It has been in the plan since 1995 when it was announced, it stated, and it was going to be opened by the fall of this year, they said. That is what they said publicly on the airwaves, the fall of this year.

I want to ask the minister how he can tell us the Janeway is on schedule when they announced in 1995 it was going to be opened the fall of 1998, then the spring of 1999, the fall of 1999, the winter of 2000, and now it is going to be September? Also, how can he say it is on schedule when it was going to be $70 million, then it grew to $100 million, then $130 million, and $135 million, and it is still growing? It is a very inaccurate statement, I say to the minister. I think when you get your new statements, not only should you have them a little current, but you should have them accurate in the process too.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Furlong (inaudible) I remember when!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Regardless how many times it has been announced, it is a much needed facility to be established when the Janeway opens. The hostel is very important, particularly to a hospital that cares for children. I would ask the minister to carefully consider one thing when the hostel does open and that is the cost of staying at the hostel, because it can be very expensive. A lot of times it is for long term. The rate now for a family to stay at the current hostel at the Health Sciences is $60 per night, and most times that involves eating meals at the cafeteria. So I would ask the minister to be really considerate when it comes to establishing the price for the rooms at the hostel and take into the consideration the people of this Province's ability to pay.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform hon. members of the allocation of $725,000 for senior high schools to purchase graphing calculators.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: These calculators are used by teachers and students to enhance mathematic and science programs offered in the school system. This technology will support the delivery of the new senior high mathematics curriculum which was developed conjointly by the Atlantic region. Implementation of this curriculum began last September for a small portion of the student population and will extend to include all grade X students and a small portion of grade XI students in the Province by next September.

While this technology currently exists in some schools in this Province, there is inconsistency from school to school. These new funds will help to level the playing field between small and large schools in the Province. Initially, students were expected to pay for these calculators themselves and now we are covering the cost of those.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that supporting curriculum sometimes goes beyond the traditional approach which was characterized by the supply of only print material. Technology can enhance the quality, depth and breadth of the learning experience and I'm pleased that this government is able to provide the means to purchase it. This expenditure demonstrates this government's continued commitment to providing quality programs to ensure excellence in teaching and learning.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I will make a suggestion to the minister that she lend the Minister of Finance one of those graphing calculators. Maybe he will get the job growth numbers right and will put it out for the Province to see.

Any time you see enhancements in technology in education in this Province we are delighted to see it, but there was something that was mentioned here that I want to make sure the minister follows up on: that the smaller and rural schools also have their share of this technology when it comes to graphing calculators, computers in schools, NewTel communications, anyway you look at it. Make sure that every school - especially in the rural parts of Newfoundland which many times are left out when it comes to enhancements in technology and so on - can avail of these same opportunities that happen in the urban areas of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly welcome the announcement and particularly the fact that government is setting out to ensure that there be -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are particularly pleased that government is underscoring the desire of ensuring that this new technology is available equally to students throughout the Province. That is a very important principle in our schools. Certainly the support for this curriculum effort is to be commended. I hope that the government is equally swift and to the point in delivering a new curriculum in a Newfoundland history course which I know has been announced already, which we look forward to seeing being implemented very shortly.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask hon. members to join me, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in recognizing the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

The General Assembly of the United Nations has designated March 21, 2000 as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador joins with others who are celebrating this day.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for my colleagues when I say that this Province is committed to the belief that equal opportunity and treatment should exist for all people.

The elimination of racism and racial discrimination can be accomplished through understanding and respect for the dignity of all people, and is the social and moral responsibility of each person.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the opportunity to attend a very special event at Memorial University. In an effort to promote public awareness of this important day, Hands Against Discrimination, an organization formed through the School of Social Work at Memorial University and the Association of New Canadians, hosted an interactive display to invite people to make their pledge to end discrimination.

As part of the display, participants were encouraged to place their hands in tole paint, and then place them on a piece of treated canvas. Participants were then asked to sign their name above their hand print as a symbol of their pledge.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take their opportunity to congratulate the organizers of this event. I would also like to repeat their message, and this Province's message, that discrimination is a serious social problem experienced by people worldwide. It is important that we stand up for those who have been discriminated against and those who will be affected by racial discrimination in the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to essentially repeat the comments that were made during the Statements by Members earlier this afternoon, in conjunction with the comments made by the Minister of Justice. Perhaps what may be most appropriate at this time is simply to repeat the following: "Let it never be said by future generations that indifference, cynicism, or selfishness made us fail to live up to our ideals."

That particular expression was made by Nelson Mandela in the year of 1996, and I think it is true that we keep that particular ideal in our minds today as we remember International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, both at the post-secondary level in our community - at the University, as was mentioned by the minister - and, as I indicated earlier, what is taking place in a particular school in our community this afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to join with the minister, and I am sure all hon. members, in condemning racism in our world and in our Province, and underline the fact that we must treat all peoples with understanding and respect. We must avoid stereotypes and judgements based on racial and ethic background.

I think that is particularly important not just in a theoretical way but also in a very practical way in our Province, particularly in terms of how we understand and relate to our Aboriginal peoples as we work with them to resolve problems and build a future for all of us in our Province.

Both of those events - the one at the University, I have already been there, and I am attending the one at Gonzaga - are important events that bring the message home to people throughout the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My question today is for the Premier. The government has a decision report from the C-NOPB, the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, relating to an application from the Hibernia Management Development Corporation to increase annual production from the Hibernia field from 49.5 million barrels to 66 million barrels. That constitutes, as I am sure the Premier is aware, a 33 per cent increase in the depletion rate at the Hibernia field, a 33 per cent increase in the time it will take to further deplete and exhaust that non-renewable resource.

I would like to ask the Premier this: What did the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board request of the Province, or what did they recommend? Did they propose that the Province support this increase, or did they propose to the Province that you reject it out of hand?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the decision thus far, and what has been approved thus far, is the ability of the consortium to raise the daily production rates offshore. There has yet been no decision to lift the annual production rate. That matter is now being looked at by the C-NOPB, and looked at as well by the Minister of Mines and Energy, and I know, in due course, will be looked at by Cabinet.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is a lot closer to decision time than the Premier may be aware. The Province has thirty days to respond to the C-NOPB Decision Report. They have that in their possession. They already have the decision report in their possession. You have thirty days to respond. It is not a lot of time, I say to the Premier, considering the importance of this decision on the provincial economy.

I would like to ask him this: Has the Department of Mines and Energy or Executive Council commissioned any studies whatsoever to determine the impact of faster depletion on this Province? What will it mean in terms of economically, industrial benefits, financially, royalties, et cetera, revenue? And, if so, who is doing the studies? Is it just Executive Council and the Department of Mines and Energy, or have you engaged some outside source?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, all of that analysis is being done under the direction and the guidance and the leadership of the Minister of Mines and Energy, and that information will be brought forward to the appropriate committee of Cabinet to be looked at. We will take the time necessary to do a proper analysis, but all of the issues that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition are the right issues and indeed form part of the package of materials to be considered prior to the Province coming to a decision. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the Province has, at the end of the day, not only the obligation but the right to make its views on this matter clear before any final decision is taken.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I will go one step further, Mr. Speaker. The Province has the right to dictate mode of development. That is the right, it is inherent in the Atlantic Accord, spirit and intent.

One of the conditions, I say to the Premier, that you have attached to Voisey's Bay development, for example - extremely important - is that the company accept a rate of development that extends over a twenty to twenty-five year period, that provides long-term sustainable sort of development for the people of the Province, in revenue to the government, both in jobs and opportunities for people in the Province, and in terms of royalties, I would assume, and taxation from that point of view.

The Atlantic Accord approved a rate of development for the Hibernia development -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will get right to it.

- that would extend the life of benefits for the Hibernia field over a similar period. I want to ask the Premier: What could possibly persuade government, given the track record of the C-NOPB which has not been very good whatsoever with respect to insuring benefits, first consideration benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador, what would persuade government to grant such an increase? Why not reject it out of hand?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and his party may make policy on the fly, but the government does not.

I am very surprised that the policy adopted by the Leader of the Opposition and his party, at the direction and under the leadership of the former Premier, on the question of the transmission line, has not been raised in Question Period yet, even though the House is opened now into its second week.

Mr. Speaker, simply having a declaration that one is going to do something, no matter what the cost - for example, build a transmission line, whether it is to the best interest of the Province or not, whether it is the most efficient or not, whether it brings the most benefits or not, and to do it because it might be politically attractive, even if in the long term it does not make any sense - that may be the way that party opposite makes policy. It is not the way we do it. We are going to take our time, carefully consider all of the issues, and then we will come to a decision. We do not make decisions out of hand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: So the Premier is aware of it, second Question Period. Stick around; we have lots for you, Premier, lots of questions for you. At least I know that at least one Brian I know has his head squared right when it comes to resources in Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the Premier of the Province.

Now, let me ask you this: When it comes to the track record of the C-NOPB - it is an important issue -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: This is an important issue.

I would like to ask the Premier: Would he make a commitment today that, in view of the fact that the Premier said the Minister of Mines and Energy has commissioned studies - they are investigating it, they have thirty days, which is not necessarily thirty days now, it could be less than that - and in view of the long- term implications of such a decision that may be taken, will the Premier, on behalf of government, make a commitment that before you make a decision to approve or disapprove of the board's decision, will you allow a thorough public debate at least to take place in this Legislature on the issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is different. I thought the Leader of the Opposition was going to ask us for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the subject, which is generally the way the Opposition Party has been going these days.

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at all of the issues associated with this question, as the Leader of the Opposition would expect us to. We are going to take our time, because the consequence for Newfoundland and Labrador is long term and serious. We are not going to make up positions out of hand or on the back of an envelope. We are going to go at this in a proper fashion.

The Leader of the Opposition said at least he knows that one Brian has his head squared on right. Well, the Brian he is referring to, I assume, is Brian Peckford. The last time he had a major policy initiative for the future of the Province, it was to grow pickles out in Mount Pearl and turn us into the cucumber capital of all of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we are not interested in that kind of policy development. We really aren't. We want to do things properly and do things right.

When the Leader of the Opposition talks about regimes and long-term consequences, take a look at the Hibernia deal put in place by the last Brian who occupied this chair. That deal gives us half the revenues with double the oil compared to the regime that was negotiated by this government under the Terra Nova package.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. On October 8 last year, I raised the question of whether a new hostel would be built at the new Janeway hospital site to accommodate parents who have to come in from outside the city. The Health Care Corporation responded and said there has always been a plan, from day one, for a new hostel. In fact, the Corporation said it would be a $3 million extension to the existing Agnes Cowan Hostel at the General Hospital site and it will open in the fall of 2000. The plans have been ready, they have indicated, for some time. In fact, since 1998, they indicated. They even faxed to one of the media a copy of those plans when I raised that issue.

I ask the minister: Is yours a re-announcement today rather than an announcement? Is it an actual new announcement of a new $3.5 million for a hostel that is separate from the Agnes Cowan site or is it the one that was announced that is going to be a renovation of the Agnes Cowan Hostel site?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because I know the hon. member likes to have information and facts that are correct, to my knowledge there was never an announcement that the current hostel at the Health Science complex would be renovated or expanded. There was always the intention to have a separate hostel available for the Janeway families of patients who are in the Janeway facility.

The reason there wasn't an announcement before is because today, with the announcement outside the Legislature, and here with a Ministerial Statement, this is the first time that anybody has contributed actual cash to this particular project, $1.5 million today, which I am sure the hon. member is glad we are contributing to the cost of the project, for a total project of $3.5 million. It will be built parallel to the existing hostel. There was a schematic at the press conference today. It shows that it will be connected by a walking, fixed-link tunnel so that people do not have to go outside. They can leave that hostel, go through the existing hostel though a tunnel, and go right into the Janeway to visit with the children who are at that facility.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The vice-president of the Health Care Corporation stated in The Telegram on October 14, and he also stated in the media, over the airwaves, on that day, that has been their plan in place. It is a $3 million extension of the existing Agnes Cowan Hostel. That is why I ask that to the minister, if the Health Care Corporation is on record.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister that if he is not up to scratch on what is happening there he should quickly try to do it in the department.

Guarantees were given that at least the entire professional staff who are going to be working at the new Janeway will be dedicated to patients in that facility. Recently, the Health Care Corporation has been talking to the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union about changing that guarantee. I just want to ask the minister: Will he repeat the assurance that the Janeway will have a dedicated professional staff for all medical services at the new Janeway hospital?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the level of research that the hon. member puts into the questions. I can only refer him to the letter to the editor in today's copy of The Telegram from Sister Elizabeth which outlines that the Janeway will be a separate facility. Even though it is physically linked and on the same property, there will be a separate facility dedicated to the needs of children in Newfoundland and Labrador. A children's hospital, the Janeway Hospital, will just move to a new site.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

Victims of violence such as rape, assault and spousal abuse, in most Labrador communities, have nowhere to turn. They do not have shelters. In many cases if there is abuse - and lots of times the perpetrators are aware of this - the police cannot get in for three or four days. The group, Labradorians for peaceful communities, has been working to educate government about the need to provide funding this year to address the problem. So far their biggest obstacle has been to get the members to listen. Will this government now commit to provide full funding this year, under the provincial strategy against violence, for the Labrador region?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the announcement we made last week on the Province's strategy for violence prevention indicated at the time that we were working very closely with the regional coordinating committee in Labrador, and they are doing some very fine work in bringing together all of the stakeholders throughout Labrador to try and address this very serious and complex issue. We indicated at the time that we were looking at special measures to support the efforts of this group, to determine what their needs are and to support the work that they are doing. We also indicated at that time that of course there was another very separate initiative, which was underway through the Premier himself, to try and address some of the serious social issues that exist in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are paying very close attention to the needs of Labrador. We have earmarked special funds to support the work that the committee is doing there. I have communicated with the individuals who are involved in the committee, who are working on this, as late as last week through my office, through the Women's Policy office, and I believe they have every assurance that the work they are trying to do over the coming months will be fully supported by this government.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: That certainly contradicts the contents of a letter I have a copy of here from Shirley Squires. They have all met and she has stated that she has not heard from anybody. She has received one acknowledgment and that has been from the Premier. What she is saying is they need full funding this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and I ask her to get to her question.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: That was quoting her. On March 13 the strategy announced funding for Central, Western and Eastern Avalon regions, while the massive oversized Labrador region is not going to come on stream until next year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Will the minister clarify? Have you now just said that Labrador will be on stream this year as they have requested?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, just after this announcement was made there were some questions that were posed by the media with respect to Labrador to try and clarify this issue, and at that time I did make a public statement through the media. What I indicated was what I have just indicated to the member in response to her original question.

We have been in contact with the people who are working on the committee against violence in Labrador. We know what their strategy is for the coming months and we have been working very closely with them to design that strategy. We have put in place the appropriate funding to support their efforts over the coming months. In addition to that, of course, there are the other initiatives which are being undertaken under the Premier's attention. So I have certainly followed through with the members of the committee to provide them with this information, to clarify the misinterpretation that existed last week around this subject. As I indicate, members of the regional coordinating committee now understand that the efforts they have underway, the plans they have made, will be able to be supported, where there will be sufficient financial resources in place for them to carry through with their plans into the next year.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier regarding the funding for health care in the federal budget. The Minister of Finance has produced one dollar of tax relief for every two cents being offered to health care in this country. I want to ask the Premier whether he has any confidence that the federal government will in fact respond to the actual number one priority of Canadians which is our health care system and not continue to show their lack of priority by giving fifty times as much to tax relief as the health care system?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, ce n'est pas vrai.

The question is a serious one and it deserves a serious answer. I believe the Government of Canada has now engaged in a process that will lead, and must lead, to more funding for the health care system of Canada. As you know, there is a meeting of ministers of health at the end of this month. There is a second meeting scheduled for May. The Prime Minister on the weekend just past at his party's annual convention has indicated that there will be a First Ministers meeting to follow these two meetings, and others if they are required of the health ministers. The Prime Minister has indicated over the last forty-eight to seventy-two hours that there is also a need for more funds.

So I concur with the Leader of the NDP when he says that any country that can afford a measure of tax relief such as that which was contained in the last Budget can afford to put more into health care as well. I believe it is possible in this country, given the projected surpluses, to do both, to both have a fair measure of tax relief and at the same time to sustain and afford a publicly accessible health care system in Canada.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Both the Prime Minister and this Premier are on record as saying that under-funding of health care is the road to a private two-tiered health care system. I would like to ask the Premier to state to the people of Newfoundland unequivocally and absolutely that his government will not go down that path of requiring patients to pay for health care in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can give an absolutely clear and unequivocal commitment on behalf of everybody on this side of the House - I would suspect on behalf of members of the House generally - that there will be no introduction of two-tier privatized health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, not now and not ever. It simply won't happen.

I would go one step further, and that is to remind us all that the health care issue and the commitment to quality health care is not really a partisan issue. The member knows - he is the Leader of the New Democratic Party - that in the Province of British Columbia the NDP government there is struggling to deal with the issue of maintaining a quality health care system. In the Province of Saskatchewan, an NDP government has closed over the last number of years fifty hospital or community health based facilities trying to find efficiencies.

The fact is, health care has been increasing at about 8 per cent to 10 per cent a year over the last four or five years and no government anywhere can afford to sustain a health care system whose costs are growing at that pace. So on the one hand we need to have enough money to sustain the system, but on the other hand we need to find efficient management systems and a way of delivering services that are affordable over the long term.

People do not want us to simply throw money at the problem, although it requires more money; they also want us to run the system in an efficient manner. That is what we are going to do and the Minister of Finance will go a considerable ways towards setting the template for that direction on behalf of all of the members of government tomorrow with his Budget.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Environment and they are regarding the proposed sites for schools at the Four Bay Road location in Milltown where parents are concerned about having the school built under a dam, and in Arnold's Cove where parents are concerned about their children attending a school being built under the pollution of an oil refinery smoke stack.

Minister, I am asking will you conduct a full environmental assessment that will take into account the concerns, both safety and environmental, of the parents in these areas?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the first part of the question that was asked by my critic across the House regarding Bay d'Espoir, there has been no decision made by the board as to where the school will be, what the location would be, and until such time as a particular location has been arrived at by the board, duly elected by the people in that area, then there is nothing in a sense for the Department of Environment to do.

On the other situation in Arnold's Cove, I want to remind the member opposite that there is now a school in Arnold's Cove. It has been there for years. There is a senior citizens' home existing already in Arnold's Cove. That has been there for years. I also want to say to him, as a part of the last certification of operation between ourselves and the refinery at Come By Chance, increased monitoring has been put in place to monitor and test. If there was an inquiry to be done today for that, an environmental assessment, then it would give us no more information than we already have. What I want to say to him as well is that the school board has already been in contact with the Department of Health and has addressed that particular issue. There is nothing that would prevent that particular school from going in Arnold's Cove.

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

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

Minister, many parents would not choose to build their home in an area under a smoke stack or in an area of high pollution. People have a choice. When government builds schools in areas such as these, families have no choice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with his supplementary.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, families are compelled to take their children where schools are built. Clearly, there are conflicting views on health and safety in this particular area in Arnold's Cove. Are you prepared to force parents to have their children attend this school and possibly the school in Milltown, should that be the chosen site, where they feel their children would be at risk?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said earlier, there has been no decision made as to what is going to happen in Bay d'Espoir. So it is hypothetical for anything that the school board - I think they are going to make a decision next Tuesday, March 28. At that particular time we will know what the site is going to be allocating for the school in Bay d'Espoir.

When it comes to the situation in Arnold's Cove, the Department of Health has been involved with our department and there is no reason why the school cannot be built in Arnold's Cove.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: My questions today, Mr. Speaker, are for the Minister of Education. Minister, the government promised in the Speech from the Throne to respond quickly to the recommendations of the ministerial panel on education delivery. How quickly will you respond, minister, and will there be funding in tomorrow's Budget to fully implement the panel's recommendations?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I have already said publicly that the report by the ministerial panel on education delivery in the classroom has been delayed by a month. We expect to have it now by the end of March. However, there were some recommendations that needed to be taken into consideration in terms of planning for the Budget. The co-chairs of the panel did deal with those recommendations so that I would be in a position to speak to my colleagues about the needs for the upcoming school year.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Again I say to the minister, you have met with Dr. Sparkes and Dr. Williams and they have briefed you and your officials on recommendations they will present in this published report. You have had time to respond. There is something coming down in the Budget but again, I say to the minister, the ministerial panel on education delivery has been delayed. We have seen reports before being delayed. I am asking you, are you using this delay in finalizing the report for publication simply as an excuse for doing nothing for another year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the hon. member in such a good mood at the beginning of this week after St. Paddy's Day.

We are hiding absolutely nothing. We are delaying absolutely nothing. In fact, the timetable given to the co-chairs to get back to us with respect to the report was very tight. In fact, they had many more consultations than they had anticipated and wanted to make sure that anyone who wanted to have an input in this process were able to do so. That has happened. The panel will in fact be giving me their report at the end of March. I do not have their report. I am not using this time to rewrite anything. Clearly, the completed report will be brought to my office at the end of March.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I say to the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, I read your comments in The Telegram and you were very enthusiastic, glowing about the wonderful meeting you had with the Minister of HRD, while you were on your trip to Ottawa to endorse another person sitting on the opposite side with his aspirations.

In his meeting with Jane Stewart when he talked about giving the intensity rule for EI change, I ask the minister: When will the unemployed people in this Province start seeing those improved benefits on their EI cheque?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: Yes, my second question.

I'm very happy to be able to report to the House that the delegation from our Province had a very successful few days in Ottawa over the past weekend. We were able to persuade the Prime Minister of the country to do something to fix the UI program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: We were able to persuade the governing party of this Province to pass a resolution calling for the elimination of the intensity provision from the Employment Insurance Act -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: - and the delegation of the Minister for Development and Rural Renewal, the Member for Topsail and the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace and myself had a very successful meeting with the Minister of Human Resource Development and persuaded her to come down to our Province in the next few weeks and to help us work out ways to improve the employment insurance system in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 39 of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992, I hereby table the 1998-1999 Annual Report of the RNC Public Complaints Commission.

As well, in accordance with section 13 of the Auditor General's Act, 1991, I hereby table the Annual Report of the Auditor General on the audit of the financial statements of the Province and her report on the reviews of departments and Crown agencies for the year ending March 31, 1999.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 3.

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion: that this House approves, in general, the budgetary policy of this government.

That should not be a problem.

Petitions

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise and present a petition signed by between 11,000 and 12,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: People who are prepared to voice their position and concern in support of the public service pensioners of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, members of the Public Service Pensioners Association have on many occasions in the past - both publicly through the media and through a variety of demonstrations in the lobby of this building - attempted to show and indicate to this government exactly why changes have to made to support their cause; to support the causes of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have through their careers, and through the civil service of this Province, on behalf of a variety of governments, dedicated their lives, but yet regardless of what is said this government simply does not get it.

The people of this Province - not members of the Public Service Pensioners Association, not public pensioners in any way but ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - some 11,000 to 12,000 of them, have signed petitions in support of their fellow Newfoundlanders who are public service pensioners and who are saying to this government: If you will not listen to members of the Public Service Pensioners Association and public service members themselves, will you at least listen to ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are prepared to go to bat on their behalf?

That is what this petition is all about. It is an important petition, because all too often in response to petitions and claims being made by the Public Service Pensioners Association itself the Minister of Finance, in particular, will stand up and say: What about other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, members of the general public who in no way are associated with the public service pension movement, how about them, the members of the public at large? They have contributed; we have to protect them.

I say, Mr. Speaker, no more do we want to hear that defense because today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - as is shown, demonstrated and exemplified by the signatures of between 11,000 and 12,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they are on side with the public service pension movement, with the Public Service Pensioners Association. They are asking that their -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - cry be heard and that, Mr. Speaker, their concerns be addressed. I say to the minister it is not too late. He still has approximately twenty-four hours to revise tomorrow's Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Hopefully, it will be addressed but if not, listen to ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who make a claim on their behalf.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people in my district, particularly in the area of Harry's Harbour-Jackson's Cove. The petition reads as follows:

WHEREAS the deplorable unfit condition of the road to Harry's Harbour-Jackson's Cove makes traveling to and from school unsafe for school children; and

WHEREAS the road conditions jeopardize the safety of the general public and betrays a lack of commitment to the rural areas of our Province;

THEREFORE we the undersigned residents of Harry's Harbour-Jackson's Cove in the District of Baie Verte do hereby petition the government to upgrade and pave the road to Harry's Harbour-Jackson's Cove.

Mr. Speaker, this is not new. These are petitions that these people have been sending me for some time. I presented more in the House last year and I am going to continue to do the same as they ask for them. I will say that these people did have a delegation travel to St. John's, a seven-hour drive to sit down with the minister, and we did have a very good meeting. They made sure they brought their point forward that, simply put, here in the year 2000, fifty years after Confederation, we have gravel roads. Not the second lot of pavement, not the first lot, none, zero, in a district where we still see a gravel road. It is now at a state where even the grader operators who come down to grade the roads are saying it is waste of time even to grade it because there is nothing left to grade. There is nothing (inaudible) the road left there.

The hon. MP for the area, George Baker, was in the area not so long ago and luckily for us and for the residents there he saw first hand what the road was like. It happened to be a wet, rainy night and Mr. Baker - thank God it did not happen - almost had an accident on that particular route. He saw first-hand, when his car was up to its axles in mud and almost went off the road, what the conditions are like in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister is listening to the pleas of the people of Harry's Harbour and Jacksons Cove. I think it is pretty straightforward, for any member in this House, that anybody who has to be screaming and shouting this day and age, in the year 2000, for their first bit of pavement after fifty years of being a Province of Canada, there is something wrong.

These people are pleading again. I am proud that they continue their lobby with petitions and meetings with myself, and I will continue to support them. I do believe they should be a priority, in paving. I will repeat it again, a priority, when you talk about gravel roads still in the Province.

They are worried about their children who have to travel some seventeen or eighteen kilometers over gravel road to go to school, with school buses that have no seat belts. We have all seen the fears of that lately, and we should do something about it before it is too late, before we have a serious accident there, and for people in general.

Also, they mention about tourism and economic development in their towns. We are trying to provide some economic relief for that area soon; but these people, I think, have a legitimate, serious, straightforward concern that in this day and age, in this Province, that any government looking at this budget this year should look and make sure that there is enough funding, not pittance, which it has been for the last two or three years, to take care of a problem that is brewing in this Province, that is going to come to a crisis situation very soon if we do not start to put more funding into the provincial roads program for this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. Member for Waterford Valley, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the public galleries today, Mr. John Reynolds, a former Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia and now the Member of Parliament for that Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to present a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The prayer of the petition is relative to the public service pensioners. It says:

WHEREAS the Government of this Province has historically protected its pensioners against inflation by providing increases to pension benefits that mirror those negotiated by the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees - that is NAPE - for its members currently employed by the government; and

WHEREAS the government of this Province arbitrary and unilaterally abandoned this practice in 1989; and

WHEREAS the government of this Province has made no alternative provision such as indexation to protect future pensioners from the ravages of inflation; and

WHEREAS NAPE believes the Public Service Pension Plan is funded at a level that would allow: (1) an increase immediately for current pensioners; and (2) indexation for current and future pensioners with no increase in contributions required; and

WHEREAS the government of this Province has a financial obligation to the Public Service Pension Plan that it has not met;

THEREFORE, we the undersigned call upon the government to: (1) meet immediately with the representatives of NAPE to negotatiate an immediate increase for current pensioners; and (2) to agree to enter into negotiations with NAPE regarding indexation of current and future pensions with no increases in contributions.

Mr. Speaker, we in this House have been receiving petitions in the last number of days. Approximately 100 petitioners have signed this particular petition we are presenting now. We anticipate that there will be many more petitioners that will send their petitions to this House to be heard by the people's representatives.

Mr. Speaker, we want to remind the government that these petitioners have themselves come to the House of Assembly. They have stood in the lobby of this Legislature and they have said: Would you please listen to us?

About 900 of these retired public service pensioners receive less than $3,600 annually by way of pension benefits. That is less than $300 per month. Another approximately 2,200 receive less than $400 per pay period. The average public service pension is approximately $11,000. That is less than $1,000 per month. There are about 14,000 former public servant employees out there, in retirement, receiving their income through the Public Service Pension Plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the hon. minister, he keeps interrupting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: He should be listening to what the people are saying, and not trying to interject a lot of nonsense into this debate.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition, a petition with 2,000 names on it. I think the prayer of the petition will be something that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian can relate to. It is very simple and it is very brief. I had it cleared with the Clerk, and he does not see any problem with it.

The prayer of the petition reads: Remove the HST from heat and lights.

We, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, believe that heat and light are just as essential as food on the table. We hereby petition to have the HST removed from residential electrical rates and home heating fuels.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that has been circulated in the Bonavista Bay, Trinity Bay area. It is something that strikes every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. In fact, I would guess that the Minister of Finance has probably had more calls with the plea to: Step in Mr. Government, step in Mr. Minister, and reduce the HST - which is something that the minister is capable of doing - on home heating fuel and on gasoline.

Here is a situation in this Province today, that we are experiencing heating fuel at double the cost that it was this time last year. Gasoline has gone through the roof. I don't see how people on a fixed income, I don't see how senior citizens or people on social services today in this Province, can reach into their pocket and come up with an extra $100 or $200 in order to pay the fuel bill.

What is happening, and I say to the minister and I say this to give a warning, what you are seeing today - and I have witnessed it myself in rural parts of Newfoundland - is that people are going out and putting in wood stoves now. They are putting in wood stoves and they are putting in makeshift heating appliances in order to provide some degree of comfort in their house. It is not uncommon to go to a basement and see a wood stove and see a piece of funnel going out through the basement wall, I say to the minister. You know what happens when night time comes, when people go to bed. The wood stove is stacked up, people go to bed, and I fear of what might happen if something does not happen in order to reduce the taxes at least on heating fuel and gasoline taxes in this Province, and electricity.

When she came in, the lady who presented the petition, talked about some solutions. I asked her what she would suggest might be a solution for this, because obviously it does not affect everybody to the same extent as it affects those people on a much lower income. She talked about maybe applying a surtax if they had to; apply a surtax where people who are receiving a higher income maybe would not mind paying a few extra dollars. She was one of the people who was probably in the $35,000 or $40,000 a year salary scale. Her comments to me were: I don't mind paying a few extra dollars. I am a social worker, and I see the hurt and I see the need out there in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today with the increase in this fuel cost.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion 1. .

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

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

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 2001. By way of Interim Supply, and in accordance with the provision of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:

A. M. House, Lieutenant-Governor.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together with a bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The last day that the House sat, it being March 15, I introduced to the House, Bill 2, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For the Financial Year Ending March 31, 2001.

The issue, of course, of asking for Interim Supply in the House of Assembly is nothing new. The purpose for it, of course, is well known to all of us who have been in the Legislature in past sittings, and indeed who have been following how governments traditionally operate over the many, many years of British parliamentary tradition.

As the hon. members will know, the fiscal year of government ends March 31st and a new fiscal year begins April 1st , the day after March 31st . In order for business to be able to be continued by government on behalf of the people of the Province in the provision of public services that are ongoing, and that sort of thing, in order to be able to meet payrolls, in order to be able to disperse sums of money to pay our bills - I say our bills; I speak on behalf of the people of the Province, because we are really trustees in their name for the purpose of doing government on their behalf - we need to have the ability to flow cash out of the new Budget that has not yet been presented in the House.

The Budget, as you know, will come down tomorrow at 2:00 in the afternoon, and it will provide the basis and outline the fiscal framework and enunciate the fiscal policies of government for the coming year. Before we can actually spend money out of that Budget, the Budget has to be passed in the House. That, of course, will not happen between now and March 31. Therefore, the tradition of Interim Supply - I say to the hon. Member of Cape St. Francis that if he is of mind to speak to the members on the other side to expedite the passing of the Budget, we would be prepared to engage him on that account. The fact of the matter is that there are up to seventy-five hours allowed for budgetary debate, and realistically the Budget will not be passed before the end of this month.

All of that to say that Interim Supply is a necessity. The bill was introduced in the House four or five days ago, and I am asking the support of the House of Assembly to ensure that we get Interim Supply passed in sufficient time so as to be able to let the affairs of government to be continued uninterrupted. That, of course, is the whole purpose of Interim Supply.

The bill outlines basically all of the expenditures for about a three month period that will be covered in this Interim Supply bill. Hopefully, we will not be here three months before the Budget is passed, but in order to have greater certainty and to ensure that we do not have to come back and do Interim Supply again, we traditionally, in the British parliamentary system, ask for about three months Interim Supply.

Those are, I think, the only comments necessary on my account to lead off the debate on Interim Supply. As I say, I am looking for the support of the Members of the House on behalf of government, and I am sure that they will find it in their hearts, and I am sure they will find it in their generous spirits, and I am sure they will find it in the interest of the efficiency of both this House and the execution of government, to, in a timely manner, see that the Interim Supply bill is passed so that we can carry on with other business, principally the Budget Debate, which will, of course, commence after the Budget is brought down tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make those comments.

Having seen my hon. colleague over on the other side of the House rise to want to speak in this, I am of two minds of whether or not to carry on, or whether or not to sit down and listen to his eloquence. I am going to defer on the side of caution and graciousness, and I am going to be seated and listen to the eloquence of the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, my critic, a man whom I have great respect for, and a man whom I am sure we will hear lots from once we get into the Budget Debate in a more full-blown fashion.

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

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

I say to the Minister of Finance, praise will get you nowhere with me. The bare facts will hold water with myself. As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, I take a careful look at the Budget, at what is being requested now. We had the Auditor General's report come down today, and in due course, after I am speaking here for an extra little while, I will have a close look at that and bring that forward to the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the minister - oh, he is gone. Never mind, I cannot refer to anybody who is not in the House. I will have to wait until he comes back. It is just something in passing.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't you worry about it. It will happen. I am sure he will be back in due course, I say to the Government House Leader.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to say a few words on this Interim Supply bill, of course. The minister is right with respect to the issue of the Interim Supply bill coming before the House around this time each year, although it is a bit later than normal, but it is a requirement, of course, that we get this through this House before March 31st. There are no guarantees on that, and members on this side of the House have a lot to say with respect to this bill, Interim Supply bill as it is referred to, and the way this government is wasting their money. They are wasting their money, and I will get into that in due course when the Budget is brought down tomorrow and in the following days to that. I am planning on saying a few words on the Budget, too, Mr. Chairman. I am sure it will be very interesting for members on that side of the House to listen to.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to stay fifteen or twenty minutes on this today. One of things I notice, of course, is that for the continuation of the normal operations of the Province, Newfoundland and Labrador, we do need to pass this Interim Supply bill; because people within the civil service and Crown corporations and what have you will not get their pay cheques.

It is interesting to note, there have been questions asked of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs - one today actually, and one some time. I had a question: What does he do?

I noticed in this request today, in the Interim Supply bill, I say to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, when I was going down through this list, I did not see any money there for yourself or for your department.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say the minister is very economical, as he is singing out across the House, or he does nothing, or it is going to be disbanded. There is no Minister of Intergovernmental -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He just got the EI straightened out. Is that what he said? It changed.

When the minister was on his feet today, talking about EI, and he was asked questions from the Member for Bonavista South, he got up and he was roaring on about all that he has accomplished in Ottawa this past weekend. No details. That is typical for this Administration, and he is taking a good lesson from the Premier: Get up and talk, talk, talk, talk and say nothing; but he would not give us any details of what the changes are that he has accomplished. There were no details. So maybe a further question to the minister. He may want to get up and talk on the Interim Supply bill, and give us the details of how the changes being made, or are going to be made, will benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to the EI program.

MR. NOEL: It takes a little while (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It takes awhile for that to filter through. Well, I say to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, that is true because we saw today the Minister of Health up answering a question about the hostel for the Janeway Hospital that was announced five years ago. It took five years to get a few bucks for the hostel. Talking about being late on issues, they are always late.

One other thing that I find very interesting: The Premier was on his feet today talking about a question with respect to the Hibernia project. He stated to get on about the - how will I put it? - benefits that this Administration has brought with respect to the Hibernia project.

The Premier should remember a few years ago, that only for the Tory administration in Ottawa, and John Crosbie when he was there, that the Hibernia - Jean Chrétien and a few more of them wanted to scrap the Hibernia project when the oil company pulled out and they needed to find another shareholder. I think Petro Canada went in at the time. Was it Petro Canada?

AN HON. MEMBER: For 8 per cent.

MR. J. BYRNE: For 8 per cent. Only for the Tory government in Ottawa and the Tory government here years ago when Peckford was here, and the deals that they cut, that this Administration - and we saw it today when the Minister of Education was on her feet trying to take glory for something that they had nothing to do with.

I am going to get into this now with respect to the Budget and this Interim Supply, because the Budget is coming down tomorrow. We had the Minister of Finance in the media talking about health care, and there is going to be money in it for health care. Now, Mr. Chairman, what do we know about health care in this Province? What do we know about the Premier of this Province and health care?

As I said today when he was up answering a question - I made a comment with respect to the issue that he is on to. Last night on CBC, they did a story about the Premier and his political ambitions, his future political ambitions more so than what he has - what he is saying is, he is trying to play it down with respect to the Prime Minister's job of the country.

We know, and I said it last night when I was interviewed, what he is trying to do now today, and in Ottawa in the past while, is get a national issue; and health care is the one that he is planning on attaching himself to.

I have to question that, because I find it ironic. I find it a bit of a contradiction that this Premier would be the one now who is going to try and put himself out in front as Captain Canada on health care. Here was the Premier of the Province today, a former minister in the Chrétien government for a number of years, sitting around the table making decisions of cutting transfer payments to this Province, something like $125 million a year cut, and now he is going to be the hero; he is planning on being the hero. Not likely, Mr. Chairman.

After the federal budget came down, we saw the Minister of Finance in the media saying what a great budget it was for Newfoundland and Labrador. A few hours after, what do we see? The Premier of the Province saying: No, it is not that good a deal because of the health care.

That was his first dose of reality with respect to health care in the Province. He saw an opportunity, as he so often does, and he said: This is it. I will grab onto that now and I will make political hay with health care in the Province and across the country.

MR. SULLIVAN: Health care is in great shape, he said.

MR. J. BYRNE: He said health care was in great shape. The former Minister of Health, the present Minister of Municipal Affairs - when the Member for Ferryland, the critic for health, asked questions in this House, question after question after question this past two or three years, she was always on the defensive saying what a good job was being done in health care. How could it be when they were cutting millions and millions of dollars?

MR. SULLIVAN: Fearmongering.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, the word fearmongering was a favourite word from the Minister of Health and the Premier of the Province, fearmongering. So what is he doing now? Is he fearmongering with respect to health care across the country? Is that what he is up to? Is that what he is saying, Mr. Chairman? It is only his own words.

We saw, for health care in the Province to today - Loyola, health care - I think we are getting something like $10 million? Ten million dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Eleven million, I stand corrected. Eleven million dollars for health care this year, $11 million next year, $11 million after that. That is what is planned, $44 million. What do we have this Administration doing? The same thing they have done over the past few years with respect to health care.

MR. SULLIVAN: The $44 million we were getting last year.

MR. J. BYRNE: The $44 million, they are taking it -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, that is this thing. They are taking $44 million now up front to help with the Budget this year.

My concern, of course, with that is this: If he takes $44 million this year and there is no money forthcoming in the following years from Martin, Chrétien, and a few of the boys up along, where does that leave us?

The Minister of Health said - I think it was the Minister of Health - they are taking a gamble on this; but I think, Mr. Chairman, they are gambling too much.

Last year or the year before, the past few years now, they have taken something like $50 million or $60 million out of the South Coast ferry, that was supposed to be there for years and years, to be used over the many years to pay for the South Coast ferry system. The interest from that would be utilized to pay for the ferry system. They took $50 million or $60 million out of that up front and a few years down the road we will not have that money to put into the budget.

Then we had Term 29. They took another lump sum, tens of millions of dollars out of that up front. It was supposed to be pro-rated over so many years. We will not have that. We had this one now this year, the health care, $44 million. What happens a few years down the road when the government comes looking for Interim Supply to be approved, when there is no money there, when the cash crunch comes?

My problem with all of this is that we have a Premier today who is the chief financial officer, I suppose you could look at it that way, or the CEO of the Province, who is at the helm and this is where they are steering the boat. They are taking all of this money up front, and in a year or two down the road, depending on how politics plays out in Ottawa - if John Chrétien decides to stay, he may hang her down for a couple of years, and then we have the Premier going after the federal leadership of the Liberal Party, and if Mr. Martin decides to go on...

What we are seeing here is that - from my perspective anyway - the present-day government in this Province, led by Mr. Tobin, is taking the short-term view on these budgets. When the cash crunch comes a few years down the road, will the Premier be here to face it?

After the next election we are not planning that he would be here anyway, but in the short term, if we have three years before another election - actually we could go four years - so, two years down the road, if he is out of here, deciding to move on to Ottawa again, then where does that leave the people of this Province? The people of this Province should not have to suffer for the ambitions of the Premier of this Province.

Not to knock him from one perspective, Mr. Chairman, I would love to have a Newfoundlander as Prime Minister of the country. I would love to see it, but we have to look at reality. We have a Premier here now who is taking French lessons.

I saw him last night on the television, on the special that was done on him, twenty-five minutes. The girl asked him a question in French and he said: Not today.

Therefore, I think - it might be a long shot, but my concern is that the budget of this Province, the short-term view is being taken. They are taking money up front from different areas, that will not be there in future years, that was supposed to be there to help balance the budget. That is just one issue, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is your time up?

MR. J. BYRNE: Not likely, I say to Sir Gisborne of Bellevue. My time is not up.

Here we had a Ministerial Statement from the Minister of Finance, Lloyd Matthews, the minister's comments on meetings with Paul Martin. This is dated March 21st. What is today, I wonder?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: March 21st.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, most definitely. None at all. That was straightened up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the member, not a problem. I handled that. I got my towns together on that; don't you worry about it.

Anyway, the minister said it was a good opportunity to sit and talk about his important issues to Newfoundland and Labrador. We spoke about -

MR. EFFORD: His district has all the problems (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It is your district that has the problem, Sir, not mine. I handle my district alright.

We spoke about the need for additional health care funding, the disadvantage of a per capita funding.

Listen to this: The Minister of Finance of this Province is talking about the disadvantage of a per capita funding. It was my understanding - correct me if I am wrong, I say, Mr. Chairman;

I stand here before thirty-one members on that side of the House, making a statement - they are talking about a per capita funding being a disadvantage for this Province. It used to be that the transfer of payments to the provinces was on a needs basis formula.

This Premier sat around the Cabinet table with Jean Chrétien, who is the Prime Minister, when they changed it to a per capita basis, and he agreed with it. He, a federal minister, in agreement. He is now the Premier, and we have the Minister of Finance now saying that is a disadvantage and they are trying to change it. Why did he let it change in the first place? Why isn't he making more noise when it comes to the federal budget and the implications it is having on this Province? Because he has his ambitions.

The equalizations payments - I am going to get into a lot more detail on many of these issues when the Budget comes down and we get to speak about the Budget. I am looking, with anticipation, with respect to the Budget tomorrow. It is the first budget by the new minister and, as I said before -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Who?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, thank you.

The policies, again: We have this Administration - I have to talk about this because every action that this Administration takes, or the actions they do not take, really has an impact upon the finances of the people of this Province. It has an impact upon how much money the people of this Province have in their pocket. It has an impact upon how much money they can spend, how much money they can spend on food in the Province, how much money is spent on heat and fuel -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will go another ten. Then I will sit down for the day.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: If the hon. gentlemen would promise me that the Member for Waterford Valley will not get up, he can go on from now until the last day of speaking. I can guarantee you right now, because if there is anybody who drives me nuts in this House, that's it.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Again, just to comment on that point of order - another one for the record. Since I have been in this House of Assembly and he has been here, he may have had two points of order correct, and I am sure he is hitting hundreds.

One of the points I want to talk about is this Administration and the impact that their actions and non-actions have on the people of this Province. Now, we can talk about the public service pensioners; we can talk about the price of gas - and, as a matter of fact, I will.

The gas and oil, the home heating fuels in this Province; we had members on this side of the House calling for inquiries, calling for all kinds of action to be taken. The Minister of Finance gets up in the media and in the House of Assembly and says: Cannot do anything about it.

Now we have the taxes on gas in this Province 52 per cent. We were basically, again as usual, laughed at when we asked for inquiries into it. What do we see the federal government do, only today or yesterday? They are talking about putting an inquiry in place into the oil companies to see about the price of gas and oil in this country. Of course Newfoundland, being on the far east of it, are paying more than any other Province, as far as I understand, up to 83.9 for self-serve regular gas in this Province today.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is your solution? What do you think we should do?

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, let me handle that when I get to my response to the Budget, because I am curious to see what is coming down in the Budget.

I will address that, just slightly for you, so you can understand where I am coming from on this. What this Administration does, and does very well, believe it or not, is listen to our policies on this side of the House. Then you adopt them yourselves. As a matter of fact, you will even ridicule them and then you have the face, the gall, the guts, to go out and adopt them yourselves. I will name a few for you.

During the last election, in our policy manuel - what do we have? One of the policies was: We were going to reduce income tax. What happened? They went out after the election - and during the election ridiculed us - can't be done, don't have the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am getting to that.

They couldn't do it. Now in your budget - done - our policy.

I have been preaching in this House of Assembly about the payroll tax. I, as a small businessman before I got into politics, understood the impact that the payroll tax would have on small companies, the tax on job creation. What did we have in our policy manual? That we would reduce it and over three or four years, I think it was, we would cut out the payroll tax. What do we have now? We had the Minister of Finance in the media yesterday talking about how the payroll tax will be looked at. What is coming?

When it was first introduced it galled me, it boiled my blood, when they(inaudible) the limit. If you had a payroll of over $300,000, you had to pay tax on it. Can you imagine? What a sick, sick tax.

Then they made it worse. What did they do, I say to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs? They reduced it even more. So, if you had a small company and you were paying out $100,000, then you would have to pay taxes on that.

What this minister is going to do this year, I would assume, from what I am hearing - sources tell me - he is going to increase that back up to $300,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that all?

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I hope he cuts it out, but that is what they were saying.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) the payroll tax from $200,000 to $300,000?

MR. J. BYRNE: The payroll tax from $200,000 to $300,000, back to where they first started.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) might go to $500,000.

MR. J. BYRNE: Hopefully they will increase it to $500,000, at least the smaller companies... If you have a small company in this Province, really, it doesn't take a lot of money to get your payroll up to $100,000, up to $200,000, or up to $300,000 even. That is another policy.

Now, let's see what else they have done. I remember we talked about, in our policy - and I think we had a news conference on this - that the NUGS , rivers, remember those? How you had a policy in place where you were going to privatize all these rivers, dam them off, and then... Salmon rivers, the one out in Terra Nova Park, the North West River is one, they wanted to do the job on that and paid $1 million to get out of it. They wouldn't listen to us. Don't listen to the Opposition. It cost them $800,000-and some, almost $1 million.

I have a lot to say and there are other members here who want to get up, but I cannot wait to get my response to the Budget. I have to tell you that. I am going to read something here now. Here is the Throne Speech. I am just going to read something from it now before I sit down.

It says: Mr. Speaker and Members of the Honorable House of Assembly, I take great pleasure in welcoming you to this Third Session of the Forty-Fourth General Assembly - Oh, that is the wrong one; that is March, 1998. This is the one, March 14, 2000 - same thing, no difference. What they did, all they did, was take the 1998 Throne Speech and throw it into a computer, in the word processor, hit a few buttons, and changed around a few words - done. Anyway, I am looking forward to my response to the Budget.

Thank you.

MR. TULK: Oh, you are finished?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, he wants to get up.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: The man who left his window open.

MR. MANNING: Yes, and I was going to call you up looking for a few sandbags but I wasn't sure if you were able to handle that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Someone told me you were manufacturing sandbags out on the West Coast.

MR. TULK: You froze up the pipes, hey?

MR. MANNING: I say to the Government House Leader, I have launched an investigation into the happenings of the weekend. Since I was elected last February, I have had the side hauled out of my car out in the parking lot, I had my bank account robbed, and I had my office sabotaged, so I am just sticking around to see what is going to happen next.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should close your windows.

MR. MANNING: I say to the hon. member, wherever he is from -

MR. TULK: Do you feel there are days when you shouldn't get up?

MR. MANNING: Yes, I am very wary.

The last flood had something to do with the present Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I am beginning to believe that he had something to do with Hurricane Gert, too. I am working on that. He came down to St. Bride's to check that out when we had it. I am waiting for the hurricane tomorrow, I say to the Government House Leader. I would say it is going to be quite the hurricane tomorrow.

MR. TULK: Oh, yes. It is going to be good, boy.

MR. MANNING: Hurricane Gert will pale in comparison to the hurricane we will get tomorrow. Hurricane Lloyd we are going to have tomorrow.

MR. TULK: It is going to be good.

MR. MANNING: Hurricane Lloyd is about to strike tomorrow. We are here with bated anticipation on this side of the House, waiting for hurricane Lloyd.

MR. NOEL: Tell us what it is like to be all wet.

MR. TULK: He knows. He spent a lifetime all wet.

MR. MANNING: The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs knows what it is like to be all wet.

MR. NOEL: After watching you for this many years, I sure do.

MR. MANNING: I listened to my hon. colleague from Cape St. Francis, when he talked about the policies of that side of the House, the policies they have adopted. I asked the Page to get me a copy of the seating arrangement. We have had some musical chairs since the last time we sat but, as usual, it is the same old faces, just different positions.

I wonder why we have policies that are adopted on that side, and I wonder why we are going to have what I believe to be a conservative Budget tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell you why. On that side of the House, thirty-three and one-third per cent of the people who sit around the Cabinet table were once associated and part of this side of the House of Assembly. Then, I ask myself: Why are we seeing these policies adopted -

MR. TULK: Name them.

MR. MANNING: The reason we are seeing these policies adopted, Mr. Chairman, is because thirty-three and one-third per cent of the present Cabinet were good, solid Tories in their time, and I am going to go through them, I say to the Government House Leader. I know he is waiting. One thing is for sure, he is not worried of being named in this category. I know that for sure. He is sure that he is not named in this category.

Let's start up here with the person who sits behind the Government House Leader, the Minister of Environment and Labour, Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune,-

MR. TULK: One.

MR. MANNING: - an amiable person who was associated with the Tory Party for many years. If recollection serves me, he was elected as a Tory.

MR. TULK: He made one mistake.

MR. MANNING: He was elected as a Tory and now sits at the Cabinet table. You have to ask yourself: What does it take to get to the Cabinet table? One thing is to be associated with the Tory Party.

We have the hon. Minister of Environment and Labour, who was elected as a Tory, and then right next door, because Tories like to stick together a bit, we have the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology who, if memory serves me correctly, Mr. Speaker - sorry about that, Mr. Chair. You would make a good Speaker if you were there, but you are in training now as Mr. Chairman. Right next to the Minister of Environment and Labour, we have the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, another good person with a good, solid Tory background.

MR. TULK: What, from Ladle Cove?

MR. MANNING: If memory serves me correctly, Mr. Chairman -

MR. TULK: My cousin - a Tory?

MR. MANNING: - was well associated with the Tory Party. Then, we skip a little bit and we are down to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who has been part of every party, and was a staunch New Democrat, if memory serves me correctly. He was involved with the Tory Party, and now he sits at the Cabinet Table. He spent his time in the nosebleed section and finally advanced his way to the Cabinet and, with all due respect, has been a very quiet minister but I am sure he is working on getting the job done. I will get back to a few issues on which I think he should be taking more concrete steps. I will get back to that.

In the meantime, I just want to say that why we are getting some solid good conservative policies from that side of the House, Mr. Chairman, is because we have these people here at the -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, (inaudible), I don't want to contradict the hon. gentleman, and when I am in doubt, I won't. If I am in doubt about something he is saying, I will not comment, but I guarantee you, I have known the Member for Virginia Waters, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, for a long time. I can assure you he was never a Tory.

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

MR. MANNING: I say to the Government House Leader, dream on.

Mr. Chairman, good, solid Conservative policies are coming forward from that side of the House because we have, as I said, (inaudible). Right next to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs we have the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I have to say to the Government House Leader that I am not sure if he was always a good Tory, but he was a Tory. When I was elected here in 1993, he and I sat at the caucus table together. I couldn't get over - it is too bad he is not in the House at the present time - how he used to lay it on to us about that crowd on that side of the House. Then the next thing I knew, Sir, he and the Premier were in the washroom at the airport in Deer Lake. I don't know what transpired in the washroom but when they came out they were as one and they were singing from the same hymn book. I would really like to know what went on in the washroom, but we will leave that to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. He was a good, solid Tory in his day. Now we see some good Conservative policies coming forward from Works, Services and Transportation.

Then we jump ahead to the front bench, to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, the Member for the District of Mount Pearl, who again - I'm sure the Member for Waterford Valley would like to comment on this - was also a good solid Tory. That is why we see some good solid Conservative policies coming forward from the Department of Human Resources and Employment.

He used to sit here but now he has jumped way up here, the man of the hour tomorrow. I'm sure I will get no argument from the Government House Leader that this man has a good, solid Tory background. Even when it came time to be part of the PC 500 club, when it cost a good dollar to be part of that, that member was there front and centre with his checkbook. He was there front and centre as part of the PC 500 club. It is only loose change, I say to the Minister of Finance, but still he was there.

That is just a little rundown to show that 33.3 per cent of the make up of this Cabinet has good Conservative backgrounds. That is six out of eighteen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: He does not have a Liberal background. Okay, so we have 28 per cent and then we throw in a bit of NDP policy in on top of it to straighten it up. Fair ball, Mr. Chairman. There has to be a social side to it too.

I say that is why tomorrow - and there is no doubt about it - we will see a good, solid Conservative budget brought down here. I am waiting with anticipated breath to see what the Minister of Finance will come forward with tomorrow. I won't be surprised at some of the policies he will announce. We won't be surprised because we have developed these policies.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, we are not sure, Mr. Chairman. I think the Minister of Government Services and Lands listens very well to the Prime Minister of this country. I think he has learned very well from the Prime Minister. Say nothing and you will never get in trouble. Just stay calm. I am not sure what the Minister of Government Services and Lands' background is in politics. I will have to travel down to Goose Bay and do a little background check on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the new Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, at this point in the session I will not say anything at all. I say she is doing quite well in her new portfolio thus far, so I am going to leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. As one of the bureaucrats in her office told me the other day: It is like a breath of fresh air. So I will leave it at that. At this point I agree.

AN HON. MEMBER: What department?

MR. MANNING: Municipal and Provincial Affairs. He told me it is like a breath of fresh air. I will leave it at that for now. So far, so good. We have to give these people time, Mr. Chairman.

There is no doubt about it, there are many concerns here in the Province. As I listened to the Speech from the Throne and again, as I wait tomorrow with the Budget, I am hoping the government will come forward with not only the solid Conservative policies that we have developed on this side of the House that are forthcoming in this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) trying to get me re-elected or what?

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, I say to the - are you talking to the member next to me?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. MANNING: Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I say that hopefully tomorrow we will have some of the grave concerns in this Province addressed by this government. I was certainly interested today to hear the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs talking about the EI system and the fact that they have persuaded the people up along to do something about it. The part that concerns me the most is that the Premier sat at the table when some of these major changes were made to the EI system that have caused havoc with a lot of individuals and communities in this Province. The Premier of this day was sitting at the table that brought forward these changes. We are now hopefully going to correct some of the wrongs that were passed a few years ago. I wish the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs well. I wish him well in his endeavours to try to get the EI system changed to suit the type of industries we have in this Province.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) Brian Mulroney (inaudible) have nothing.

MR. MANNING: Where is he from? Bellevue. He doesn't know where he is from. No, that's not right. I say to the Member for Bellevue, I know it is not an opportunity that he has to get up on his feet very often.

AN HON. MEMBER: Boy, you're some stunned, (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I would say, minister, he doesn't know where he is from half the time so it is hard for me to keep track of him.

Mr. Chairman, I say that hopefully tomorrow -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) he knows where he is going. That is how he is (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, I say to the minister, hold on now. I say to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that he doesn't know where he is going. He was out to a public meeting, Mr. Chairman, when he told them that he had to leave because he was going into Cabinet. He had to go into St. John's to buy two new suits because he was going into Cabinet: I am sorry, you talk to me in the week, I will be the Minister of Education in the week. He did not know he wasn't going into Cabinet, I say to the minister. He did not know -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: I want the hon. member to get things straight. He said that I went to buy two suits. I want to let the hon. member know that I have fifteen suits since 1989. Every time there has been a Cabinet shuffle I bought one. So I have fifteen suits home, not two. I just want to make the record straight.

CHAIR: Order, please!

No point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: I just have a question of clarification. Is the Member for Bellevue trying to tell me that he thought he was going into Cabinet fifteen times? I would say, Mr. Chairman, live in hope and die in despair. That is all.

I will get back to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the comments I was making on the EI system. You try to make some legitimate comments here and you get sandbagged, but there are some grave concerns with the EI system and I certainly want to wish the minister well in his endeavours with Minister Stewart in Ottawa. Hopefully we will correct some of the wrongs because industries in this Province do not conform to the EI legislation as it is now. I look at my own district, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. MANNING: I just want to clue up with a few comments, I say to the minister. The EI system and the changes that have come forward have certainly wreaked havoc on the fishermen in my district, on people involved in the tourism industry in my district, on people who are involved in the construction industry, and almost every other industry that is available for people in the Province to find employment. There is no doubt about it, that changes need to be made.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment on health care and the concerns that have been raised not only with myself at my own district level, but indeed throughout the Province in relation to health care. There was a comment by the Minister of Finance yesterday in the media that this was going to be a health care budget. That certainly pleases me, as a member of the House of Assembly who certainly has some health care concerns in my district like every other member has. My only concern is the fact that the three-year payment that is going to be transferred from Ottawa is going to be spent next year in a lump sum.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Again, we are living in hope and hopefully we are right. I say to the Government House leader, hopefully you are right. My own thinking is that you may be on the right track with that one, to be honest. We have the federal election next year and ten chances to one they are going to pump it into the health care. Hopefully, the gamble that you guys and gals are taking will be okay when it comes to next year's provincial budget. I think that will happen. Hopefully the dollars that will be forthcoming in the Budget tomorrow will try to do something for health care. Indeed, it is not only more dollars we need, as the Premier himself has alluded to, it is proper management of the dollars that we have. I guess that is what is most important of all.

I would just like to finish up and say that there is one other issue I would like to touch on for now, and I will be back to talk about some more, and that issue is the price of gas in the Province. I've listened as people throughout the Province have asked the Minister of Finance to do something about the price of gas. The Minister of Finance alludes to the fact that there is nothing he can do. It bothers me immensely when we have a 16.5 per cent road tax that the provincial government administers, we have another 10 per cent tax that the provincial government administers, plus our HST. Fifty-two point three per cent of every litre of gas purchased in the Province is tax. I think there is something we can do to alleviate the price that consumers are paying at the pumps. Hopefully, maybe in tomorrow's budget, there will be something brought forward to address that.

I am also pleased to hear through the leaks that there is going to be some move on the payroll tax. Again, another solid Conservative policy from this side of the House is being moved on. I don't think, from what I can understand, that it is going to be moved on enough to please us over here. Because I think, as many people throughout the Province said, it should be eliminated. It is a disincentive to employers throughout the Province, and indeed something needs to be done with it. If there is going to be a move on that tomorrow hopefully it will be a move that will create jobs and not just a move to silence a few critics.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to finish up for now and I am sure I will get the opportunity to speak again. I say to the Member for Bellevue, as I said before, when the Cabinet shuffle comes next time around I wouldn't be in a hurry to go out and buy another suit because I think you are going to be a long way from Cabinet.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: Thank you very much, sir, I appreciate that. I will give you a few lessons. I will try.

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to get up and speak and have a few words to say considering the Interim Supply. One of the topics I want to talk about today is the housing problem that we have in rural Newfoundland. There is $1.6 million in the estimate there to go into the Housing Corporation. From what I have seen in rural Newfoundland, I think it is just totally irresponsible for the government not to put more money into our social housing. I see people in my district, in particular, that need home improvements done to their homes and urgent repairs. When you see seniors with leaky roofs and heating problems, it is unbelievable that we can allow that sort of thing to happen in this day and age.

As I go around in my district I see a lot of the HRE social service recipients trying to get things done to their homes. It is important that we look at their needs and do everything possible to alleviate the problems that they have, particularly when it relates to the heating problems and the problems with the drafts and everything in their homes.

I also had people that had furnace problems, oil tank problems, and had to do without heat for probably some of the coldest days of the year. When I would go back to the Housing Corporation they would say their money has run out. They can only do this repair on an urgent basis. That urgent basis seems like it is unreachable when it comes to the Housing Corporation helping these people.

I think a lot more money has to be put into social housing, particularly in the Central Newfoundland area when we have a lot of disabled people that need special housing. With the lack of units in the Grand Falls-Windsor area, a lot of disabled people are finding it very difficult to get outside of the walls of the homes that they do live in. It is unbelievable some of the places I have seen where people have to be lifted by other people and carried from their home to outside their homes so that they can get in their wheelchairs and vehicles and go to places.

I think that somebody is going to have to look at the problems when it is pertaining to the housing in Central Newfoundland and make sure that more housing is provided for special needs and disabled people. It is unbelievable, to me, to see these people having to be carried around like quarters of meat across someone's shoulder. It is just unbelievable to see that happening. I will tell you that I have seen that happen a lot in the past year, being involved in politics, and going to the homes of these people, and looking at their problems and sitting down and talking to them and seeing first hand these people being carried on someone else's back to get outside their homes because adequate housing is not provided. I have contacted the Housing Corporation in our area, the regional office, and they just said: The money is not there to provide the adequate housing for people that need this adequate housing.

I hope that the Budget does have more money to put, particularly, into the Central Newfoundland area where adequate housing is not available anywhere within a reasonable driving distance of Grand Falls-Windsor. I think this is terrible, in this day and age, to see this happen.

The other thing that just amazes me to see, in this day and age, is the road conditions throughout rural Newfoundland. I see so many bad roads. I do not have a lot of gravel roads in my district, but my hon. colleague here does have a lot of gravel roads in his district. He is doing a diligent job of lobbying the government to do something about the problem he has in his district.

Even some of the paved roads in the Province today are even worse than the gravel roads. At least you cannot grade a paved road. If the potholes are so bad and the ruts are so bad you cannot grade them, you cannot do anything. They have to be reconditioned and resurfaced. That takes quite a bit of money, I know, but in the budget it does not seem like there is enough money ever put into road repairs and road resurfacing. That is one big problem that we have to look at today.

It is a job generator. It creates a lot of jobs in rural Newfoundland and a lot of money that is spent comes back to our government. For every dollar they spend in that type of program a lot of that money comes right back to the government again. We get a great benefit from it because we get our roads rebuilt. It also decreases the chances of people driving and having accidents, people being killed and stuff like that. I think it is important that we make our roads program a priority before it is too late and we get too far behind that we will not be able to keep up and catch up. When you get so far behind it takes a great deal more money to catch up. Not only to progress and make our roads better and make new roads, it just takes a lot of money to catch up even. We are going to have to look at that, and hopefully in the Budget more money will be put into our roads program, particularly our trunk roads. These roads are very important for connecting a lot of small communities in rural Newfoundland and outports. We have to take care of our trunk roads as well our Trans-Canada Highway.

I realize that road work is very expensive and it takes a great deal of money, but a lot of money is being taken from our gas taxes and it does not seem like enough is being put back into that program compared to the amount of money that we are getting out of the taxes. I encourage the minister and the government to look at our roads policy and look at the condition of our roads in rural Newfoundland and our outports. Give the people some hope that they know it is going to be safe to drive on these roads. Because a lot of the roads are not safe, particularly now when we have to bus our students a lot farther away from the schools. It is worrisome for a lot of people to put their children aboard a bus and drive for probably twenty, thirty or forty-five minutes on roads that worry them, for them to know: This could be the last time I see my child again, alive. It is a big problem and I hope something will be done about that.

A lot of money that we need in Newfoundland today does have to come from the federal government. It has been very frustrating for me dealing with our member in Cabinet in the federal government, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State for ACOA. He seems to be going around promising a lot of money, he seems to be going around looking at a lot of projects and approving these projects and talking to councils and saying: I do have the money, I'm going to supply 80 per cent of the money for this, 100 per cent of the money for that.

When the time comes when the people are interested in doing it, he does not return the call. He does not show up to answer. I would love to be able to tell him but I cannot get him to return my call, and he will not answer my letters. The only way to get to Mr. Baker is to do it publicly. I think that is what a lot of members - not only on this side of the House, but the other side of the House too - have to do. We are going have to embarrass the minister to answer and to keep the promises that he made going around a few months ago. It is unbelievable.

Particularly in my case, when he came to a part of my district promising 80 per cent of a $15 million project which is a causeway that would link the main part of the island to Long Island. He told me and told the people, the causeway committee and the people of the communities there, that he would supply 80 per cent of the money to do this causeway project if the provincial government was on side and interested in doing the project. Obviously we all got excited, and the committee got excited and did their own independent study. That study showed that this project is viable and feasible. We presented the project study to the Minister of Transportation and he got excited about it and said: Yes, this is a doable project, if we can get the minister to commit to it and to put it writing that he will supply 80 per cent of the money. Publicly he said it - he said it to me and other people - but he will not put it in writing and he will not answer calls and letters now that we -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that? Who is that who won't answer your calls?

MR. HUNTER: I guess if you just look at some of the calls you made to your federal minister you would know exactly who I am talking about.

Mr. Chairman, it amazes me to see the hon. minister when he is standing. I compare him to the Karate Kid, because he gets there and he is like this and he is like that and he is like this. He promises so much and gets people so excited that we believe him. People believe him. I even believed him first but now I think it is time for him to deliver. I hope all the members who deal with the hon. minister in the federal Cabinet would make him accountable and hold him to his word and put the pressure on him so that the projects he promised would go ahead, because these jobs in rural Newfoundland today are anticipated by the people and are important to the people, and the people are looking forward to getting some work in rural Newfoundland. They depend on these work projects, Mr. Chairman, and if most of the money is coming -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The time allocation for the hon. member has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: I only just started. That is alright. I will tell you what. If you let me sit down I will get Harvey to stand up and then you are worse off, so I think I will keep going.

Do I have leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, it is important that we get these jobs in rural Newfoundland, in our districts, and the more work we can do, particularly when it comes to the infrastructure and roads and housing problems, that creates jobs, and money does spin back to the government in the way of taxes. It puts people to work and it is important that we do that.

Also, the health care system certainly surprised me lately, too, when I talked to people in my district who have been on waiting lists for three years for heart surgery. I talked to a gentleman just a couple of days ago - who is afraid to go through his door - with two 80 per cent blockages, one 70 per cent and one 50 per cent. That gentleman is frightened to death to go through the door. His doctor keeps telling him: We cannot get you in because the politicians are not putting the money into health care that is need. So even the doctors are spinning it back to us as politicians, that we and the government are not doing the job in putting enough money into health care so that these people who need these serious surgeries and operations can get them done in a reasonable amount of time, not three years.

Three years is a long time for a person to be hid away behind closed doors, frightened to death to go through the door because he is afraid he might drop dead with a heart attack. I do not think that is good enough. We have to put more money into our health care system and I think that, with the open heart surgery, it is probably one of the very important things that affect a lot of people in everybody's district. I am sure every member here can find people in their districts who are on a waiting list waiting to get in for heart surgery. I think that would be a very serious problem to deal with if anybody does have that problem. I thank God I do not have it but I certainly sympathize with the ones who do have it.

Also, I met with a lot of pensioners in the past week or so. Some of them are hurting pretty bad. What they are asking for is, I think, only fair to them: that they would be given a chance to live a decent life and have their pensions indexed so that they can have extra money to deal with their everyday living. The cost of living rises so much. They are so frustrated that they have to be taken care of and have their pensions indexed so that they can have that decent way of life.

It is very important when we are talking to our constituents to realize and sympathize with the problems that they have. In our Department of Human Resources and Employment you see the budget being run out long before the end of the year. When you see young babies coming out of the hospital with no cribs, and disabled people who need special furniture, mattresses, and you go to the department and they say: There is no money available, there is a freeze put on the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

CHAIR: No leave?

The hon. member does not have leave.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to take a few minutes today to talk about the bill before us on Interim Supply and just to say that probably the most scary part is that there is, I think, $421,822,400 for the Department of Health and Community Services. It really bothers me that the minister we have, and all these promises that have been made such as, this afternoon, new money for the Janeway, new money for this, new money for that, promises made to nurses - it was only this past weekend I attended a function in my district. A registered nurse came up to talk to me about the conduct of the new Minister of Health and Community Services when he was in another portfolio and what he did in the House to nurses who sat in the gallery. I look forward tomorrow to the Budget, and I look forward to what the new minister is supposedly going to do with his $422 million, exactly where it is going and exactly what we are going to do with it.

Also, I sat this afternoon and listened to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs saying there are changes coming in the new EI program. I think and I hope and pray that the minister when he met with Minister Stewart in Ottawa drove home a lot of the problems that we in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador have with the EI people.

I know in my own district we have two men who work for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro at the plant in Holyrood, two people working side-by-side doing the same job, but because one chap lives in Holyrood and the other chap happens to live in Seal Cove they have different numbers of hours which they are allowed. The guy who lives in Seal Cove is not as fortunate. He has to have more hours in than the chap who lives in Holyrood. Yet they work side-by-side, they go to work each year at the same time, they are both seasonal workers, and at the end of the day one fellow needs more hours than the other. It really doesn't make much sense to me.

I have also attended hearings at the EI in St. John's. About the second or third last time I was there I took the opportunity to say to these people, because they are all appointees, that maybe it was time for some of them to get a little bit of backbone, and for once just disagree. When we have students in our districts who quit jobs such as one that I had who was a gas attendant. He quit his job to go back to school to further his education so he could get a better job. This fellow was denied his EI because they said: You quit your job.

So how do we expect our young people in this Province to better themselves if we are going to throw up those road blocks in front of them. To me it is a very scary thing. Yet, sometimes if you are fortunate enough to hit EI at the right time they will pay for your EI, they will extend your EI, they will put you in school, and they will even pay for your course; but if you have enough initiative of your own to quit a job so that you want to go back to school to further your education, then there is absolutely nothing in the program for you.

I hope the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has certainly raised those concerns with the minister. It seems like Minister Stewart in Ottawa today is under a great deal of pressure, and I guess a lot of the pressure is richly deserved in my opinion. It really bothers me to see some of these inaccuracies in a program that is there, or should be there, to help the young people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but in this particular incident it does nothing, only hold them back. We are not giving our young people a chance to further their education.

As I have said, I have been down time after time and raised this issue in front of a board of commissionaires, or referees, or whatever you want to call them, and at the end of the day nothing changes. In seven days you get back a report which says: Dear Sir, blah, blah, blah. You have lost your case in other words, right? Yet we have to do something to help these people who wanted to further their education, who want to get a better education. So I raise that concern today.

I look in the budget here and I see under Tourism, Culture and Recreation there is some $9 million to be spend in that department. I am very hopeful that after the budget is done we will get the opportunity to see a breakdown. It is my critic portfolio, and I just want to see what this $9 million is going to be for, and what we are going to do with it. I hope we are not going to use it to hire more political hacks, people who have been in politics and have now gotten out, and we feel somewhere in our heart and soul that we have to give them a job as was done. I do not see hiring friends because they are of one political persuasion. Anybody on this side who sends out applications for students for summer jobs or full-time jobs, I do not know of anybody on our side of the House who has ever received one back saying: Yes, we have a job for Mrs. Smith or Mrs. Jones, or Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith.

That to me is wrong. We have people who are equally qualified, and yet because they are of one political persuasion, or somebody on this side sends the letter to the other side, then it does not get met with the proper regards, as far as I am concerned.

As well, when my colleague for Placentia & St. Mary's was up talking a few minutes ago, he talked about gasoline prices in this Province. It is always interesting to say that we should not have regulations to govern the gasoline in this Province. I would like an answer as to why, when companies in this Province have their tanks in the ground full of oil, full of gasoline to be sold, that the price of oil goes up $2 or $5 a barrel, and at 3:00 p.m. every oil company in this Province raises their prices three cents, four cents, or five cents a litre. The gasoline was in the ground when OPEC or whoever put up their prices, but all of a sudden: Bango!, we have to raise our prices. The oil is here, it is refined and it is in the ground. I have seen that happen. I have spent ten years in the business and for ten years I watched that happen almost on a daily basis.

Last year, or a couple of years ago, the House appointed a lawyer and a consumer advocate to go out and investigate gasoline companies. He came back with a report which says there is no collusion in the gasoline business in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I beg to differ with the gentleman. I told the gentleman of my experience in that particular field, how much gasoline I was selling, somewhere close to 7 million litres a year of gasoline and diesel. The guy's answer to me was: You are the exact fellow we would like to talk to. I am still waiting for that phone call. The man has never called me, has never raised the issue with me. I would like for him to explain to me how, if one company raises their price one or two cents a litre, the fellow next door, bango, overnight, up goes his prices as well. I can remember on numerous occasions receiving calls from the company that I represented asking: What is it next door? I would give the price next door. They would say: Okay Bob, at 3:00 p.m. put up your prices. Yet there is no collusion in the gasoline business.

There is something wrong in this Province. Even if we take away the taxes that are on gasoline and home heating oil in this Province, there is, to me, some form of collusion between the major gasoline companies in this Province. As I said, as soon as one raises their price it seems like everybody falls in line. You can pick whichever one you wish. At the end of the day, bango, up goes their prices. To me, there is something wrong. There are people within that industry who talk to each other and I will just give you one example.

When I was in business, the price of milk in Conception Bay South, from every station up there, fluctuated. I had a visit one day from somebody at the company I represented who said to me: Bob, all the milk prices in Conception Bay South are different. The conversation was: I must call my buddy at Irving tomorrow morning and have that fixed. The next morning I received a phone call telling me that every two litres of 2 % milk in my district was now going to be sold for $2.69 because he phoned Irving and Irving agreed to the same price structure.

There is no price fixing in the gasoline industry. What a crock of nonsense, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were going (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I probably would have but I can't in here.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The allotted time for the member has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you.

I guess the Minister of Health and Community Services has gone out. I can't be putting anybody else asleep over there so I will carry on for another few minutes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

As well there is Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. Several weeks ago I attended a meeting in my own district at a community health office in Holyrood where a family with two severely mentally challenged young boys were sleeping on the floor of their house and they asked to have certain repairs made to their home. The repairs were done. There were three people present. This particular family said to the people involved: Listen, if this is going to drive our mortgage up, we don't want it. We don't want anything done to our home. They lived in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. They were assured at that particular point in time that nothing would happen. Lo and behold, the work was done, and bango, up goes their mortgage. Now they are getting calls from the collection agency at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing which to me is totally wrong.

A couple of Fridays ago I did attend the meeting in Holyrood and thank goodness, I think, because of the involvement, we have been able to have these particular payments reduced and lowered, but it wasn't right. It wasn't right to the family. We have three different levels of government all singing from a different hymn book. Nobody is singing from the same page. As I told one officer: How in the name of goodness do we have one branch of government telling people one thing, and two other branches telling them something else? To me there is something wrong. I suggested that maybe all three levels would get together, and before they are setting rates for people in this Province, they would get together and do something for them.

As well, Mr. Chairman, I raised this issue in this House since I was elected in 1996. It is concerning homeowners in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have been in more than one house, let me tell you, in my own district, that has people who are either from community care or the Waterford Hospital end of things. These people certainly need an increase in the funding that they receive.

I have heard Minister of Health after Minister of Health say in this House and outside, it is the cheapest form of health care in this Province; and so it is. It is the cheapest form of health care in this Province. I think it is time that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador did something about it so that these people can receive a return on their investments, which in some cases are quite substantial, that the return on their investment is worth doing what they are doing. They perform a great service and great care to the people who stay in these homes, and I have witnessed that first-hand.

On those few notes, Mr .Chairman, I thank you and I will sit down.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to stand and make a few comments this afternoon as a part of this debate. I would just like to indicate to members that I just returned from Gonzaga High School where, as was discussed earlier in the House this afternoon, the students of that school commemorated the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

What was done was that any person who attended, simply, by virtue of a hand print on a chart on a wall in the main corridor of the school, and then by signing their name, would show their support, I guess, for the fact that this school was recognizing, and by others attending the school, by virtue of their support, commemorating the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

It is certainly an important gesture, and a gesture which was obviously appreciated by many members of the public. I was told that St. John's City Council, with the Mayor, had attended earlier today. I happened to meet, while I was there, my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I also met, while I was there, the CEO of Fishery Products International. So there are indeed a number of members of the community who responded and saw it as appropriate to participate in this activity today.

I may mention to members that this is now ongoing and will continue until 5:00 this evening, if any member is interested. It is certainly a worthwhile event and I would like to congratulate the school for this particular undertaking.

I would like to speak briefly to some of the points that were raised by my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South, some very worthwhile points, I say, and some very valid points as they relate to the petroleum industry in this Province.

My colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South, of course, has first-hand knowledge of the industry, having worked in this industry for a number of years prior to being elected in his District of Conception Bay South. He can speak and attest to first-hand exactly what takes place on a day-to-day basis as a participant in that industry.

Last week, a number of colleagues of mine, we attended a pubic forum that was held at City Hall here in St. John's, and it was sponsored by the well-known consumer group under the, I guess, joint leadership of Mr. O'Keefe and Mr. Murphy. It was at that meeting when citizens in this jurisdiction - and indeed they came from not only St. John's but indeed the Avalon region to attend this meeting - voiced their concerns with respect to the price of gasoline and petroleum products in our jurisdiction.

Of course, a variety of individuals are trying to find ways in which the high prices can be combated. There were different possibilities that were suggested. One was a boycott; one was perhaps not buying goods from a particular distributor or not buying commodities in the variety stores, for example, that are associated with the sale of gasoline.

What we did on that very day, just to remind members in this House of Assembly, we asked for this government, through the Minister of Finance, to consider the possibility of an inquiry with respect to what is happening and how the price of petroleum products is affecting ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Of course, that suggestion was turned down flat. That suggestion was not given even second consideration. In fact, the Minister of Finance's reply was certainly, not at this time. If I recall his words directly: Not at this moment. It is something that is not being considered.

I say, Mr. Chairman, this government's federal cousins beat them to the punch. They beat them to the punch because it was the federal government that saw the necessity for what is now being labeled as a gasoline probe, an administrative probe, a review of what is taking place not only in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador but indeed throughout all the provinces of this country. It was the national government, the federal government, that saw fit to put into place this probe that will be conducted beginning, in fact, in the near future, with its findings to be released at year end.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that it was this government that was given the opportunity to take seriously what is happening to ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the consumers of this Province, and what could have happened approximately one week ago in this Legislature would have been the possibility of this government saying: Yes, we too take seriously what is happening; but, unfortunately, government saw fit not to do that.

Just a few days ago it was released exactly what consumers in this Province are paying for in terms of gasoline. I would just like to review some of the examples. Here in St. John's, 83.9 cents per litre at the pump. Conception Bay South, in fact the lowest, still continues to be the lowest, although it has fluctuated slightly, but according to this gasoline market watch it is showing at 80.5 cents per litre; in Clarenville, 81.9; Gander, 85.9; Grand Falls, 85.9; Corner Brook, 85.9; St. Anthony, 87.9; Port aux Basques, 86.9; Labrador City, full service, 84.9; Happy Valley-Goose Bay, full service, 85.9.

These are the prices that are being paid by Newfoundlanders on a regular basis as they pull up their vehicle at the pumps and they are being subjected to this price. What is unfortunate is that this government, up until now - maybe we will hear some good news tomorrow. We all live in hope. Maybe it is possible there will be some reprieve for consumers in tomorrow's Budget, but up until now - and despite the fact that these prices have increased on a regular basis for the past number of months - there has been absolute silence from this government in responding to the concern of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as it relates to this horrific cost of gasoline at the pump. As I say, Mr. Chairman, maybe tomorrow. We will live in hope.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I just heard the hon. Government House Leader say: What would we do? One thing that we would do is variously consider and implement a regime whereby the taxes that have been collected as a result of the HST component which is applied to all petroleum products in this Province, that amount which was unexpected, was unaccounted for and was not a part of the budgetary process in last year's budget, at least that amount could be rebated in a very real way to the consumers of this Province; but no, this government chose to remain silent. This government chooses to simply ignore what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are saying on a daily basis in an effort to alleviate them from this horrific tax burden. That is what is unfortunate, but I am not going to be too hard on government because tomorrow is Budget day and there may very well be some reprieve for the ordinary consumers of this Province. We will know by this time tomorrow if government plans to implement a regime with some reprieve, some rebate for the taxpayers of this Province. Will it implement the position of a petroleum products monitor, an independent office, who could not speak on behalf of the Departments of Mines and Energy, which is what is happening right now? We right now, in an effort for this government to appear to be independent and impartial, they have one of the staff members within the Department of Mines and Energy who makes a report and who will respond. When prices are increased, there is a response from a staff member of the Department of Mines and Energy to allow or to tell the people of this Province whether what is happening in the sale and in the price of petroleum products is fair.

That does not cut it, I say, Mr. Chairman. What will only be acceptable to the taxpayers of this Province is when we have instituted an independent body, an independent office, arm's length from this government, arm's length from the Department of Mines and Energy, and that spokesperson can then, in a true way, similar to the role of an Ombudsman, in a true and independent and impartial fashion, can, upon investigation and review of all of the facts, disclose to the taxpayers of this Province what is happening with respect to the sale and pricing of petroleum products, and that includes equally disclosing to the people of this Province what the amount of real taxation is, and that is what this government refuses to share with the people of this Province; the fact that there is a 16.5 cent per liter in provincial road tax, per liter; the fact there is a 10 cent per liter in federal excise tax; the fact that there is a 15 per cent equaling the HST component on the sale of petroleum products. In fact, Mr. Chairman, do you know what this government gets away with? Not only does it tax the gasoline; it taxes the tax, because that provincial road tax, in addition to the federal excise tax, is further taxed by the levying of the 15 per cent HST. It is highway robbery, I say, Mr. Chairman, and it is time that this government come clean with the people of this Province and tell the people of this Province to the very penny exactly what is being paid when they go to the pump and buy gasoline at the pumps. The time is now, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, I will now conclude.

The time is now. Hopefully, after repeated pressure by this Opposition, by consumer groups, by the public at large, even ordinary individuals who call into Open Line shows on a daily basis, hopefully this government will now realize, and we will see some recognition of this realization tomorrow in the Budget, and there will be some reprieve, some real help, some real alleviation of this tax burden for ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR (Smith): The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased today to rise and make a few comments on this Interim Supply, something we seem to continue to do every year, but the one that jumps out at all of us and we talk about more often than any other, I guess, is the health care system.

It is funny, when you hear about the Budget coming down tomorrow and you hear about the Premier, how he is going to champion the health care drive across the country, when you watch the national federal convention and so on, all of a sudden he is the champion for it, Mr. Chairman. So many people forget so very quickly, he was also the minister in the Cabinet of the government who did most of the cutting in the first place.

It is little bit ironic, that he is going to lead the charge with the rest of the Premiers across the country to make sure we get money back in health care. Well, we did not see a lot coming forthright from the federal government in their budget certainly this year, and I think one of the members already alluded to it earlier today, the truth is that they did not put a lot back in their federal budget this time. It was just a little bit of a tease because really they are saving all that for the huge slush fund you will see starting to dribble out as the federal election gets nearer and nearer, so he has to make the public wait. They are not interested whether it is a better health care system. They are just talking about the most opportune time they can open up the purse strings and let it all drip out to the advantage of their own political whims of the federal party; but the people in this Province are catching on to it, and every day, day after day in this House of Assembly, we ask the questions that are pertinent to health care and give examples time after time. When the minister looks for examples, we give him real examples of people in this Province who have borne the brunt of a poor health care system. It is just like it across the country, and we do not argue that is not just Newfoundland that see the effects of health care cuts, but this Province in particular.

There was something else that I wanted to respond to today - I am sure we will get a lot more time to talk about health care - is the transportation to this Province. We are an Island and, of course, the vast part of Labrador. We forget very quickly that we have now - when we talk about economic development and opportunities for industry and so on in this Province - two monopolies controlling the access to this Province, by air or by water. Two monopolies are controlling both of those.

We get fewer and fewer answers, the more questions we ask on Marine Atlantic. A lot of people are still confused as to exactly what is going to happen as far as the new ferry service for this Province. Then, if anybody is using the flight transportation in this Province, even in recent weeks and months, as we see the changes with Canadian Airlines and Air Canada in this Province, there are some very grave concerns about the transportation links to this Province when it comes to air being a monopoly, and our marine service which is also a monopoly.

Mr. Chairman, it is going to have a significant impact and there should be more and more studies on the implications of what could happen, what is going to happen in the near future with this Province with respect to economic development, when we look at Air Canada and the monopoly that they have, and Marine Atlantic and the monopoly they have with our marine services.

Mr. Chairman, as we see rates start to increase, we see service differences already in the airlines. I have noticed it already at the airports. It is very simple. People say that if the competition is not there, the quality of the service won't be there. Also, the bottom line, and the worse thing that we can imagine, is that you will see an increase in rates in this Province for people using the airline service. When you start to see that, what you are going to see is loss of economic development of people who do not have the high payroll cheques or they do not have the big expense accounts to go. The young entrepreneurs I am thinking about, the small businessmen in Newfoundland and Labrador, who need to take that flight to Halifax or Toronto and so on to establish their business or to market their product for whatever reason. These people are going to fall by the wayside, because the only way they can travel then, probably, is to take the Marine ferry across which, as we know, is a much slower rate of transportation. So those are going to have negative impacts on this Province all over and especially, when I think about it, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, the small guy with the small business who has one, two, three and four employees, when those people look for advancements and look for opportunities in investment and so on, they cannot jump on a plane in Deer Lake and Gander and take off to the mainland; because, as we see the prices soar and we see the quality lessen, those people will not be able to avail of that particular type of transportation.

That is a fear that everybody has. You don't have to be an economist to figure it out. Anybody will tell you that good competition brings you better service and it brings you a better rate. When we look at monopolies, we talk about increased rates, we are talking about a service of quality that is going to go down.

Mr. Chairman, those are some fears that are realistic. I don't think when people speak about them they are dramatizing or over-exaggerating. The fact is that the air service of this Province and the monopoly on the marine service is going to have some negative impacts for economic development in this Province, and it is a real concern.

Still with transportation, another concern that I have, and I have had it for quite some time now - I have talked to the minister about it, and I have talked to different ministers about it - is the infrastructure of roads in this Province. I am very, very concerned that unless something is done in a big way, in the near future we are going to see what I call a crisis situation with respect to provincial roads infrastructure in this Province. Every year, I guess especially in the last couple of years since I have become the critic for that portfolio, I have been looking at the numbers closer and looking at the reviews of the budget, and how it has been spent. I have talked to the minister and he knows also that if we keep going on the same path that we are going now with the small amount of money being budgeted for infrastructure with the provincial roads program, we are looking at a crisis. I would like to see a full, in-depth study done of the situation we are going to find ourselves in if we don't budget and allocate funding for our provincial roads program.

I am not talking about every year when the budget comes out and we see these hundreds of millions of dollars talked about in transportation initiatives like the Labrador Highway, which we all applaud and we are all glad to see, like the Roads for Rail Agreement that put the Outer Ring Road here in St. John's, or the major two-lane highways that you see coming on the Trans-Canada into the St. John's and the Corner Brook area. I am not talking about those infrastructures. They are the main infrastructure. I am talking about the off roads, the roads that connect our rural communities; the roads like in my district and the route to what we call the La Scie highway.

The minister knows it, and I have even had members from the other side say that it is the worst possible (inaudible) road in this Province. It has dilapidated and is in a deplorable state to the point that it is now endangering people. Even in the last few days, as we see the frost and the changes in temperature and so on, by this spring it will probably be impassable. We are talking

about a road now that accesses eleven communities out of twenty-one on the Baie Verte Peninsula, on this La Scie Highway, and it is just not good enough.

We have been meeting with the minister, with different groups. I have talked to him on numerous occasions and the minister knows that but, simply put, there has to be something done this year, and it has to be done in a significant way. It is no good to have three, four or five kilometers done. It has to be something significant or otherwise we could see some negative implications, one being a potential gold mine that should be announced in the very near future in the King's Point area.

If they proceed the way the company is talking about, they may be trucking that ore to Nugget Pond which is a very successful mine on the Baie Verte Peninsula. Now the implication is simple. Unless that road is upgraded and paved then the production and development of that mine site may be in jeopardy. That would be a sad statement in this Province, that we have a gold mine ready to move forward but it cannot move forward because the basic infrastructure is not in place.

The Nugget Pond mine is one of the most cost-effective gold mines in Canada. It has earned a name and a reputation that is second to none. It has even won an environmental award. That is how far they have gone. It has even won an environmental award and it has a very good name in the mining industry. Now the same group of people of course want to take over another deposit called the Hammerdown near King's Point-Rattling Brook in my district. They are going to have to truck the ore to the Nugget Pond mill. Can you imagine what a sad day that will be if we have to announce this year that the mine cannot go ahead because the basic infrastructure of the La Scie road is not good enough to take it? I can tell you now, I don't need any officials or engineers or anybody to come out to look at that road to tell me that it will not happen, because it will not happen. The trucks will never make it over that. Before there are five trips done the road will be impassable. I can tell you now. I know the district, I know the road.

The people in La Scie and those eleven communities on that particular road, and indeed the entire Baie Verte Peninsula, I have had support from every single one of them to say that there is no doubt that that road needs to be done. It has to be a priority. I am going to continue to raise it on the floor of this Assembly with the minister here and with the government and plead, beg or whatever way you want to put it to make sure that there are allocations of funding put into the provincial budget this year so those roads can be done. There are roads like the La Scie Highway in other parts of the Province that may not be as bad, but all of those infrastructures - if we are talking about economic development in Newfoundland, it is going to be a sad statement if we have opportunities pass us by because there is not a basic infrastructure in place of a road system.

Imagine, in this day and age, that we have to look at such poor roads. I will go a step further now and talk about gravel roads. There is not a lot of them left but there are some left in my district. There are some in some other rural districts that need to be set as a priority. There is no doubt about that. As far as the La Scie road is concerned, I understand the federal government has made indications that there may be federal funding -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave!

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, I understand there are federal indications that there could be federal funding for infrastructure which could assist the provincial government this year. There is always this bantering back and forth between the provincial and federal governments, saying: You sign first; no, you sign first. It does not matter who signs first. The point here is that it has to be done and it has to be done this year. We have to expedite it any way we can to make sure that those agreements are in place so that instead of just measly dollars that are put into the provincial road program we can complement that with a federal funding that would also assist in a much more significant infrastructure program this year when it comes to the road system.

It is needed. It is desperate. I am putting out the warning today. I put out the warning before. Unless we address the infrastructure problem in this Province when it comes to road work, then it is only a problem that is going to grow and fester and get worse, and we will never catch up to it. As a matter of fact, I am worried now that we may never catch up to it.

The minister has already told me, by the way, this year that they have some $380 million in requests. That is what they got this year in requests for provincial roads money. Not Roads for Rail, not federal initiatives, but provincial roads, a $380 million request. If the government follow the same route as they did last year and go with approximately $14 million to $15 million again in provincial roads, we are again looking at a shortfall of some $360 million to $370 million this year on the request for roads in this Province. We are continuing to do that year after year. It is going to build until it gets to a point where the problem is too big to handle.

My advice to the government is get together with the federal government quickly, make decisions quickly, because it has to be done this year, not to let it deteriorate any further, and not let the problem get any worse. I think it is at a level now where if it is not addressed you are going to look at a crisis in the situation of the roads program in this Province.

With those three things in minds - with the air service to this Province, with the Marine Atlantic and the marine service to this Province - we also have to look at our own provincial backyard, and that is in a provincial road program and a provincial ferry system. That is something I am going to save for a little bit later. I have a lot of comments to make about our own provincial and interprovincial ferry system and how we have to attend to the needs of the people in our own Province. It is fine for all of us - the Minister of Tourism and everybody else - to get up and bash Marine Atlantic about improving our system on the crossing to Port aux Basques and Argentia, but we also have to take care of our own backyard, and make sure that there is a decent system in place.

Somebody has mentioned here today - and I wasn't going to go into this on this debate, but I will now - the EI system. I do appeals all the time, and I know my colleagues do them all the time. How many people here are doing EI appeals? Member after member. I go in and I am dealing with a constituent who yesterday was $213 short of a fisheries EI claim. There were some technicalities and I am hoping we can clear up the matter.

All I could think about when I was in representing this man on the EI appeal is this. Here we are battering back and forth over $213, and when we look at a surplus of some billions of dollars in the EI system it is absolutely shameful. There was enough money being paid out to the people who are doing the EI appeals in the Province to accommodate every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian. There are people in this Province who are scrounging around. I have people who have been appealed in cases because they had a sister-in-law who worked for them, or because they had the same last name, all kinds of reasons.

The problem with these appeals is this. In this country now, according to the EI system, you are guilty until proven innocent. They cut off your cheque, they tell you cannot get on EI, there is no income whatsoever. You might be waiting four or six months for an appeal on EI. What do these families do meanwhile? All these people who waited four or six months for an appeal, what does the government tell them? You will have to go find some income somewhere else.

It is not fair. With the surplus we see in the EI federally this year, their cousins in Ottawa have to be reminded that people in this Province are suffering big time because of a lack of commitment to the EI system in this Province. We bicker back and forth about $212 short on an EI claim. I have gone there also with people who have appealed it. They waited four months to get their appeal; corrected, as I did last week, on a technicality. That is all it was, a clerical error. They even admitted it in their letter. It was a clerical error which we corrected, but the problem was this man had to wait four months. What was he to tell his wife and children while he was waiting four months for an error to be corrected?

The EI system right now as it stands goes against our own Charter of Rights as far as I am concerned. If you go in there and they think they have a problem - they do not have a problem with you, they think they have a problem with you - you are guilty until proven innocent, whereas it should be the other way around. This man who waited four months to get to an EI appeal - we won the appeal - who is going to apology to him? The truth is the policy is no good. What that man needed was income to feed his family for the four months he waited to get to the EI appeal. That is where the problem is.

It is downright shameful that a government that sits on a surplus of billions of dollars in Ottawa does not even pay any attention to the man who waits three or four months to get an answer back that says: Yes, we have your EI straightened away now, you can get it again. Who is going to compensate this man, not just for the monetary hardships he has gone through, but for the stress on these people who are trying to fend for their families? It is absolutely shameful. It is something that every government, every member in this country, should be up in the House of Commons blearing about. It is a system that sees such a surplus and puts people through such a state of stress because of the system that is in place. It is absolutely shameful. If there is either message that the Premier, who seems to be very cozy with the Prime Minister, should bring to his attention every time he speaks to him is that EI system.

I am going to sit down and let some of my other colleagues have a few remarks, but I'm sure I will continue with more remarks tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

I get up, as we do every year at this time, to speak on Interim Supply which undoubtably will be passed. We think of the taxpayers money that is being used and when we think of the lack of accountability for the taxpayers money. Today the Auditor General's report was distributed, and here in the summary are some blatant examples of the misuse of taxpayers money.

Under accounts and loans receivable in government: Government does not know how much money is owed to it at any given point in time. We are asked to pass these billions of dollars for the spending of taxpayers money when government does not know how much money it is owed at any given point in time, except around March 31 of each year? That is determined so that they can prepare the financial statements for the Province. The rest of the year they do not have a clue how much money they are owed.

The report says: Our review of government departments indicates that a significant portion of their accounts receivable are in arrears and that their cash management program, which includes the collection of these accounts, is not adequate.

Under the strategic enterprise development fund, which is administered by the Department of Development and Rural Renewal, the review of the Auditor General indicated the following: Reporting on the performance of the small business loan program is inadequate. There are no reports on the actual number of jobs created or what economic benefit has resulted from the loan program.

This is the taxpayers money that is being put into all these programs. Each year approximately $7 million of the taxpayers money is invested into this program, and $7 million is invested without adequate structures in place to determine if the program is achieving its intended purpose, and without any reports other than audited financial statements.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: That is on page ten, I say to the member.

The Auditor General's report says: Loans were made to companies that had existing loans in arrears or when there were indications that management was not acting in good faith. This is all part of the $7 million of the taxpayers dollar. Further: Adequate security was not always obtained prior to the loan disbursement and funds were disbursed prior to conditions for the loan being met. Once the loans are issued there is inadequate follow-up to ensure the conditions for the loan continue to be met. Also: Only 25 per cent of a portfolio of $78.2 million is estimated to be recoverable. The remaining 75 per cent is an estimate of the uncollectible accounts.

Mr. Chairman, we are being asked to vote on money for this government to administer.

On the government's sinking fund: The Province maintains voluntary sinking funds even though there is no legal requirement to do so. Government has still not conducted any cost-benefit or other analysis to determine whether it is making optimal use of its cash resources by maintaining $449 million in voluntary sinking funds. This raises the issue of whether this is the most effective use of cash given the Province's borrowing requirements.

The Auditor General of the Province is wondering whether this government is making the best possible use of the cash.

Let me deal with the health care system for a few minutes. The Premier now has become ‘Premier medicare' and who says that nobody on his side of the House or on our side of the House would subscribe to a two-tier health system. We have a two-tier health system. We have people being sent home prematurely from the hospitals to administer their own IV. I had a woman visit me in my office last week. Her husband recently died of a brain tumor. He was sent home and she had to hire home care to take care of him, so if she is paying for home care for the health of her dying husband and she is paying to have him taken care of, this is a two-tier system. This woman brought me in bills. She paid for the rental of a hospital bed. She paid for the home care. On top of paying for the rental of a hospital bed and the other medical supplies that were necessary to care for her dying husband in his home, she paid HST on medical care for her husband and HST on the rental of a hospital bed.

Now, if you tell me that is not a two-tier system, it is a two-tier system by another name. When we have our people who have to pay for the palliative care in their home of a loved one who is dying with brain cancer, pay for the home care, pay for the rental of the hospital equipment, and then pay HST on the home care and HST on the rental of the equipment, we can call it by any name we wish but people are still paying for hospital care and paying this government 15 per cent for the privilege of doing so.

I can bring these invoices to the floor of this House of Assembly and I can bring the date that this gentleman died with brain cancer when his wife paid - paid - for his palliative care in their home and paid for the rental of the hospital supplies and the hospital equipment and then paid tax on it. If that is not a two-tier system, I do not know what it is.

I would like to talk about the education and the condition of the schools in our Province, the condition of the air quality of the schools in our Province. With schools closing the government should be actually saving money. There are high schools being closed in my district; there are people out around the rural areas of the Province who are being bussed for up to and sometimes in excess of an hour to get to their neighbourhood school. The high school will be closing in my district and the children up there will go to the school in their neighbourhood, and to get to the school in their neighbourhood they will take three buses. They will get two transfers on their way to the neighbourhood school. So, like Mr. Rogers, where are the schools in your neighbourhood? Why, the schools in your neighbourhood are an hour's drive away. That is the closing line to that song. The schools in your neighbourhood are an hour's drive away, my friend.

When they close the school up in the west end of St. John's, I would like to suggest, I would like to request that busing be provided so that the children who have to leave their neighbourhood and drive for half-an-hour to get to school and take two transfers and three buses in order to get there will have the busing provided. Isn't that what was promised back in 1997 when the people voted, and 83 per cent of the people in that district voted for that? Isn't that what was promised again on February 8, 1999 when a press release came off the eighth floor and said: If there is not a consensus I will personally intervene?

Now either the people were misled or the Premier did not mean what he said, but it did not happen because there was a consensus in the District of St. John's West. As a matter of fact -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

There was a consensus in St. John's West. There was a consensus when they voted and there was a consensus when nearly 9,000 people signed a petition to retain the school in their neighbourhood. What happened? Neither the promise of the referendum in 1997 nor the misleading statement made on February 8, 1999 was kept. No, nowhere to resemble it.

Mr. Chairman, now I will speak on gas and oil prices. The Minister of Finance has said that for the Budget tomorrow he has a new suit. The Minister of Finance has said that for his Budget tomorrow, while he did not have to, he bought a new suit. He had to choose a new suit. He bought a new shirt, he bought a new necktie, and he bought a new pair of shoes. He was able to go into the store and choose while there are people out there - there are seniors, there are people on low income and people on social assistance - who have other choices to make because there is a 52 per cent tax on gas and on the oil that goes into their homes. The choice they make is whether they will heat their home or put food on the table because of the escalating oil prices that this government has not done anything about. The choice that the Minister of Finance is making is what colour suit to wear. The choice that the seniors and the low income people and the people on social assistance are making is whether to buy oil or whether to buy food.

Then we talk about the people in Labrador. I got a letter the other day from a woman who is the Labrador West representative for the peaceful communities of the Labrador regional committee on the Provincial Strategy Against Violence: What would you do if your spouse was threatening to kill you? What would you do if you were raped? What would you do if you received a call in the middle of the night from someone whose life was being threatened? What would you do in the middle of winter if your partner had just pushed you and your children out of the house and locked the door? You would call the police. Of course we would call the police. It would be a natural reaction to call the police, but making a call to the police stationed in other communities when it takes three days for the police to get there and the perpetrators in those communities are fully aware of that, and they use that now to their advantage with impunity. What would you do if you were in Labrador and you were pushed out in the middle of the night? Call the police? Would you sit in the snow with your children for three days waiting for the police to arrive? Or if you took in the person and the man who had just beaten his spouse and his children and she -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: I am not making this up. This came in from the Labrador West representative on the regional committee for the Provincial Strategy Against Violence. I am not making this up. This is right here in this letter. I am not trying to sensationalize. This came into me. He is "Oh, oh!" It is not "Oh, oh!" I am talking -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: No, he wasn't. He was ‘poohing' and ‘haing' about me bringing it up, and bringing something for which you should be ashamed to the floor of this House of Assembly. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

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

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, the hon. lady can't be at that kind of stuff. As a matter of fact, the Member for Topsail was listening quite closely and he was agreeing with you. This is terrible stuff. Now, what is wrong with that?

MS S. OSBORNE: Déjà vu all over again, when somebody is making fun of something that (inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

As I was saying, this person has sent in these questions and has said: all people are equal but some people are more equal than others. That is what this person is saying. Because as the member for Labrador knows, it does sometimes take three days for the police to get in, and what would you do if you were out in a snow bank with your children, and what would your neighbour do if she took you in and then the man who was in a drunken state came crashing through the living room window? What would you do? Call the police?

It is right here, I say to the Member for Topsail, in this letter, and I do not know if you are shaking your head because you are disgusted that I am putting it on the floor of this House or if you are shaking your head because you feel sympathy for the people who find themselves in this situation, but shake your head if you will. I did not make this up. It came to my desk.

MR. FITZGERALD: He is getting ready.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, he is absolutely getting ready.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Topsail.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

For the last couple of minutes the Member for St. John's West has been trying to, in some way, make reference to me, as a member, `foopah' I think was her word, about the statement she is attributing to a letter that she has - and I have seen by the way - about the situation as it exists in Labrador.

I want to make it very clear that I know as much about the situation that exists in Labrador as anybody does in this House. The Member for Torngat Mountains is a very close friend of mine, and I am well aware what happens down there. I can assure the member that the Member for Torngat Mountains has the full support of every single individual on this side of the House. That is more than I can say for the other side.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: What is your point of order?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair would point out that anyone who is rising to speak should not be impugning motives on behalf of any hon. member in the House. I think that was the intent. I would just remind all hon. members when you are speaking that it is not right and proper to be impugning motives on behalf of another hon. member.

I would now again recognize the hon. Member for St. John's West.

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

I am glad to have the clarification. However, I do take exception to his final statement that the Member for Torngat Mountains has the full support of all the members on that side, which is more than he can say for the people over here. As a matter of fact, that was a part of my question in Question Period today, to see that the money that was inadvertently left out of the $2.75 million that was announced on March 13 - to make sure that mistake was rectified; and that the region of Labrador will not have to wait until next year, I trust, was the minister's reply but that the funding will be put in place now.

Because when that announcement was made last week on March 13 funding for the regions would be phased in over two years. This year the Central, Western and Eastern Avalon regions will receive the majority of funding. Minister Bettney said coordination within the Labrador region represents special challenges due to its geography. This will be taken into account in allocating the funds. The Northern, Eastern and Labrador regions will be phased into full funding next year. That was the purpose of my question today, because I did care about what was happening in Labrador and I wanted to make sure that the omission of March 13 was going to be rectified.

I would like to speak for a few minutes on the pre-vocational assessment and training centre out on Topsail Road that was scheduled to close March 31. I understand that there has been an extension until some time in May. When people are being taken from a facility where they are completely happy, and the original plan was to put people who are severely mentally challenged into employment situations. This was completely transparent. Because when you take a person who does not want to work and is totally incapable of work and put them into an employment situation, then you are doing it for the bottom line and you are doing it to take advantage of the fifty cent dollar coming from Ottawa, the EAPD.

The thirty-six people who are out there, some of them are able to get into employment situations, but the several meetings that I have had with the parents, the care givers and the staff in the pre-vocational -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS S. OSBORNE: - and the numerous meetings that I have had with the parents, the care-givers, and the staff at the pre-vocational. I have gone out to visit the thirty-six individuals who are attending the pre-vocational training centre on Topsail Road. Many of them are non-verbal, and many of them are so severely challenged that they are in wheelchairs. They have to be fed hand over hand. It is these thirty-six individuals who have to be fed hand over hand, who have to be assisted with their toiletry needs, many of them who are in Attends or diapers, who were the subject of many meetings on behalf of the transition committee to get these folks into employment opportunities.

I was really concerned about it, and at one point I said to one of the people on the transition team: Can you give me an example of an employment opportunity for anybody - just take anybody? Well, for instance, a person in a wheelchair, who is non-verbal and who cannot feed themselves, they have to be fed hand over hand, could be pushed through a public building with a tray clipped onto the wheelchair and sell muffins.

When I brought that response back to the parents and to the care givers, they were positively appalled that their child would be asked or put in a position of being put in a wheelchair - this person, as I said, is non-verbal and drooling, et cetera - and pushed through the halls and offices of a public building, selling muffins; for the sake of putting on paper that we now had another person who is mentally challenged, employed. On paper that would look wonderful, but what about the dignity of the individual who was being pushed through the halls?

We have the Canada Pension Disability Fund and people can go, if they feel that they are disabled and they are unable to join the workforce or remain in the workforce, and they can appear before the Canada Pension Appeal Board and be deemed to be unemployable. Then they are no longer employable for the rest of their lives. But we can take people who were born unemployable and definitely want to remain unemployable, and want to be in a formal day program where they are happy and receiving services, and services could be brought in from occupational therapists and there could be different programs set up to give them physical exercise so that their muscles don't atrophy, and there could be different learning skills there in terms of teaching them life skills. They could be taught life skills and things like that.

When they are unable to speak, and when their parents who have been put on the sidelines here, because even though it was said that the parents would have all kinds of say and all kinds of input into the decision-making and into the service plan that was being drawn up for their child, they have been listened to but not heard. The parents have gone and they have given their opinions, but they have not been listened to.

I adjourn debate, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

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

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

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. Tomorrow it is at 2:00 p.m., I think, that we have sent out to people for the Budget Speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: At 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, yes.

MR. TULK: Yes.

I move that the House adjourn.

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