April 3, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 10


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we call Statements by Members, the Chair would like to welcome to the gallery today six Level II students from J.C. Erhardt Memorial in Makkovik, in the District of Torngat Mountains, and they are accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Brenda Butler.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Each year the federal government puts out five awards under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, called the President's National Award, in recognition of members in various communities.

The award is given to employees who promote a spirit of co-operation, mutual respect and responsibility, and to those who demonstrate initiative, flexibility and innovation.

I am proud today to inform the House that Gary Mitchell of Makkovik, Labrador, was one of these recipients.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Over the past twenty years, Gary Mitchell has made a great contribution to the community of Makkovik. He is a member of the local Ground Search and Rescue Team, as well as the Canadian Rangers. He is very active as a Church Elder in the Moravian Church, and very instrumental in the choir. Gary Mitchell was instrumental in starting the Economic Developmental Committee in Makkovik and was instrumental in helping bring about the Labrador winter trails. He is a gifted songwriter and spends a lot of time teaching young people in Makkovik the art and talent of music.

It is an honor for me today, on behalf of all the people in my riding, to congratulate Mr. Mitchell on an award so well deserved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

On Thursday, March 30, friends and family of the late Joseph L. Butler gathered at the Admiralty House in Mount Pearl to recognize Mr. Butler's unique contribution to radio communications in Newfoundland and to place in the telecommunications archives at the Admiralty House the clock so familiar to many listeners in the early years, as its chimes signaled the beginning of the 1:30 p.m., 6:45 p.m. and 9:45 p.m. news read by Joseph L. Butler himself..

For many years, Mr. Butler gathered international news from BBC shortwave and edited it with local content for his broadcasts. He and his partner, Walter Williams, founded VOCM, the Voice of the Common Man, which served as the only commercial alternative in Newfoundland to Dominion Broadcasting Company's radio station, VONF.

Born in Port de Grave in 1901, Joseph L. Butler began his communications career in 1919 as a Marconi wireless operator, serving telecommunications at Makkovik, Labrador, and on Sable Island, Nova Scotia. He returned to Newfoundland in 1930 after training and teaching in Boston as a radio engineer.

Mr. Butler was killed tragically while piloting his own airplane in 1954. His radio station and his legacy was recognized by his business peers -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

His legacy was recognized by his business peers when they named him the very first inductee into the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of Fame. In 1993 he was inducted into the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' Hall of Fame.

VOCM, the station founded by Joseph L. Butler, continues to operate and, until recently, was managed solely by the Butler family.

The management and staff of the Admiralty House in Mount Pearl gratefully acknowledge and appreciate the placement of this memento in their telecommunications archives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to congratulate the winners of TickleAce's Confederation 50 Writing Competition for Fiction, Poetry and Essay. The winners were announced at last Friday's launch at the LSPU Hall. The competition was inspired by the Fiftieth Anniversary of Confederation and contestants from across Canada entered pieces relating to the event.

In the fiction category, third place went to Lindsay Preston, second place to Tom Moore, and first place to Joan Strong. Joan also won first place in the poetry competition, with second place going to Jeannette Lynes and third place to Carol Hobbs. Essay winners were: in third place, Helen Fogwill Porter; second place, Trudy Morgan Cole; and, first place, Kay Anonsen.

All winners are published in Issue 37 of TickleAce, which is this Province's premier literary magazine. It has been publishing for twenty-two years and is released biannually. It has a great reputation across Canada for the unique caliber of writing it publishes. Maclean's magazine called it "One of the liveliest of its kind in Canada". It is the only magazine devoted primarily to the publication and promotion of Newfoundland and Labrador writers. It also includes works of visual artists. Over 70 per cent of work published in TickleAce is written by residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I hope that all members will recognize the tremendous service to the people of this Province as organizations like TickleAce provide, and I would encourage everyone to purchase copies for themselves and their families.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the work of the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company Limited in my district. The company is owned by the fisher people who reside in the communities from L'Anse au Clair to Cartwright and was established to address the need for development in the fishing industry of that region. The Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company Limited held their annual general meeting this past week in L'Anse au Clair. Myself and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for the Province had the opportunity to meet with them and to certainly discuss their prospects for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to the staff and Board of Directors of this company for their past twenty-two years of work and development in that region, and I also offer my congratulations to Mr. Earl Stone and Mr. Morley Normore who were just elected to the Board of Directors, and they are fishermen who reside in that region.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to say that this past week the Newfoundland and Labrador Basketball Association sponsored an Under Eleven Pepsi Basketball Tournament in Dunville, attended by several schools from the area. It was held at St. Anne's Academy. I would like to send congratulations to the organizers, Mr. David Constantine, Mr. Tony Woodman and many others, and the principal of St. Anne's, Pam Constantine, for great hospitality.

Special congratulations go out to the team from Fatima Academy in St. Bride's, and their coach, Mr. Ken Mandeville, who were the victors at the tournament. All of these children were under eleven years of age, over seventy or eighty kids involved. There was a great spirit there, great comradery. I think everybody had a great time, but overall it gave an opportunity for these people to be involved at this level. There is some great potential there for great basketball players. I would just like to send out congratulations to one and all who were involved, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today and pass on my personal congratulations and appreciation to the teaching staff and the parents of Roncalli High School in Avondale for hosting this year's Provincial 4A Basketball tournament.

This tournament was held this past weekend and it takes in areas from my own district - students from my own district - as well as students from the district of my colleague, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

I have no doubt that organizing a tournament such as this demanded a great deal of preparation and hard work, and on behalf of the residents of my district, and my colleagues, I want to pass on my sincere thanks.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Roncalli team. They were this year's winners of the Provincial 4A Girls Championship.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday and Friday of last week, provincial and territorial Ministers of Health met in Markham, Ontario, with federal Health Minister, Mr. Allan Rock, to discuss the state of health care in Canada.

It was an important opportunity to ensure that the federal minister understands the serious concerns we all have over the federal government's current level of funding in the health care system.

As provinces and territories, Mr. Speaker, we unanimously agreed that, first and foremost: at a minimum, federal funding for health must be reinstated to 1994-1995 levels, and we also informed the minister that, in addition to this, future federal transfers for health must include an escalator which ensures that transfers keep pace with inflation and growing costs. Secondly, that the federal government should reaffirm its fiscal support for medicare and the Canada Health Act. Thirdly, as provinces and territories we informed the minister that we are and have always been willing to consider any proposal at any time to ensure sustainability of the publicly funded Canadian health care system.

I was encouraged by Minister Rock's response when he clearly stated his willingness to work with us in enhancing and improving our medicare system. The minister said, and I quote, "the federal government's commitment to the Canada Health Act and public medicare is profound, consistent, and unconditional."

The federal government understands that all provinces are making substantial financial commitments to health care, and they are also working hard to adapt our health care system to ensure it meets current needs and concerns. In our Province we have increased health funding by 25 per cent since 1994-1995, even in the face of considerable reductions in federal transfer payments over the same period of time. We have also placed a high priority on encouraging innovation and adaptability in our Provinces's health care system.

The federal minister agrees that more sustainable funding is required to renew and restore medicare and to provide access to quality care in Canada. He has expressed a desire to work with us in developing a better system of delivery for health care across the full spectrum; areas such as primary care, home care, and pharmacare, just to name a few.

The minister has assured us as well that he will impress upon his federal colleagues the need for sustainable long-term funding to preserve and enhance our medicare system. He also continues to suggest that the provincial work in reform of the health care system must continue at an accelerated pace in order to ensure the system is sustainable into the future.

While provincial ministers agree with Minister Rock, they unanimously agreed that the restoration of the CHST is essential to stabilizing the current system. Clearly, our existing health care system must be stabilized so that our commitment to innovation and adaptability can be effectively pursued.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad to see all the health ministers across the country showing unanimous agreement to restore the funding that was there, back to the 1994-1995 levels. It is a little ironic too that the very minister they are meeting with, along with our Premier, with Paul Martin the Finance Minister, and the Prime Minister, are the ones who presided over the most devastating cuts to health care in the history of our country, I might add.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It seems to become now not a matter of how much they might put in, or are they going to put money in; it is a matter of when it is politically expedient to put it in, it seems to be. All these four are players in the federal game for the leadership of the party, or the ‘prime ministership' of Canada. Maybe they are waiting on the eve of a federal election now to put money in to be the saviours for health care in this country when they are the very people who devastated health care in our country.

It is not the provincial ministers of health we need to convince, I might add, it is the federal ministers, the Prime Minister, who said to all the provincial ministers: Go back and get your house in order, spend the money right that you are getting, create an efficient system and stop the inefficiencies.

The minister sits on reports over in his office. I will use one example, the ambulance service. The City of Corner Brook has $250,000 in duplication inefficiencies for the last several years and they have done nothing. There are inefficiencies in passing out money without public tender, to hire bidders in public tender in health care over the past two years. Numerous examples of inefficiency. No wonder the Prime Minister doesn't trust this health minister to give him a cheque for health care here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We encourage our minister, and his counterparts as well, to continue their fight to acquire more funding for medicare services. While money may not be the answer to all the problems in our health care system, it is certainly a prior requirement to fix a lot of them. I would also go one step further and encourage our minister, other ministers and first ministers to condemn and to continually condemn the action of Ralph Klein's government in Alberta where they are leaning towards privatizing our health care services.

I think that is fundamental to the well-being and the continuation of a medicare system that we have in this country and that we are proud of and to be called Canadians for it.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide members with an update on the progress of the construction on the Civic Centre project in St. John's. Government is pleased to be a partner in this project and to be a part of a number of other major construction projects which are currently in various stages of development in our capital city.

Last week the Premier and Minister Furey, on behalf of government, unveiled the concept design for "The Rooms," the new $40 million facility which will house the Newfoundland Museum, the Art Gallery of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Provincial Archives. It will be a state-of-the-art provincial facility which reflects our cultural values. Archeological work will begin this spring with construction expected to begin in the fall of this year.

As well, we will also see the completion of the $130 million redevelopment of hospital services in St. John's as the major centre for referrals of the Province. Mr. Speaker, this government is investing in our communities and developing an environment which lends itself to additional private sector investment.

The St. John's Civic Centre project is enhancing the infrastructure of our capital city and revitalizing the downtown area. We are seeing a renewed confidence in the area by the business community as new private sector investments in the heart of the city are obvious. The employment resulting from this and other construction projects are also contributing to some of the lowest unemployment figures we have seen in our capital city for years.

The Board, using Canadian Construction Association measures, estimate the direct and indirect economic impacts from the Civic Centre construction to be 752 person years of employment. A Coopers and Lybrand Study estimated that 135 person years of additional direct and indirect employment will be created from the increased meetings and conventions which we will now be able to host. The Board estimates the economic impact from meetings, conventions and event businesses will be in excess of $7.7 million a year when the Civic Centre opens.

Earlier today I toured the Civic Centre site with members of the Civic Centre Construction Board and our partners on the project. The budget of $36 million has been fixed and I am told the Board expects to complete the project within the available budget.

Tourism in the Province continues to be a major success. Since the successful Cabot 500 celebration, the Canada Winter Games, and Soiree '99, tourism is up over 30 per cent since 1996. This year, the Viking celebrations promise to continue to draw tourists to our capital city and indeed throughout our Province.

When the Civic Centre is completed and open for business, it will allow us to better compete with other major cities in the Atlantic region. It will allow the planning of larger conferences and conventions from all over the world and help to enhance the already very popular reputation our city has as a convention destination. I was told today that larger conventions are already being booked for next spring predicated on the opening of the new facility, as has been directed to us by the Construction Board themselves.

As the MHA for St. John's Centre, it is very exciting for me to see the increased construction activity in our capital city. As a member of government I am pleased that we are partners in the Civic Centre project and I hope we can develop more future partnerships which will improve and enhance St. John's as our capital city.

The Civic Centre Construction Board has placed a significant emphasis on consultations with various user groups of these new facilities and I am sure the citizens of St. John's and the surrounding region will be very pleased with the final results of the project. I commend the Board members for their work to date and wish them every success as this project moves closer to the completion of the construction phase and, further, the opening of the facility.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister stood and told us she was going to give us an update on the Civic Centre project in St. John's. By her second paragraph she was talking about "The Rooms" and the art gallery, in the third paragraph she is talking about the hospital facilities at the Health Science, and in the fifth paragraph she is talking about tourism. We thought that this is the only minister who could cover more topics than Bill Clinton could in the State of the Union address.

It is an occasion where I want to say to the minister that I hope she has Andy Wells' permission to do this because the government is only a minority player in this particular event. We compliment the government on its contribution but we also draw the minister's attention to where she says she expects the project to be completed within the available budget. I want to ask the minister, if it is not within the available budget - and you say you expect it will be, because if you knew it was within budget you would have said that. Therefore I suspect that you know it is probably not on budget. I want to ask you today if you are going to commit your government to share with the city the cost of any overruns that this project might incur?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I knew the minister had new ministerial responsibilities but I did not realize they were as extensive as they appear in this statement. I hope that every time the minister visits some site or goes somewhere we won't be exposed to a five minute Ministerial Statement on it.

As to the meat of the statement, she told us she has toured the Centre but she did not tell us what she saw. I assume she saw a good quality civic centre in progress. We support it. With the building of the Civic Centre and "The Rooms" St. John's will have accomplished something very positive in having two major public facilities built around the same time, adding to the major infrastructure of the City for the purposes of conventions and visitor activity, as well as underscoring our provincial heritage and the important place that they fill in our history and our culture.

I certainly support that, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping the minister would tell us something about the construction, where it was, or how things were going and something that she saw this morning, rather than just having been there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform hon. members that nominations are now being accepted for the 11th Annual Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Awards.

These awards are presented each year to individuals and groups who demonstrate outstanding commitment and dedication to the protection and conservation of the Newfoundland and Labrador environment.

The awards are presented in seven categories: Individual; Citizen's Group or Organization; Educator; Youth; School; Business; and Municipality.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Awards Program is jointly sponsored between the Department of Environment and Labour and the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes. I want to say a special word of thanks to our co-sponsors. The commitment and dedication that the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes has demonstrated for environmental initiatives is highly commendable and their efforts are very much appreciated.

The competition for these awards is very intense and winners are chosen from a highly competitive field. Although the program formally acknowledges the achievements of a select group of individuals, there are thousands of individuals and organizations that contribute in a very significant way to the protection and conservation of our environment.

Information about this program is being circulated today to all members in the House of Assembly and I would strongly encourage each member to give consideration to the many individuals and groups in their districts that have made valuable contributions in the area of environmental protection.

Additional information about this program can be obtained by contacting the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes or the Department of Environment and Labour. Information, Mr. Speaker, is also available on the Department's web site.

Thank you.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: ((Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will get to that in a minute, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

I say this is a good initiative and I congratulate the minister for this initiative, because there are thousands of individuals throughout this Province, and there are hundreds of groups throughout the Province, who put their efforts towards protecting our environment and looking after our environment. These people should be recognized. It is unfortunate we can only recognize a few each year. Because they put valuable time, valuable effort and a lot of their own resources into protecting our environment. I do congratulate the minister and the department for such an initiative, because as we can see over the past number of years, and as we will continue to see, the environment is an issue that is becoming more and more popular with the people of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, just for a moment, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. T. OSBORNE: No leave. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We support the environmental awards for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an important way of recognizing the numerous individuals and organizations who in many ways and for the most part are way ahead of government in terms of their passion for the environment, and their willingness to do the background work, the research, and bring forth the critiques of things that are happening that affect our environment. They play a very significant role and make a major contribution to our environment and to the life of our Province.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions I guess today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. In November 1998 a transmission line from Labrador to the Island was a make or break condition of the Lower Churchill agreement. A year later, in December 1999, the Premier told The Telegram that we didn't need a transmission line any more, there is no need of it, that a natural gas pipeline would be much better. What a difference in one year.

This government has kept that position until about the middle of this month, but now publicly the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy are casting doubts on even the option of a natural gas pipeline.

You now say there is not enough proven gas reserves to make a pipeline feasible at this time. So where are you today, Minister? Where is the Premier today in terms of the statements on: Is it back to a transmission line? Is a gas pipeline? Or do we get up in the morning, lick our finger, put it up in the air and find out which way the wind is blowing to find out which way you and your government are going?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. member is going to ask questions, he should get his facts right. The Province has never said it was a make or break part of the Lower Churchill development that we have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, I would love to see the quote. The Province has never said that is a make or break aspect of the deal. We have made it clear from the very beginning that the Province could not finance it itself; that, if there were going to be a line to the Island that would cost in the vicinity of $2 billion, we would need the assistance of the federal government. That assistance has not been forthcoming.

I would invite the hon. member, if he and his colleague have the $2 billion available to build that line, and can ensure the public that there will be no unreasonable increase in rates, we would invite him to build it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Once again, I want to caution the minister to take the advice of the former minister, the now Health Minister: Words are important in this place. Words are very important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I refer the now Minister of Mines and Energy to talk to his former chief negotiator who said publicly that a make or break option was the transmission line.

Let me ask him this: The Premier and this government and this minister have a habit of jumping to conclusions at the drop of a hat, without bothering to look at the evidence or even look for evidence. I ask you: Do you support, seriously, what the Premier said in this House last week, or was he misinformed when he told the House that a former government, led by a former Premier Peckford, gave up royalties from Hibernia, forever and a day, just to get construction jobs at Bull Arm and - listen to this - that the Hibernia deal -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I have asked the question, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

- and that the Hibernia deal was worse than the Upper Churchill agreement. Before he answers the question, let me reference this fact -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - that over the lifetime of the Upper Churchill agreement, we would have given away $60 billion. Do you support the Premier's statement of last week, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition suggests that we check our facts. I think the media and other people who may be listening - I doubt that there are very many - would invite the hon. member to check Hansard. When he first asked the question, he said the Premier had said something. Now he says the former chief negotiator said it was a condition precedent to build the line to the Island. The hon. member is clearing trying to make political hay out of something -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DICKS: - quite incorrectly, and he has asked several questions. The first is: It has always been the Province's position, and it has always been very clear, that the line from Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. member looks at the record, we have made it clear from the very beginning of all these negotiations that a line to the Island could not be built unless there was finance assistance from Ottawa. That has been our position, and it remains our position.

The second part of it is, dealing with the GBS and the floating platform system and so on like that, the Premier's point was that the more money that goes into development means less royalties for the Province. If a GBS is more expensive, that means less royalties for the Province. That is the point and I hope the hon. member understands it.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is not what he said at all. I will ask him this question: Isn't it a fact, Minister, that this government, based upon that deal, is collecting royalties from Hibernia right now, and that the annual royalties will reach in excess of $400 million or more when pre-production costs of that project are paid off?

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

MR. DICKS: Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker; it depends on what the price of oil is.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if this government wants to find something to compare - using the Premier's analogy, to sell out on the Upper Churchill, they need look no further than their own negotiations with Quebec on the Lower Churchill.

Haven't you already agreed to forego any royalties from the Lower Churchill development until the $10 billion construction cost is paid off - that is nearly twice the provincial debt - and when will it be paid off if that current arrangement under the framework goes ahead?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, there is no agreement on the Lower Churchill.

MR. E. BYRNE: But you have already (inaudible) it, so I will ask the minister again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, under the framework agreement, hasn't the government already agreed not to take any royalties until the $10 billion construction cost is paid off? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, by definition, when there is no agreement there is no agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: There is MOU, framework agreement - call it what you want - that is what this government has agreed to, Mr. Speaker, in principle. While they have not signed off, that was the agreement and that is why he will not answer the question that I put to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I ask him this: Why is it that you have agreed in principle to wait decades to get royalties from the Lower Churchill tentative agreement when you already have agreed with Quebec that Quebec can take 2.5 per cent marketing fee, cream off the top, of what is a so-called marketing fee? How does that compare, I ask the minister? That agreement in principle, does it rise to the level of Hibernia, in your view, or does it sink to the level of Upper Churchill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member has to understand that there were issues around which the parties negotiated. Those things have changed dramatically. One was a possible building of the line to the Island; the other was diversion of waters; the other thing was the additional water coming across the Upper Churchill watershed. It was whether or not we do Muskrat Falls. All of these were items around which we negotiated. It is unfair and it is inaccurate and it is wrong to say there was an agreement. There is no agreement. There was no agreement. There may be an agreement. When there is, we will advise the hon. member on this issue.

The second thing is that this government and this agreement has been the first to ever get additional monies from the Upper Churchill, and this will range in the vicinity $60 million to $70 million, over $1 billion into the foreseeable future while the contract remains outstanding. We are going to net between $20 million and $30 million a year on the resale of the recall of the 130-odd megawatts; and, secondly, the Winter Availability Contract will yield an average of over $30 million back to the Province.

So, if the hon. member wants to say anything, if he wants to interpret agreements, there are two agreements in place right now, and we are the only government that has ever gotten additional money out of the Upper Churchill, including all his predecessors.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister this: Isn't it a fact that the Hibernia agreement, in view of the fact now the Premier has said publicly that it is worse than the Upper Churchill - I cannot believe it, but he said it - isn't it a fact that the Hibernia agreement founded an industry in this Province, achieved long-term benefits not only in royalties and taxes but in facilities, jobs and technology, business opportunities for local players not only from Hibernia but potentially should have been from Terra Nova, White Rose and beyond? I will ask the minister this: Do you think that your record to date will stack up against that?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to declare, once and for all, in his view, whether Hibernia was a good agreement or a bad agreement. Today, I hear him saying there are wonderful things that establish an industry, et cetera, and create a lot of jobs. Meanwhile, I have heard him in this House say before what a terrible agreement it was and how can we justify that agreement on the basis of such little royalty. So, I would like him to firmly say what, if anything, was right about that agreement and whether or not, in establishing any industry, the Province should take lesser benefits in order for it to become a reality.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: What is obvious here is that what the minister needs is an in-feed of some truthful information. That is what is obvious here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I asked him this question: Would their record stack up to that? He would not answer it so let's review it. Let's look at your record and the record of your Liberal predecessors in getting maximum benefits from the preferential Atlantic Accord that we were entitled to. I will ask the minister this: What about the work on drilling modules which was shipped out of the Province, out of Marystown, to the shipyard in St. John, New Brunswick, for the bogus reasons, with the blessing of not only your former boss but your Cabinet colleagues-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - many of whom sat in your Cabinet? What about that work that we should have had in Marystown?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I enjoy the hon. member's questions, but I think sometimes he gets his input lines crossed with his output lines. The real issue that is going to be discussed in this Province is not revisiting history in one form or another but to determine a very vital issue.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, at some point, is going to have to adopt a positioned advocate in the Province. The problem is this - and he puts his finger on it with this question. If we want more construction work in the Province, it means that we will probably have less royalties in the long run. Now, there is a judgement to be made. The criticism of Hibernia that we now hear is that we are not getting enough royalties.

The reason that he pointed out, and which some people hold to be valid - which I have never heard him declare one way or the other, depending on which question he is asking - is that sometimes it is necessary to have jobs right now, to have construction, and you forgo royalties; because all construction projects, all royalty regimes, have to bear the cost to get the resource, whether it be minerals or oil in production.

The very question he raised is about shipping things out of the Province - have it done in Korea, Montreal, Marystown, or here at the shipyard or elsewhere are all very vital issues. The issue for us all to determine is whether or not his party will say a GBS at any cost, a Hydro line from Labrador at any cost, or if they are going to say: Look, we have to act reasonably and we have to make a reasoned judgement about what is in the best interest of the Province, which involves to some extent weighing immediate benefits right now in terms of jobs and procurement against long-term royalties.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: He will not answer the question because it reflects on his record. Let's review another aspect of the record. When the C-NOPB sent a decision report to the former Minister of Mines and Energy with respect to asking for his opinion about the engineering jobs from Leatherhead, England, did you agree that the approach to take was not to respond? Because that is what your government did. You did not respond, and let the C-NOPB decision report stand on engineering jobs in Leatherhead, England. Did you agree with that approach, sitting around the Cabinet table?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Province has always maintained the position that jobs should be located in this Province where we can do so. We have done that with this Husky project, White Rose. The Husky has been very good. They have located virtually all their procurement in the Province. They have assured us that they will do the maximum procurement, whichever method is utilized for a production, already locating their engineering staff here. This project, more than any other, will have the greatest development, greatest engineering and other preliminary aspects here in the Province. We expect that we will have a great deal of procurement as well.

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: If he will not answer the question, I will ask him another one. What about the $120 million mechanical outfitting contract - when you were Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology - that we lost with the famous Liberal shrug-off phase that said: Well, we missed the contract. We should have sharpened our pencils, dotted our I's and crossed our T's.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: What about that, I ask the minister?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province know one thing about all of this. There is a difference between the members opposite - the Opposition - and the members here. The members opposite say: We must do things in this Province, regardless of cost. We say: No, it has to be economic. Honourable members have used that reasoning to develop tomatoes and cucumbers to be grown in parts of this Island where it makes absolutely no sense. We, on the other hand, believe that one must make a more reasoned and economic view of these sorts of projects. That is one that, on point of principle, we would not have done. I would be delighted to hear the hon. member's view as to how he would apply that rational in the general resource sector.

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

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

They do understand the difference. They understand that this government wasted $50 million in criminal decisions at the Cabinet table. They do understand that the benefits enshrined to us under Atlantic Accord, this government has let go without even a fight. So, let me review one more -

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 would like to ask the minister this question: In view of the fact that the Premier has opened up the history book, what about your government's failure with respect to Terra Nova, with respect to procurement activities for people in this Province?

I listened to the President of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities ask this question -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his question quickly.

MR. E. BYRNE: - and it is one I ask today. Why was it that your government sat idly by and let $300 to $400 million worth of economic opportunities for businesses in this Province, made right here, where they were seriously disadvantaged -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - and let those contracts go outside Canada and this Province? Why did you sit by and let that happen?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right about one thing. The people of the Province do understand, and that is why there are fourteen of them over there and more than thirty of us over here.

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

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. If the Department of Human Resources and Employment has overpaid social assistance recipients during any period of time, going back years that they received social assistance, if they were overpaid that department will proceed to claw back the overpayments. However, if the department has underpaid the social assistance recipients - for instance, if there was a single mother out there who was clawed-back for child support payments that she didn't receive - they will only investigate six months back. I ask the minister: Why is there this double standard?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, my experience has been that when an individual case presents itself the circumstances associated with it are investigated on an individual basis, and either through the appeal board or through some other mechanism judgement is made with respect to the appropriate action by the department. I would have to know the individual circumstances of the case that the member is referring to before I could indicate any further as to what the response has been by the department. Generally speaking, when there is an overpayment there is a practice of, yes, having to recover, and that is government policy. When there is some circumstance presenting where we have not paid what the client is entitled to, that is either handled through the appeal board or it is handled through an individual review.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Minister, I am not talking about individual cases, I am talking about policy, although I do have some constituents in that position. I am talking about policy. The Department of Human Resources and Employment goes back years to claw back money. They will claw back money that is probably owing fifteen or twenty years ago, but if they have made a mistake, gone past six months ago, they will not investigate, they will not open the books, they will not open the file. That is the policy that has been relayed to me by the financial assistance officers in the minister's department. That is what I want the explanation for. Why do you go back years if they owe you? You will only go back six months if you owe them. Not about an individual, just a clarification of the policy, please.

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

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the case of income support or social assistance it is the government's policy, and the whole reason for having income support, to try and provide a safety net for people who have no other means of support. Generally speaking, people come to the provincial government for income support when they really have no other means in which to provide for their needs financially and for their families. Again, I would have to say that you would have to present to me the individual circumstances to which you are referring before I could comment on the type or the nature of investigation that my department or even an appeal board would entertain. Certainly it would depend on circumstances of when this happened and what the nature of the underpayment was before anyone could make that determination. I would like to have a few more specifics before I could comment any further on this.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Minister, I can give you specifics on a couple of people if you want but I think you are missing the point. I am asking you this. Why do you have a policy that you can claw back, going years back into a social assistance recipient's file, but you will only investigate six months back if the department owes that recipient money? I just want the policy clarified, that's all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as to why we would recover overpayments, I think we have a responsibility as a government, when we are delivering tax dollars, to support whatever social programs or social needs to ensure that we do it right, that we do it well and that people get what they are entitled to; and that in cases where, through some inadvertent mistake or otherwise, they get more than they are entitled to, we have an obligation to ensure that we right the error. That is just standard policy that we adopt.

In the case of when there is some kind of underpayment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS BETTNEY: Again, Mr. Speaker, what I would have to say in the case of an underpayment is you would have to know the circumstances before you could really provide the reasoning or the why, because essentially social assistance and income support is to support people when they cannot support themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. The second recommendation of the On Deck & Below report says to purchase or lease a night ferry immediately for the Argentia service. The definition of immediate I will have to get back to another day.

This year the Argentia ferry will be status quo. There will be no extra accommodations, no extra vehicle room and no extra weekly runs because they are going to have the MV Joseph and Clara Smallwood on the Argentia run. I would like to ask the minister: Is this it for the Argentia run? Are we going to be stuck with, and I quote, "Constitutional Cattle Boats" for the Argentia run for the foreseeable future?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, a couple of points. First of all, the corporation told me they went into the world marketplace to seek out a night ferry. There were none available anywhere in the world that would suit this particular run.

The second point I would make is that when the new ferry is purchased next year, and indeed when the lease arrangement is concluded this year, that will create a new configuration on the Gulf run and free up a dedicated vessel for the Argentia run. Which is exactly what we called for to look after the tourism components of that particular run.

Thirdly, there will be an announcement about whether the season will be extended but I think that is more appropriate for Marine Atlantic to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: According to the report, Mr. Speaker, and I refer the minister to page 24: the availability of such vessels has been confirmed by the vessel technology consultant for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. You tell me that Marine Atlantic couldn't find one and you could. You should let them know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that job applications for Marine Atlantic have to be sent to Nova Scotia. They will be screened in Nova Scotia and the majority of people doing the interviews on the board will be from Nova Scotia. I want to ask the minister: Is this satisfactory to the minister? Is he satisfied that Newfoundlanders will get their full and fair share of the new jobs with Marine Atlantic?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I apologize there are no pictures in that report for the hon. member but let me try to clarify it for him.

The report said that the government had confirmed that there were night ferries available in the world. When the technical team from Marine Atlantic went out to look at those particular ferries, they would not meet the specifications of the docking facilities or the requirements for Marine Atlantic on that run. It is pretty straightforward.

Now, to the second point. The hon. member argued last week that no Newfoundlanders were bilingual, and therefore because they couldn't speak French they wouldn't have proper access to those jobs. These are Canadian jobs. Just as Newfoundlanders can apply anywhere in this country for any job, any Canadian can apply for this job as well.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Canadian jobs for Newfoundland service, as the minister calls it. I reiterate that the ferry services exists because of Newfoundland and Labrador. With the possibility that Nova Scotia has the Bluenose and Newfoundlanders are going to be saddled with the ‘Brown Nose,' I would like to ask the minister: Do you think that residents of this Province should have preference for the Marine Atlantic jobs on a service that exists because this Province exists?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, of course I do but we have to operate in the real world. This is still a Canadian service. The people of Canada still spend hundreds of millions every year on this service. If the hon. member will be a little bit patient he will see that certain changes are coming which will clearly show preference for Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Health and Community Services regarding the community ambulance operators of this Province.

Due to the factors such as out-migration, an aging population, new provincial training standards, these community operators are finding it increasingly difficult to remain viable. The Newfoundland and Labrador Community Ambulance Operators Association have stated they cannot continue to operate on the funding they receive under the road ambulance program. As a matter of fact, four such services have folded recently.

I ask the minister: What steps have you taken to address this problem adequately so that these mainly volunteer operators can continue to provide this much needed service to the twenty-two areas of the Province in which they perform their services?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to address the issue just for a brief moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to get on with his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I assume that the hon. Member for Labrador West has not been appointed now as a negotiator for this group. They have a very good spokesperson and representative in their own right. In any event, when he is a negotiator for certain groups he claims, when convenient, to have either lack of information or loss of memory as to how much he knows at a particular point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: We are working on a daily basis actually with the representatives of not only the community-based services but the other two private ambulance operator groups. The Members of the House of Assembly might like to be educated to know that while the general public thinks there is only one group of so-called private ambulance operators in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are in fact three different groups. The group that he raised in this question is one of three groups. What we are trying to do is find a way for them to agree amongst themselves so that they can take today, tomorrow, any day that we can have the agreement, a 50 per cent increase in their funding over what it was yesterday. I think that regardless of whether it is community based or a private service large or a private service small -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - that they will all be much better off with a 50 per cent increase as soon as we can get them to agree to take the money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the minister that if it was an agreement that I was a part of negotiating, it would be negotiated and not legislated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: I ask the minister, based on the fact that if these different groups cannot agree as to how the funding should be split and allocated, will the minister become personally involved and see that it is done in a manner that benefits the community operators of this Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would expect then that the hon. member, in referring to negotiations - agreements rather than legislation - means that he has just completely and totally disassociated himself from the New Democratic Government of British Columbia that brought in legislation, as I understand it, last night to send some school workers back to work, and that he therefore -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West, on a point of order.

MR. COLLINS: I would think, Mr .Speaker, on a point of order, that the minister has more to be concerned about with what is happening in this Province, without traveling to the other end of the country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So I will send a message along to the Premier and his colleagues in British Columbia that he did absolutely disown them today in this Legislature -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - and wants nothing to do with the New Democrats in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: So they must be a different breed than the New Democrats in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - and, secondly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, because it is important to answer the question that as well the New Democrats in Saskatchewan, as I understood it, legislated their nurses back to work and he would not want to be a New Democrat in Saskatchewan.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: So we must have a whole different breed of New Democrats in Newfoundland and Labrador than exists anywhere else in the world, and it is great to see what they are like with their true colors, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Wednesday I will present a private member's resolution which reads

WHEREAS Licensed Practical Nurses undergo an intensive twelve months of training where they learn a broad array of nursing procedures; and

WHEREAS upon graduation LPNs are not permitted to work within their full scope of practice; and

WHEREAS the duties of the LPNs who are permitted to practice varies from one nursing unit to another and from one medical institution to another;

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House strongly encourage the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Care Association and the Department of Health and Community Services to allow Licensed Practical Nurses to work within their full scope of practice;

AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House strongly encourage the Minister of Health and Community Services to make this a priority issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I am presenting another petition from the residents of the Shea Heights community regarding wheelchair accessible housing units in that neighborhood. As I have said during the presentation of other petitions to this House, the residents in that area deserve wheelchair accessible, handicap accessible housing, as do residents in any other community within the Province.

Right now there are no handicap accessible units in the Shea Heights area. We are asking government to give serious consideration to putting handicap accessible housing units in the Shea Heights area. Because of the nature of the community, it is a very close knit community. It is a community where the families in Shea Heights group together to protect and support each other, especially in times of need. In this particular case if somebody with a handicap, somebody in a wheelchair, in the Shea Heights area, were looking for housing, they would have to apply for housing in an area outside of their own community.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of the Shea Heights area pride themselves on the fact that they are there to help and protect each other, and with the support network within the community, family and friends and so on to help residents of the area, we respectfully request that the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing division of the Department of Municipal Affairs put handicap accessible housing units in the Shea Heights area.

This is not a huge request, Mr. Speaker. As Newfoundland and Labrador Housing are very well aware, the Shea Heights area is one of the highest demand areas for housing units, and that is because the people in that neighbourhood want to stay in that neighbourhood. The people who live there and who have grown up there and who request housing units have a desire to continue to live in that neighbourhood, and apply to stay in that neighbourhood. It is very evident, it is very obvious, that there is a very high demand for housing units in the Shea Heights area, and there is a demand for handicap accessible units in the Shea Heights area.

Again, I simply ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to give serious consideration to this request.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that we resolve the House into Committee of the Whole on 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 (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I think it is our intention in the next couple of days to try to clue up the three heads of expenditure that we have to do in the Legislature as opposed to doing them in committee. So I would call the first one, Consolidated Fund Services.

I don't know whether the Minister of Finance would like to say a few words on that or if he just wants to leave it to his colleagues on the other side to question him.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is interesting to hear the hon. Member for St. John's South alleging that he knows more about the matters relating to the funds we are going to be debating, or the sub-heads we are going to be debating over the next few hours, than I do. Frankly, with that comfort level he has afforded me I am more than prepared to sit down and hear from the hon. Member for St. John's South, or any other member of the Opposition.

Having said that, and working in the shadow of the hon. Member for St. John's South, I would simply say this. The Estimates have been presented based on the Budget that we presented two weeks ago. If the level of acceptance, the level of appreciation for, and the level of support for the Budget translates into the comments of the hon. members on the other side with respect to these areas, then the debate could be rather brief.

However, having said that, I am prepared to answer any questions that might arise out of the debate. For greater certainty and for greater comfort, and in the interest of the maximum level of efficiency and information being available here, I am flanked on my immediate right by the former Minister of Finance who served in that portfolio so capably for four years. Between me with my little bit of knowledge, and him with his extensive years of accumulated knowledge, I'm sure we will be able to get through these debates in a timely fashion.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) arr you?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, you are the critic of everything, aren't you?

MR. J. BYRNE: I am a critic all right. There is no trouble, I would say to the Minister of Finance, to be critic for the government, for that Administration. Everything they do can be criticized. There is no problem to criticize that Administration because they do everything wrong. There are very few things they do right.

I believe the Government House Leader wants to cover a few issues today; the Executive Council also, and, of course, the Treasury Board Secretariat and what have you. With respect to the Consolidated Fund Services, I notice here, I would say to the minister - and hopefully he will pay attention and take a few notes because we can't ask questions. I think we can get up and down. I'm not sure if we are going to be going for a full ten minutes. Can we ask the minister a question and he can respond, and go back and forth that way?

CHAIR: It is my understanding we are completely flexible.

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

With respect to 1.1.06., Recoveries on Loans and Advances, I say to the minister, last year there was $4,133,500. Actually, it was revised down to $3,633,500 at the year end, and this year we are basically down again to $3,274,200. Hopefully, the minister, when he gets up on his feet, can address that point. That is 1.1.06, Recoveries on Loans and Advances, I say to the minister.

Now to 1.1.07., Newfoundland Government Sinking Fund. I noticed in the Budget this year the government is planning on taking, I think, $110 million out of the Sinking Fund with their Budget this year. That was one of the points we made, our Opposition Leader made it right after the Budget Speech, that the government is taking some $180 million out of the different groups, and $110 million that they would normally put into the Sinking Fund is not going to be done this year. They are taking it to help balance the Budget and bring the deficit down to $34 million.

With respect to the Consolidated Fund Services, I would like to say something about Issues Under Guarantee, 1.4.02.08, I say to the minister, Loans, Advances and Investments. There was $1.9 million budgeted last year and we have $13,400,000 in the revised column. This year it is only $500,000. That is significantly different, I say to the minister, $13 million different. Hopefully he will address those points. That is what this is all about, this sitting in the House of Assembly, I say to the Minister of Finance.

Also under the Estimates is the Employee Retirement Arrangements. Under Contributions to Pension Fund, 2.1.01, we had budgeted in 1999-2000 the amount of $52,545,500. It is revised up to $55,645,600, basically $3 million more. This year it is $55,092,800. I thought that under the Contributions to Pension Fund that the government had planned to put a lot more money into it over the next couple of years. It seems to me that this is only going to be an extra $3 million over and above what had been done in past years. Hopefully the minister will address that also.

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of issues to be discussed here today with respect to what the Government House Leader plans to address in the House today. I would imagine he is hoping to have these subheads approved. I know that the Estimates Committee meetings are underway. This morning I attended one with respect to health. The Minister of Health was there. He is only in the department a couple of months by the way, as far as I know. He seemed to have a handle on his department with respect to having the answers. Then again, no matter what questions you ask the Minister of Health and Community Services he always has answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He is gone. I know he is gone, I say to the member. The Minister of Health and Community Services always has answers. When he was the Minister of Mines and Energy he had answers. When he was the Minister of Education he had answers. Now he is the Minister of Health and has answers, but that does not necessarily mean that the answers are right. He will give you some sort of an answer but not necessarily a right one. It depends how in depth you want to go into the questions. Because when you ask a question and he gives an answer, it always ends up that you would have two or three more questions to ask the minister.

This morning, with respect to the Department of Health and Community Services in the Estimates Committee meetings, we went on for some length of time, and had many questions. I have to say that oftentimes when you dig into different departments, it is better saving your questions for the House of Assembly. Sometimes we go into these Estimates Committee meetings, like we had here today, and we ask all kinds of questions and we get some kind of answers. There is no doubt about that, usually, but it is not necessarily the best place to ask the questions. The House of Assembly is a better place, oftentimes, to do that.

This afternoon in the House the Leader of the Opposition asked a question to the Minister of Mines and Energy with respect to the contradictions of this Administration. The new Minister of Mines and Energy, when he was the Minister of Finance, would get up and no matter what you asked him he was always trying to spin out some kind of an answer that was completely irrelevant to the question. We saw it again in the House of Assembly today with the Minister of Finance and also the Minister of Health, I think.

I have some notes made here on this topic with respect to my response to the Budget Speech. Two years ago when they made the announcement on Churchill Falls and the possibility of an agreement and they did a framework agreement -

AN HON. MEMBER: Framework agreement?

MR. J. BYRNE: That is again where the minister tries to spin out that there is no agreement. There is no final agreement, but you have to have something to negotiate on. So they had a framework agreement, and in that framework agreement were the two rivers being diverted, the in-feed to the Island, and many other issues. Now there was no agreement. Then, only last week or the week before last - and you could see it. The Premier of this Province is becoming so predictable.

MR. TULK: Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. TULK: Remember last fall (inaudible) about the (inaudible) agreement (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The final analysis, Mr. Chairman, with respect to - and I say to the Government House Leader, for Hansard purposes - because I was speaking to someone in Hansard the other day and they were wondering why I am always interrupted when I am on my feet. I have no problem with that at all but I will try and -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not know. I have to try and keep it in my mind to refer to the person who is speaking to me. Obviously now it was the Government House Leader who was just speaking to me.

With respect to Voisey's Bay, again, there was going to be a big agreement. There last fall it was only days away. The Premier of the Province said: Voisey's Bay, only days away, weeks away maybe. Then we had the Minister of Mines and Energy come back all upset and say something completely different than what the Premier was saying.

I will get back now, Mr. Chairman. That is what is going on with this Administration. One hand does not know what the other hand is doing, but then, I suppose, if I was in government on that side of the House and I had the present Premier getting on the way that he is gets on, making announcements off the cuff... He drives his staff mad. They must be in a tizzy all the time trying to keep the Premier of the Province under control.

Anyway, again back to Churchill Falls. We have the two rivers, the in-feed, and then the Premier there only a couple of weeks ago trying to rationalize - get this now - because he knew what was coming. He knew there was going to be trouble. He could see it. There was going to be trouble getting an agreement. Now he is saying it is going to be delayed and what have you. Now he is out there trying to rationalize that we do not need an in-feed to the Island. He is giving all kinds of arguments one way or the other on why we do not need an in-feed because now we have this gas. Let's have a gas line to the Island, a pipeline to the Island from offshore, and we will utilize the gas. Because he knew he was not going to get an agreement, he was trying to deflect from him, the great negotiator, and his Minister of Mines and Energy, trying to deflect away from him and them the reasons and put it on Quebec or put it on someone else.

Now, he was willing two weeks ago, but he has changed his mind again. Now maybe we should be looking at the long-term again, the long-term versus the short-term. The gas line, a limited resource, is only so many years, but as far as I know, unless something happens big time, the rivers and Churchill Falls are going to flowing for many years to come. For eternity, hopefully, unless we get, again, the greenhouse effect, where it dries up all the water in Newfoundland and Labrador and we do not have any more rivers flowing. That is long ways off, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Premier and to the Minister of Mines and Energy. That is what he is trying to do, rationalize for the public. He is (inaudible) Mr. Flip, Mr. Flop, one day saying one thing and trying to rationalize it, and the next day saying something completely different and trying to rationalize that.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: ‘Sir Gisborne' is at it again, I say to the people for Hansard. If you did not hear that comment, I will not repeat it but it was ‘Sir Gisborne' of Bellevue.

Now, again, Churchill Falls, and the deal that we were supposed to have. I mean, the great negotiator. This is something that the Premier wanted so bad.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Jack, ask him how (inaudible) looking for the Deputy Speaker's.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I would not do that to him, I say now.

He wanted it so bad. He wanted to show the people in Canada, across the country, for his leadership bid depending on what happens up along. That is another story for another day maybe, and a long story that is going to be, but that will develop, no doubt about that, Mr. Chairman. He wanted to show the people of Ontario, BC, Manitoba, all across the country what a great negotiator he is. Just imagine, the Premier of Newfoundland going up and working a deal with Mr. Bouchard, the separatist. He is going to work out a deal with him on Churchill Falls, something that has been a pain for this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador since the day they signed it. We have the Premier - unreal, really - trying to compare this deal to Churchill Falls.

Now, with respect to that, he was up in the media the other day again saying basically it was a deal, he had no choice, it had to be signed. He gave the impression first that it was a deal signed by former Premier Peckford but no, it was signed by the former Premier Wells. That is who signed the deal. Now he is trying to tell the people of the Province that because the Tory Government negotiated a deal it is a bad deal - that is what he's trying to say - and we had to sign it, the Liberal Government had to sign it. This is the same man who became a hero - the former Premier - in the country because he was the only Premier who decided he would not sign the Meech Lake Accord. He had ten provinces putting the pressure on him, he had the Prime Minister of the country putting the pressure on him, and God knows who else, to sign the deal with Meech Lake; but, no, he stood up and said: I'm not signing it.

This is a lot of latitude with respect to finances, anything with finances, I say to the Minister of Finance; he should know. It is all relative. There is no problem there. It is all relevant, I say to the Minister of Finance, because it is all revenues for this Province; but he was trying to give the impression that he had to sign, he was forced to sign, the deal for Hibernia. Yet, he stood up against ten provinces, the Prime Minister of the country, all the federal Cabinet ministers and what have you; no he would not sign it, but he had to sign this deal negotiated on Hibernia. A bit of a contradiction, I say to the Minister of Finance.

We see the Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador trying to say that this deal with Hibernia is as bad as Churchill Falls. For a starter, if you compare the term, the length of the contract, and the money that Hibernia is going to put back into this Province in the near future, it was a good deal, plus it created jobs.

Now Churchill Falls created a few jobs, granted, and it is not giving us back any money. Churchill Falls, $800 million a year we are losing; $800 million a year. That (inaudible) happening for Hibernia in a few years' time, and the kind of bucks we are going to get back from that. It started an industry.

As I said earlier today across the House, the Minister of Finance and the Premier should get on their knees every night and thank God for John Crosbie and Brian Peckford, who put that in place. They should thank God for them. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation should thank God for the $800 million they are still spending on the roads.

MR. SULLIVAN: Rails for roads.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Roads for Rail. The Province is putting $12 million into roads this year, and they are talking about spending $130-something million. The rest of it is coming from the Roads for Rail - the Labrador Highway, all these things.

How long am I allowed to go here? Boys, you're going to have to start taking a turn soon now.

We are talking about the Estimates Committee meetings. Here today we are doing the Estimates, of course, and we are doing, as I said, the Executive Council, the Consolidated Revenue Fund Services, and the Lieutenant-Governor and a few more.

Tomorrow morning we are doing the Public Service Commission, a Public Service Commission that was put in place back in the 1970s by a Tory administration, to make sure that all hiring in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with government, with the Crown corporations and what have you, was done on a fair basis, and it was done with respect to your qualifications - tops, supposed to be, and have someone recommended, interviewed. No, they had to scrap that. This administration had to scrap that because they wanted to hire through the line departments; that the ministers could hire who they wanted.

When we form the government, I can tell you right here and now, the Public Service Commission will be put back in place with the proper authority that it had in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: It won't be scrapped and used and abused like this government is using it and abusing it.

I say to the President of Treasury Board, I think it is, be prepared for questions tomorrow morning. The Public Service Commission, when you look at it in the Estimates, there is not a lot there but there are lots of questions that can be asked.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good Chairman.

MR. J. BYRNE: Good Chairman of the Estimates Committee. We had a meeting this morning and we had the Chairman of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace is Chairman, is he? He did a good job this morning. I thought he did a good job. He didn't have to say much because we were so reasonable and we didn't want to give the Minister of Health too hard of a time. He did a reasonable job, I suppose. We have to give him credit for that.

There are many, many people on this side who are anxious to get up and refer to the Consolidated Funds, Mr. Chairman. I am sure I will be up again throughout the day on different issues and have a few words to say.

Seeing that I spoke the other day and completely enlightened members on the other side of the House for over two hours, I think they probably need a little break from me now and we are going to let some member on this side - and hopefully, seeing that this is such an important issue, somebody on that side of the House will get up and say a few words.

Oftentimes when we have legislation going through the House, the Estimates or what have you, it is always this side of the House, the Opposition, who carries the House, and you don't have anybody up there on the government side speaking in favour of the legislation, speaking in favour of the Budget or anything like that. It is left to us to either support it or not support it. That is a sad thing to see. We have over double the members over there and nobody will get up and speak. Why shouldn't some of the ministers?

The Minister of Human Resources, why doesn't she get up and speak to this? Or the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Education? Even the Minister of Finance was up today. What did he say? Nothing. Two or three minutes - passing millions and millions of dollars through the House of Assembly - two or three minutes, and he sits down. That is how serious and important - what they think about this Consolidated Funds, Mr. Chairman.

With that I will sit down and take a break. I will probably get up again in another little while.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not sure whether somebody else on the other side wants to speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead.

MR. MATTHEWS: They are voluminous, they are detailed, they are intense, they are hard-hitting, they are mind-jolting and they are nerve-wrecking. Actually, I am in great trepidation and I am in the great state of preparedness to respond to your questions. If there is nobody else who wants to speak, I will respond. Otherwise... Go ahead, Harvey.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I want to ask the minister if we could refer to certain sections. If we could have the minister's indulgence, what I would like to do is have a dialogue back and forth with the minister. I know the minister obviously should be listening but he isn't. I wanted to know, Mr. Minister, if we could refer to particular sections. Then I would like to be able to ask a question and then, in a dialogue back and forth, get more information pertaining to the Consolidated Fund Services.

If we could refer to page 5, you have a section called Temporary Borrowings. Maybe we could just run down through them. I have certain questions. It might take fifteen or twenty minutes, I say to the minister.

In item 1.1.01., Temporary Borrowings, appropriations provided for the interest expense on temporary bank borrowings by the Province. Last year we budgeted $150,000. It is budgeted this year for $150,000 as well, but in the revised budget it went up to $850,000. I was going to ask the minister what happened between the budget time last year and, of course, the revised budget. Why did we have to spend an extra $700,000 on Temporary Borrowings? Was that because of interest rates? What happened in our borrowing policy? We spent more money when indeed the interest rates were in a state of declining. Therefore, I would like to ask that question to see if the minister could provide an answer to that, and then we will proceed on to other items.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That figure was revised to $850,000, but you will notice it is still budgeted this year for $150,000. The simple answer to it is that we actually borrowed more money last year on a short-term basis as opposed to putting it into long-term borrowings, things like our bank overdraft, that type of thing. It is difficult to know for sure to what extent we are going to be using that type of facility on a short-term basis as opposed to permanent borrowing on a long-term basis. It is very simply that and that only.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the minister.

We accept the minister's explanation. We just wanted to make sure for the public record that there is a logical reason for the alteration and the changes within the data that is provided.

I would like to go down to bottom of page five. It is on 1.1.05, Temporary Investments. The note there reads: "Appropriations provided for interest earnings on the Province's investment of available cash in the money markets, and on bank balances." Last year we had in the Budget $6,381,700, but when the revised Budget was entered it was for $2,175,000.

I would assume the minister would have some handle on how much money there would be on a regular basis in the bank on behalf of government, and that he would have a pretty good idea as to why you would put in $6,381,700 last year, but then when the increase was calculated we only earn $2,175,000. Obviously, we either grossly underestimated the interest that would be paid - and while we recognize the interest rates did go down, it seems that there should have been a better estimation done on behalf of the people who are giving you this information - or we certainly seemed to have missed the mark. In other words, we budgeted for $6,381,700 and we actually earned $2,175,000. This year we are at $3,050,500.

I wonder if the minister could give some explanation as to why last year we were expecting to earn $6,381,700, and yet we only earned $2,175,000.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The low interest rates were a small contributing factor, but, in fact, they weren't a significant contributing factor.

MR. H. HODDER: No, it is too much for that.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes. The reality is that we had less money on deposit earning short-term interest returns than we had projected when the Budget was put together a year ago. That is simply the reason for it. As a matter of fact, we had only $2,175,000 in actual earnings on our money that was kicking around, if you like, in terms of availability on a short-term basis. This year we have re-estimated at $3,050,500, and while that is significantly higher than last year by almost 30 per cent, I think it is a better estimate than obviously the $6,381,700 that we had in the previous Budget. Simply put, we did not achieve it because we had less funds on deposit for shorter periods of time, and to some extent, at lower interest rates.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I want to ask this question as well. Some time ago there was a statement made by the Premier that indeed something like $30 million had been transferred to the Province last year under the CHST transfers, particularly as it relates to health transfers. I know in the Province of Quebec they kept a lot of their transfers in the banks, and actually kept it in a bank in Toronto. I'm wondering if the $30 million that was allegedly transferred to this Province, and was kept in reserve, if this particular section here includes that money that was transferred under the federal transfers but was not expended. We understand there is about $30 million that was transferred last year which still sits in some bank somewhere, which has not been accessed by the Province.

There was some comment on the public airways a few weeks ago relative to that matter. I am wondering if this particular section, 1.1.05., Temporary Investments, would include monies transferred from the federal government for health care and then invested rather than being expended.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe, without being absolutely sure, that that is where that earned interest on our CHST investment is included. I believe that is where it is, but if you wanted me to get the definitive answer on that amount and on whether or not it is included in that I can take it under advisement for you and get it from the officials.

The fact of the matter is that as of the end of the last fiscal year now - our year which ended March 31, Friday past - we have taken into revenue pretty well all of the CHST money that was given us a year from February past to be drawn down over a period of time if we so wished. You are referring to the Quebec situation, where they had $800 or $900 million on deposit and did not take it in. We did not have the luxury of leaving that much money in short-term deposits, getting smaller rates of interest. We needed the money and we took it into our revenue much earlier.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Minister, if I could ask you a question on this matter, though. How much money of that $30 million that we are talking about, transferred from the federal government, is still held in separate bank accounts and is not included in this particular year's budget for health care?

MR. MATTHEWS: If you wants to talk on for another minute I will find that answer for you. (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat important that we make sure that the information the minister gives us is accurate, because many people across the Province are wondering why a province, which is so financially strapless as we are in our health care budgets, would find ourselves in a position of luxury to have $30 million sitting in a bank account when we have so many health care needs.

While the people of Quebec will have to ask their government why the government of Premier Lucien Bouchard could have something like $800 or $900 million sitting in a bank - in I believe it was Toronto - without it being spent in the fiscal year in which it was transferred, this brings into question the kind of meetings that are ongoing now. When you say to the federal government: We want more money, and then when the federal government looks and they say to the Province of Quebec: Look what you did with the money last year. You took it and put it into a bank account in Toronto and invested it out of province. No wonder the federal government is saying: Why are you asking us for money? I am sure this Province does not have that luxury. We know on this side that we do not have that luxury.

Last year, there was an amount of money, $30 million, that was put into the bank account, sat in a bank account all year and was not properly expended by this government. With all the health care needs we have in this Province, with nurses being forced back to work, with the kind of draconian legislation we saw last April, and with ambulance operators saying: We cannot operate, and with the parents of special needs' children coming to the Province saying: We need more help, and with all the other needs we have in this Province, we need an explanation as to why there would be that amount of money sitting in a bank account and not being properly accessed.

Now, the people of Quebec will have to ask their questions in Quebec but we in this Province would like to have an explanation as to why that happened, why that amount of money was not accessed last year, how much money is there now, and in what ways it will be allocated in this year's Budget. This is very important because, with the Minister of Health in this Province going to Ottawa looking for more money, and then the federal government saying: but last year you kept $30 million in the bank and did not access it.

Mr. Chairman, this topic was in the public airways a few weeks ago and I wanted to get the minister's comments on it because obviously this is where the bulk of this $2.175 million was earned last year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. member will recall last year, the year ending March 31, 1999, much like the year ending March 31, 2000, saw the provincial revenues growing beyond what we had estimated by virtue of the strengthening of our economy and some increases on the upside in equalization payments coming to the Province. As a result of that, the plan originally for the $61 million one-time CHST 1999 transfer was to take in $35.2 million; in 1999-2000 take in $17.3 million this year and $8.5 million next year.

What we have done this year is taken into revenue a total of $338,593,000 by way of Estimates in terms of what our CHST will be, and that represents our normal CHST entitlement of around $270 million or $280 million, plus the $43 million that we got this year in one-time money, plus the $17.3 million that was effectively scheduled to come into our revenue this year from the 1999 one-time supplement.

The problem for us with the federal government putting one-time money in their budgets is that we do not know about in advance, number one; secondly, we do not know whether or not the following year there is going to be some more one-time money or not. So in 1999 we planned prudently, as did Quebec and other provinces, to take it over a three-year period. What we found out is that in their budget this February there was some more one-time money coming; so what we decided to do this year was to take it all into revenue on the virtual assurance that between now and their next budget there would be some even additional new, either one-time or reinstatement of base budget money coming for CHST. It is the whole issue that the Health Ministers were meeting about for the last two days of last week.

I met with Paul Martin about two or three weeks ago in his office for about an hour one morning and I can tell you that he confirmed in my mind the statements that were made by the Premier on federal budget night when he said that he had a high level of assurance that there would be more money coming into health care once the health care ministers got together to have their meetings and the once the First Ministers got together after the Health Ministers had met. So, on the basis that I have a high level of comfort there will be a fair number of new dollars for health care coming in within the next twelve months to the Province, this year we took in the $42.9 million.

Back to the point of your question, though, my information is that there is still $8.5 million of the $61 million that we got last year in reserve to come into our revenue next year, but we can take that this year if we see a need for it. Frankly, with the flexibility we had at the end of the year just past, we have stayed with the three-year plan that we had in place.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

So, Mr. Minister, the truth of the matter is that last year when the Province was pleading that they never had any money, that indeed there was money sitting in the bank accounts; that, if you had taken the same attitude last year that you are taking this year, whereby you were going to spend all the money in advance, the entire amount of money, the $44 million that is coming this year, or thereabouts, or $43 million, somewhere around there, the reality is that last year we had a great number of people in this Province in health care asking for extra monies. When we said we did not have the money, if we had taken the attitude that we are taking this year, we could have addressed some of those needs.

I want to move to another issue, and it is on page 6. It is relative to the sinking fund, item 1.1.07., which says: Appropriations provide for the payment to the Province of sinking fund earnings in excess of the amounts required to redeem related sinking fund debenture debt, or upon cancellation of sinking funds.

In other words, we have an amount of money which is allocated every year to pay for the then current year's responsibilities to our bondholders and others. Obviously, in this particular case, we had last year in the Budget $35,600,000 and that was a topic for debate. The minister will recall that we passed a piece of legislation which authorized the government to be able to access that money to spend it on, if need be, current account. In other words, there was $35 million more which had been allocated into the sinking fund than was the cost of the government's obligations to service that fund. That meant that $35 million, up until last year, would have had to go and stay in the sinking fund allocation and wasn't available to the minister for other expenditures.

I want to ask the minister, last year when we did the Budget, it was estimated that we would have $35,600,000 in that particular allocation. In actual fact, it was only $10,396,000 which actually was turning up there. Since we know the rates to be paid, we know all that in advance, why did we last year indicate in the House that there was an allocation of $35,600,000 when, in reality, there was only $10,396,000? There seems to be a gap here of $25 million.

Given the fact that the sinking fund is a very predictable fund and we know precisely now what it will cost us to service the sinking fund next year and perhaps even the year after that - sinking funds have very much predictability and, for the most part, they are fixed in interest rates and that kind of thing - I want to ask the minister why last year we had to pass a piece of legislation to let the government access the $35 million to spend it where they wished, to spread it over the Budget to do current day services, perhaps to boost health care, to spend it on education or spend it on housing or wherever - the reality is that we said there was $35 million there - I want to know first of all why, in the revised budget, it turned out to be $10,396,000?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The answer is pretty simple. We estimated last year that we would take into revenues a certain amount of money from sinking fund for purposes of our revenue. We did not take into revenue as much as we had scheduled to take in because we had additional new revenues that we had not budgeted in our own tax sources and in equalization upside adjustments.

On the other side of it, we have determined that as a result of being able to roll over or extend for another twenty years some of our Canada Pension Plan borrowings, for which we had provided some redemption capacity in our sinking funds previously, we did not need to have that money there now because the CPP loans were rolled over for another twenty years; that we would take these monies into our revenue as revenue sources to build our budget this year and beyond this year where there is still some available next year.

The Auditor General made some comments, appropriately so, recently with respect to the issue of having sinking funds sitting on deposit, if you like, when we could better use them as revenue sources and at the end of the day be a little bit net better off because we earn a little less money on what we have in investments than we pay for what we have on borrowings. For the reasons of revenue adjustments within the budgetary years, and for reasons of sound and prudent fiscal management, we have been using some of our sinking funds to really augment revenue sources in current years and we have been making substantial changes in the revised figures in our Estimates as is highlighted here by the minister: $35,600,000 was budgeted; we actually ended up with a figure there of $10,396,000 and this year, of course, we are looking at $116,004,000 in our Estimates. That clearly shows that we are taking into income a large chunk of our sinking funds.

CHAIR (Mr. Mercer):The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Minister, we on this side have no difficulty with using extra monies, as in the sinking fund, to provide day-to-day services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, we agree with the Auditor General and agree with the minister in his comments a few moments ago that it doesn't make any sense to have millions of dollars sitting in a sinking fund that just sit there when, of course, the Province is going out and borrowing money. Certainly that was the subject of a piece of legislation which was passed here in the House last spring giving the government the legal right to go and access that kind of money.

I wanted to ask the minister, because I understood last spring that the $35,600,000 which was put into the Budget Estimates last year was an accumulation of sinking fund extra monies over some years. I am wondering if he has any idea as to how many years that was and if that, in fact, is a correct statement? In other words, $35,600,000 was not a single year's entry but was an accumulation over some time. I am wondering if the minister has any comments that he could share with the House relative to that particular matter.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would have to get, for the hon. member, from the officials, a breakdown of that $35,600,000, but I think it is safe to say that it is an accumulation as opposed to a one-time amount. The fact of the matter is that we have had, over the years, a fair amount of money in various sinking funds, so $35,600,000 would not be related to any one year, but I think it would be as part of an accumulation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer again to the sinking funds. The fact is that last year you indicated there was $35,600,000 and in actual fact there was only $10,396,000 that was available to the government, and this year you are saying it would be $116,004,000. I wanted to look at the fact that last year's figure was approximately 60 per cent inaccurate. In other words, you had indicated it was $35,600,000 and there really was $10,396,000. I wanted to seek ways of knowing, from the minister, whether this year's figure is any more accurate than last year's figure?

For example, last year, if you said there was $35,600,000 and there really was $10,396,000, this year you are saying $116,004,000, what steps have you taken to make sure that this year's figure is any more reliable than last year's figure?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, the question almost lends itself to the questioning of the credibility of the Estimates that we are providing and I would suggest, in large measure, as he would know, that the credibility of that figure is directly related to the best judgement of our officials who advise us in terms of what money is available, when we can take it in, and how much we should take in. I would say the figure of $116,004,000 is highly creditable; but if he wishes, for further certainty and for a greater level of comfort, I will double check with my officials to ensure that they are sure, and that they feel and know they have given us the best possible advice in terms of how we should handle our sinking funds management issues.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I remind the minister that in the House of Assembly he shouldn't be hiding behind the comfort of the civil service. We assume that all those meticulous pages of notes that they provided for him over there - in some cases, when I know the minister is searching through his documents, I'm obliged to keep on talking because I can look across the House and see the minister searching frantically.

I assume there is a very good rationale, but the minister is the one responsible to the House of Assembly to communicate the particular rationale. Consequently, I am surprised the minister would stand in his place and say that by asking questions I was questioning the credibility of the officials. I'm not doing that whatsoever. I am just asking the minister responsible if he would give us the explanations that I am sure they have and which he is responsible to provide to the House of Assembly.

I would ask the minister if he would refrain from questioning his staff. If we did that, the minister would be the first one on his feet saying: Don't do that, that is unfair. So when the minister stands in his place and says we have to rely on the staff, we want to rely on the minister.

I assume the minister will get a detailed briefing on that $116 million. I wanted to ask him now this question. In view of the fact that there is going to be $116 million transferred to other departments in government, does he have any idea as to what budgets and what department were augmented by this, or was it just thrown into a particular general revenue source and appears in all other various departments? Or is there some particular place where this money will appear? Will this be allocated to health care, education, or is this money going to be thrown into the general pot and then every department comes in with a big spoon and scoops out their share? I wanted to ask the minister, where and how will this extra money appear in the overall Budget?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know the hon. member is doing a good job to be intelligently probing and that sort of thing. In the whole context of legislative debate he is wont, at times, to be a little bit politically mischievous in terms of how he is couching his questions and making his comments.

The fact of the matter is, and let the record be clear, that this minister is not hiding behind the mask of bureaucracy or officialdom. What I am simply saying is that, contrary to what he might be suggesting I am saying, I am alleging that we, as a government, and I, as a minister in the Department of Finance, have a very high level of comfort in the ability of our officials to provide us with good information.

I was simply saying that the $116 million we have taken into revenue from Sinking Fund monies that were in place was based on the good advice of our officials and the good commentary provided by the Auditor General in her comments. As to where this $116 million shows up in terms of expenditures, the hon. member would know that the money would have gone into general revenues, the consolidated revenue fund of the Province. The consolidated revenue fund is indeed a very large fund. It is a big pot. The hon. the Member for Ferryland was suggesting that we put it all in the consolidated revenue fund and then we stir it up with a big stick and then we take out so much for each department with a ladle of appropriate size. Well, in that exercise, if that is how he wants to couch it, substantially most of the new money that is being expended in our budgets generally is going into the social sector, primarily into the health care sector. To that extent, the health care sector is largely the beneficiary of the revenues that we have taken in.

In all fairness, as to the government, the fact of the matter is that revenues come into the consolidated revenue fund. Gasoline taxes are not dedicated to Works, Services and Transportation to build roads. It goes into the revenue pot. Liquor revenues are not dedicated to running liquor stores and specific activities. All of our tax revenues and all of our source revenues go into the consolidated revenue fund and we allocate departmental budgets against the total pot of money that we have in consolidated revenue.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I want to move on to Investment Recoveries. This section is on the bottom of page 6. This is in the section under Capital. In 1.2.01, Recoveries on Loans, Advances and Investments, last year the minister indicated they would recover $13,636,000. When the final monies were put into the revised budget, it said it was only $936,000. That means there is a fair number of loans on which the government did not regain its interest.

I wanted to ask the minister for an explanation. Why did you, on the basis of all probabilities, say that you were going to recover $13,636,00 from various loans, advances and investments, and then come up very short, only $936,000? That is about a 25 per cent error. Certainly, when that figure was entered last year the officials went into various departments, and I assume this is, shall we say, not any particular department of government. What happened for you to estimate $13,636,000 and then you are down to $936,000? That is a great change. There is a big gap between $13,636,000 and $936,000. I am sure the minister has an explanation.

Certainly last year the officials must have said that we expected to regain that amount of money. That is a difference of over $12 million. That would mean that last year's Budget figure was about 8 per cent accurate, and you had over 90 per cent error or miscalculation. Certainly you would have known last year what you were going to recover from various loan, advances and investments, and you could have been a lot more precise than that. A 90 per cent error or misstatement or failure to achieve your target is certainly not a very accurate way to, shall we say, be responsible in this particular category.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will answer the question by saying to the hon. member that, as opposed by trying to articulate all of the sources of loan repayments and advance repayments that we have, I will get him a list of what makes up the repayments that come to $936,000 last year. Obviously, there is a large discrepancy in what we estimated and what we took in. The member will also notice that our estimate this year is fairly consistent with what we had estimated the previous years.

The short answer to it, without getting into the amounts, is that we didn't take into revenue last year some repayments that we anticipated. We do anticipate them coming into revenue this year, and that is why we have basically carried about the some figure in this year's Budget. The actual amounts and sources, to the extent that they can be made available, I will provide to him.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I wanted to ask you if you could share with us - and maybe you could do this by way of a communication between yourself and myself so we don't get into reading into the House of Assembly a long list of private companies that would owe money to the government. That is not my intention, for the minister to list down the companies. The Auditor General -

MR. MATTHEWS: In a general sense you want to know.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, I would like to be assured that what is happening here has a logical explanation. I think it is our responsibility on this side to ask that kind of question and I will give the minister, shall we say, every opportunity to share that list with us because we would like to know exactly what category that is in and how that figure has changed from last year.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if he could go now to page 7, which is again under Capital, rental purchase and properties. It is item 1.3.0l, Various Facilities, and this says: Appropriations provide for payments into sinking funds established for the purchase of various leased facilities at the expiration of the respective lease terms.

I want to ask the minister, since it is only $89,500 here, this must be some kind of a contractual obligation because the amount did not change last year. It was in the Budget for $89,500. That was exactly what was spent. That is what is there this year. Is there some kind of a long-term obligation here, or is this again because it was precisely on last year in the Estimates, it was precisely the amount that was spent, the same amount this year? There must be a logical explanation for that $89,500.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to clarify on my previous answer with respect to the anticipated repayment of loans, the hon. member is absolutely right and I thought I made it clear that I would not be in any sense sharing information in terms of naming sources of loan repayments, and discussing individual matters of individual companies in the House.

MR. H. HODDER: No.

MR. MATTHEWS: That would not be appropriate and I did not intend to convey that I would be doing that, but to the extent that I said it would be appropriate to make available more information on that line item to the member, I would happy to do it.

The same thing applies with this here. We have some obligations for purchase buyout of leased facilities at the expiration of their terms, and we have made provision, as it is called here, Rental Purchase - Non-Statutory, for $89,500 to deal with these. Again, it would not be appropriate to say whether we have a specific lease, I don't think, with a specific company for a certain piece of equipment or with a leasing company for a specific building. It is just to cover that type of statutory obligation that we have at the end of some leasing periods.

The amount that we have been carrying last year and this year is the exact same amount, so it is obvious that it is very specific to a very specifically identified obligation we have with respect to some leases that we have in place. To the extent that it might be appropriate to tell him what it is, whether it is equipment or whether it is real property, I would be happy to take that under advisement and provide him with whatever is appropriate information on that in a more detailed fashion.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I wanted a supplementary question there to ask the minister how long- term this particular obligation is. It has been appearing in the Budget for some time as $89,500, and I wanted to ask the minister if he could share with the House as to how long-term this particular contractual obligation is, and when will the time come, if ever, when this will not be an obligation of the Public Treasury?

He might tell us as well whether it is real property, whether it is equipment, and perhaps as to what particular division of government might be leasing these; because he says facilities and the word facilities, to me, would indicate real property rather than equipment. Maybe he can provide a little bit more information as to what is the nature of it, how long-term the leasing arrangement is, whether or not this matter will be ended, how long the contractual obligations are, and a little more information as to why we continue to carry this precise amount of money. If this had been varying from year to year, there would be a different set of questions. Obviously there is something here that is an obligation on the government and it is rather long-term. How long-term is it, and when will it be finished?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Probably I can clarify it now, both on this issue and the previous issue. The $89,500 is to take care of a future obligation as a result of leases that we will have to purchase with respect to certain health care facilities at the end of a thirty year lease.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Is this St. Clare's or -

MR. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

MR. H. HODDER: Is this connected to the Grace Hospital, St. Clare's Hospital or any of those?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, it is not.  It is connected with the three health care facilities that were built in 1992-1993.

On the issue of the discrepancy of the, I think it was $13, 636,000 verus taking into revenue last year of $936,000, the big variance there was the fact that we did not take into revenue last year - because this is not only loan repayments. As the subhead says, it is also advances and investments. The big difference there is the fact that we did not take into revenue last year, as we had budgeted to do, a $10 million return of investment in the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. As a result of that not being taken into revenue last year, it made a substantial difference; but, as you notice in the Estimates, we have again estimated or made provision to take that into revenue this year. That is why it reappears in the 2000-2001 Budget Revenue Estimates.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Minister, I thank you for your answer. Again, the purpose of this exchange is so we can put on the public record more information relative to how the Budget is formulated, particularly as it relates to the Consolidated Fund Services.

I want to move now to the Guaranteed Fees - Non-Statutory,, page 7, under Current Account, 1.4.01. It says: Appropriations provide for fees charged private companies and certain Crown Corporations which have debt guaranteed by the Province.

The Professional Services fee here is $50,000. I wanted to ask the minister if he could provide us with more information as to what particular Crown Corporation we are talking about and what private companies we are collecting money from here for guaranteeing their debts? I understand a fair bit of this information might be available in the Auditor General's report on the Crown Corporations, but I am wondering if there is a breakdown that you can give me on that $50,000. We are only talking here about Professional Services. If you could let us have a little more information on that particular budgetary item?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This $50,000 that is carried here is really a line item. It is block funding to enable government to carry on with its obligations in circumstances where we might - as we are on occasion - be called upon to honor a guarantee. In cases where we are called upon to honor a guarantee, or where we are called upon to collect on a debt as a result of a loan guarantee or of some other type of financial assistance we have given, we do have to engage lawyers, we do have to engage accountants, and sometimes we have to engage some court costs. This is just a $50,000 block-funded line item in the Budget to ensure that we have the ability to incur those expenses and have them covered off in our Budget. There is no specific projected, anticipated need for this money. It is an as-is-needed vote so that if a loan guarantee comes up tomorrow, somebody defaults on a loan, we have to go and make good on that guarantee. We need some money to pay for the services of professionals who do that business for us. It is simply that. It is block funding for that purpose.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I note that the Member for Bellevue is strenuously objecting to my asking questions of the minister under these budgetary allocations, and I am not surprised at that because perhaps the Member for Bellevue should be paying more attention. This is an exchange whereby we can ask questions back and forth and we can get more information. That is the core of what it means to have responsible government.

I want to again go to the Guaranteed Fees - Non-Statutory, because last year you will recall that you were looking at $19,103,000. Then we looked at it and we had it revised to $10,993,000. Of course we are looking here, now this year, at $19,092,000.

Under revenue to the Province, line item 02., Revenue - Provincial, I want to ask the minister if you could again, in addition to the comments just made by the minister - I know that this tally here is from a number of other items - give us some further explanation for these particular numbers, particularly the variance from $19 million down to $10.993 million?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This change of roughly $8.1 million really represents deferred accelerated guaranteed fees that we anticipate in taking into revenue from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Because we have pushed that out into next year, we revised down the figures that are in this year and we are carrying $19.092 million in next year's Estimates. It has to do with Hydro's guaranteed fee.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I wanted to go to another page now if could, page 8. I acknowledge that some members of my own caucus here are anxious to get going on this particular matter. I see great anxiety on the part of the Member for St. John's East, anxious to get some questions going there, so I am going to be curtailing my questions for a little while, in a few moments, but I want to go to page 8.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: I notice the Member for Bellevue thumps his desk. At least he is able to do something in the House. He never speaks, but he is the government's best thumper. He certainly wins an award, the thumper of the year award, the Member for Bellevue. He even knows how to applaud on cue.

I want to go to page 8, item1.5.01., Discounts and Commissions: Appropriations provide for underwriting commissions and management fees on new capital market borrowings by the Province. Discounts and premiums on such borrowings are also reflected under this activity.

 

You have allocated $2.8 million. That is up from $2.6 million. Two questions. One is, if you could give us a reason why it is up this year? That is rather a minor amount, only a couple of hundred thousand dollars, but what professional services are we talking about, and whether these services are tendered or whether they are performed in-house?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The item of $2.8 million that we are carrying for Professional Services represents basically the cost of raising what we will have by projection to raise this year of about $400 million of new borrowings mainly to roll over some old borrowings that are coming due. The standard rate or the industry rate for that is point seven-tenths of one cent as a commission. We do this business through a number of agencies that are in this business and have been our fiscal agents for years, people like RBC Dominion Securities Inc., as an example. There are a number of others. As a matter of fact, I had lunch today with one of our very small brokers out of Nova Scotia.

This figure here covers what we project will be our cost this year of borrowing new money to roll over existing debt. Because essentially we are not borrowing any money for budgetary purposes, save possibly the contingency fund. Also, of course, we have to borrow to meet our obligation to the pension funds that we have committed to, which will come to $548 million at the end of next year since we have taken government in 1996, or since this Administration has taken government. This is our professional fees on that borrowing.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Mr. Minister, I wanted to ask you a question relative to how you select your brokerage firms. I know you deal with a number of them and you indicated that you had lunch today with a group from Nova Scotia. I wanted to ask you: How do you select which firms you would deal with? Is that done on the basis of proposals submitted? Is that done by a tender award? Or is this done by negotiations? How many different firms do you deal with? When was the last time you entered into negotiations with these firms to assure that the Province is getting the very best deal it can get when it comes to brokerage fees and to other business arrangements of this nature? Do we go to tender, do we negotiate, or, do we do it on the basis of a standard industry-wide professional fee?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member would know that the engagement of professional services was prudently, I believe, left out of services for which tenders were required to be called when the former, former, former administration, back in the mid-1980s, put the Public Tender Act in place, the Peckford Administration. It may even have gone back to the Moores' Administration. The fact of the matter is, for very good reasons professional services, whether they are lawyer's services or architectural services and some other types of services, were omitted from the Public Tender Act.

The fact of the matter is, we deal with pretty well all of the major brokerage houses and fiscal agents that are operating out there in the industry. We do have competition amongst them, because once they become aware of our borrowing requirements or of our need to raise a certain amount of money for a certain purpose, all of these have the ability and opportunity to go out and come to us with the best possible deal that they can find in terms of interest rates and in terms of the commission they will charge us. As an example, there is a different rate of commission paid, a lower rate of commission paid, on sole source or private placement money that comes forward as opposed to some other types of money that is raised in the marketplace. The rate of point seven-tenths of one cent, which is the $2.8 billion on item 1.5.01., really represents the normal cost in the industry of doing that type of business.

We do not stick with one fiscal agent or one investment brokerage firm. We use as many as ten or fifteen as the need arises.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I wanted to further ask the minister a question relative to this amount. I wanted to ask what steps he is taking to make sure that we are always in a competitive relationship vis-à-vis our various agents. How do we judge whether or not we are in a competitive relationship? That is not to say that various businesses are not putting forward what they believe to be the very best business proposal they can put forward. How do we evaluate the professional services as far as borrowing is concerned if we do not have some kind of standard by which we can judge those various presentations? I wanted to ask the minister: Can he assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that they are getting the very best value they can get from their borrowing, particularly since there is no structured competition?

In other words, I remind the minister, when I was the mayor of Mount Pearl and we were going to tender for various documents, we went to tender, for example, for funding for the Mount Pearl Glacier. I encourage all municipalities to go to tender. We went to tender for our banking services. I differ somewhat from some of my colleagues in the House, perhaps on both sides. I believe we should have more public tendering for these kinds of services. I recognize that you cannot do it in all cases, but there can be more public tendering occurring.

I want to ask the minister: What measures has he taken to make sure the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are served when we are getting proposals from various professional agents when it comes to our borrowing of money?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I just had a discussion with the Opposition House Leader, and under those three headings we are also supposed to do the $30 million Contingency Reserve. I would like by leave of the House to give notice. I have to give notice of a motion that we bring that forward.

CHAIR: Does the Government House Leader have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. TULK: I give notice that a further estimate of expenditure related to Contingency Reserve in the amount of $30 million be referred to the Committee of Supply.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raises the issue as to whether or not we should be tendering for professional service in essence. The fact of the matter is for lawyer services, for fiscal services, for architectural engineering services, we don't go to tender. There is an industry norm that is applied to most of these professions, but the best assurance we have, and the best insurance we have, as a government is by knowing what other jurisdictions, what other provinces, are paying for similar services, what other large borrowers are paying for similar services, municipalities across the country, and indeed, I suppose, what the federal government pays for these types of services.

MR. SULLIVAN: How come you don't look at what other provinces are paying their doctors and nurses?

MR. MATTHEWS: We look at that, too, I say to the hon. member. The hon. member would know probably as well as I would know, or better, that as a result of looking at what other provinces pay for other services we have had to ramp up, we have had to increase.

MR. SULLIVAN: They are gone ahead, too.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is right, and we are frankly playing catch-up, not only in the area of doctors' services, nurses and teachers, but in the areas of other public servants that we pay.

MR. SULLIVAN: The next shortage is teachers now, coming next.

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. member may or may not be right. That is a debate for probably another day, and work for another time. The fact of the matter is, in answer to the hon. member's question, our assurance that we are getting the best possible value for the money we are spending in terms of expenses to raise money, to turn over borrowings and to find new sources of borrowings is largely measured by what the industry norms are and what other jurisdictions are paying. Also, of course, having our own points of reference, which is what our own costs for these things have historically been.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Mr. Minister, I wanted to ask you a further question again on the Professional Services here under this specific category. Several months ago, the former Minister of Finance made a grand presentation on the changes in our borrowing rates. Our rating with the various bond rating agencies had improved. I wanted to ask the minister if he could tell us what impact the change in our status, which was communicated publicly by the previous Minister of Finance, in the bond rating agencies had on the amount of monies we have had to pay by way of the rate changes? In other words, as our bond rating has changed what has been the positive impact of that bond rating change on our borrowing capacity?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: To the hon. Member for Waterford Valley, would he be good enough to succinctly rephrase that question? I was dialoguing with two people and I frankly missed the tenor of the question. I apologize.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I know that the arrival of the previous Minister of Finance in the House signifies that there is certainly - he is there to hold the minister's hand. This indicates, of course, that they are walking together, side by side, and I want to know who is supporting who for the leadership? Raising the hand like that would indicate that they are now, you know, in - it is kind of a -

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member that we are under the consolidated revenue section of the Budget and just to -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member it is a very good question in terms of who is supporting who for leadership. We are under Consolidated Fund Services debate, and this is just to inform him that a concept of a consolidated leadership effort might not be far out of the question. It won't be a Trojan horse with two heads. It will be a situation where good Liberals will have their hearts blended together and it will be a singular effort to provide the best possible leadership to the Province as is happening, I would suggest to him, today. So, leadership on this side of the House is a combined effort. It is not a divisionary type of activity, but rather it is a very conciliatory and a very salutary type of activity that keeps us together and keeps the Province in good hands.

CHAIR: Order please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I agree with the minister. He said it is a great effort and he said that it is ongoing, it is current. We have the same kind of unity in Newfoundland in the Liberal Party that we have in Ottawa. They are on the rock - I mean, on the rocks. So we have this same kind of effort and I noticed that he said it is ongoing, it is present, so therefore we understand that it is not too far into the future. Like it is happening in Ottawa, we would have to say that the grounds have been staked out.

Mr. Chairman, I digress from my questioning and I generally do not want to do that because it is a very serious part of the accountability process, but it was the minister that wanted to get up and announce either his own leadership bid or that of the Minister of Mines and Energy.

I wanted to ask the minister a question and that is this. We just had a change in our rating by the bond rating agencies. What impact has that had in a positive way, and in real dollars what has been the impact of that on our borrowings this current year?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is we have had two credit upgrades in the last two years. In answer to the hon. member's question, the fact is we have had two credit upgrades in the last two years. I can't tell you exactly what the positive dollar impact has been upon that because, of course, credit upgrade affects your borrowings on a go-forward basis. It does nothing for your cost that you are locked into. It simply means that as we roll over, for instance, this year $400 million in borrowings, we should be able to attract a better interest rate. It will be a few basis points for sure, better than we would otherwise be able to get had we not had the credit rating upgrade. It has a value that is ongoing and cumulative but it does not have a specific quantifiable value at the moment that we get the credit rating upgrade, obviously.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

In other words, the minister hasn't calculated the amount yet. I am sure he will now get about - he calculated the amount, because if you are doing a budget you could calculate how much money you have saved by way of upgrades in the bond rating and all that kind of thing. Certainly somebody must have thought of that, because that would make a very interesting good news announcement. Therefore, you haven't gotten into that.

I wanted to move, for my last set of questions - because I know the Member for St. John's East is anxious over there. He has been sending me signals and all kinds of notes. He said: Harvey, hurry up. I want to get those questions on this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, I know the pressure that he is under, representing the good District of St. John's East, wanting to make sure that he gets a chance to ask questions as well. I have been asking questions now for a fair length of time.

I want to go to section 1.5.02., General Expenses: Appropriations provide for the printing, legal, paying agency and various other fees associated with the issuance, servicing and redemption of the Province's debt.

Again, you have Professional Services here of $840,800, up from $388,000 last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are you, Harvey?

MR. H. HODDER: Page 8, under General Expenses, 1.5.02.05., Professional Services. The minister can flip through his notes there that have been so copiously prepared for him by his officials.

We have an increase from $388,000 in last year's Budget, and that was the amount in the Budget. That was the amount in the revised budget as well, so it is a very predictable amount. This year you have jumped it up to $840,800 for Professional Services. What has changed, Mr. Minister, to indicate more than a 100 per cent increase in that particular allocation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: The simple answer to that question is that we have coming due this year, a $150 million Swiss franc bond that we anticipate a cost of about $500,000 associated with refinancing or rolling that over into new borrowings. The increase, I should say, is very much related to one specific amount of borrowing that we are turning over this year. It is the $150 million Swiss franc bond issue that is outstanding. The other $388,000 is for general expenses of like nature, for various other borrowings of much smaller amounts.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have a few questions under this heading, Consolidated Fund Services. I would like to refer the minister to Roman numeral page xi, which is Exhibit V, found in the Estimates. It deals with the Provincial Direct Debt. You will notice a column there, Mr. Minister, dealing with the five years ending March 31. Of course, we see 1996 - this is in millions of dollars - showing just over $2 million. That figure increases slightly in 1997 and then decreases slightly in 1998.

MR. MATTHEWS: What subheading are you on?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: This is at the top of Roman numeral xi, under Public Sector Debt, and it is Exhibit V. Do you have that?

MR. MATTHEWS: Which -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am just looking at the five years. Again, in 1996, we show Payable in Canadian Dollars of $2,010,700. Then in 1997, again, an increase from 1996; but the figure goes down in 1998 and in 1999 it goes up again. We see for the year 2000 the figure of $3,059,200. Again, I am referring to the Provincial Direct Debt. Of course, I am looking at the column Payable in Canadian Dollars.

Mr. Minister, do you see exactly where I am referring to?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I am having trouble following you. I was fine by Harvey, the hon. Member for Waterford Valley, but when the legal beagle got on his feet he has me totally confused.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Exhibit V, Mr. Minister.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Exhibit V, Roman numeral xi, in the Estimates.

MR. MATTHEWS: Exhibit V. Is it under Consolidated Fund Services?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It is under Public Sector Debt; that is the heading at the top.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. I am sorry about that.

Roman numeral xi?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes, page xi.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, I have it.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Exhibit V is written at the top.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I have it.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

Again you will notice, I say to the minister, there is a five-year period beginning in 1996 - this is at the very top of the page - and we are talking about Provincial Direct Debt, Payable in Canadian Dollars. We will see the figure again - just to review it - is $2,010,700 for 1996; then in 1997 it is $2,070,000. It goes down slightly in 1998. Then we have a revised figure in 1999, but in the year 2000 we see, Payable in Canadian Dollars, under Provincial Direct Debt, a figure of $3,059,200. For the first time in the past five years the figure has reached the $3 million amount.

My question to the minister is: Why is it, for the first time in this five-year period, from 1996 to the year 2000, are we seeing that this figure Payable in Canadian Dollars has in fact reached the $3 million amount?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad for that question because it is a good question and it gives me an opportunity to say this: We have been moving out of foreign held debt and into Canadian held debt as much as and as fast as we can.

We, at one point in our history, had between 50 per cent and 60 per cent of our public debt - many years ago - in foreign held currencies. What we are doing now is moving into Canadian dollars so that our exposure in terms of variances of foreign exchange is reduced. At this point we have arrived at a point where our total debt as a Province has been reduced to less than 40 per cent foreign held and more than 60 per cent Canadian held, which, of course, gives us higher expenditures in terms of servicing that debt, our total debt, in Canadian dollars.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to follow along, I am curious, and maybe the minister will have the answer, we see under that same column again, Payable in Canadian Dollars - the minister just referred to that earlier question - but we see as well, Payable in U.S. Dollars; Payable in Japanese Yen; Payable in Swiss Francs. How is it? How is a decision reached? What process is in place, I ask the minister, in determining exactly what foreign currency is going to be applied? Is it a matter of the market? Is it a matter of the sale? What is the procedure that this government uses in terms of determining what foreign currency will be used to address the Provincial Direct Debt?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member will know that, as I have just said earlier, we are moving away from, as fast as is possible, foreign held debt so that we have an absolute certainty as to what our exposure is as long as we are in Canadian dollars.

In terms of evaluating which foreign currencies, I think was the gist of the question, which we -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The process. What is the process?

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, the process. The process is one that starts with an analysis by our officials of what is coming due, where the debt is currently being held, discussion with the current holders of that debt, to hear from them what it is they can offer us in refinancing that debt, and in consultation with our fiscal agents making a judgement as to whether or not on balance, given the interest rates being offered, given the term being offered to refinance the debt over, and given the likelihood of exposure on foreign exchange rates, whether or not it is prudent to go in direction a, b, c or d. What we have been doing as a result of that approach is moving more and more, as I said earlier, into Canadian held debt and less and less into foreign held debt.

We do have, still, a fair amount of money out there in foreign currencies, and in some cases we have gained because of favourable changes in currency evaluations. In some cases we are seriously disadvantaged.

The Canadian dollar, we know what that will be. It will be whatever the Canadian dollar is. The American dollar, we know pretty well where that is going, and the projections of the banks and the like over the years have been pretty reliable, but Asian held lending, or Asian-centered lendings such as the Japanese Yen and the German Marc in terms of Europe have been less predictable and we have been exposed beyond where we should be exposed in terms of a level of comfort. So, what we do is simply due diligence to each bond issue or each level of borrowing as it becomes due and make our best judgment on behalf of the taxpayers.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I ask the minister: Is this a decision that can be made on a yearly basis, in terms of the provincial direct debt being paid down in other foreign currencies? Is this is a decision that is made, and a determination made by the department? Or, I suppose, to put it simply, Mr. Minister, is the decision made for you?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what the implication or what the hon. member is really suggesting when he says: Is the decision made for you?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, in terms of, do you have a choice of currency?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes. Simply put, Mr. Chairman, we have a choice. Every time a debt becomes due and we have to roll it over as opposed to paying it out, which is generally what we are doing, because we are not increasing or decreasing the absolute dollars very much that we owe as a Province, but when it becomes due we have a choice in terms of moving away from currency X and going with currency Y with another institution.

Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, the borrowings are handled by the same bank, if you like, or the same lending institution but in a different currency. I had a meeting first when I went into the department with some of our German bankers who came to town and they have been doing some business for us in Canadian currencies through their Toronto operation as opposed to dealing directly with the original bank that we were dealing with in Germany.

So, simply put, unless it was a contractual obligation that commits us to going back with that lender in that currency, we have the absolute right to make a choice. Hopefully we are making the best choices - I think we are - with the best advice we can get from our officials.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question for the minister, and it refers to the Employee Retirement Arrangements. They are found on page 9 of the Estimates, I say to the minister, dealing with 2.l.02., Ex-Gratia and Other Payments, and then it simply states Non-Statutory. This is found, Mr. Minister, on page 9; not the Roman numeral, just the regular page 9. We see an increase in the Estimates for 2000-2001 from the revised figure of 1999 of just over $8,021,800 and a new figure being budgeted for this coming year in excess of $13,149,100. My question, I guess, to the minister - really, I have two questions. Number one: What source of examples can the minister offer that fit the definition of ex-gratia and other payments? Secondly, why is there an increase of approximately $5 million?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: That line item carries for us funding to do with, in large measures, things like severance payments and things like that can't be determined in advance in terms of the amount that will be used and who will be taking advantage of it.

This is a just a block vote of money. As a matter of fact, I raised that very question about three weeks ago when we were preparing the Budget, as to why we had moved from - I don't have it in front of me - from $8 million to $13 million, or something like that.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: From $8 million to $13 million.

MR. MATTHEWS: There was about a $5 million increase. I said, why are we providing for an extra $5 million this year in this area? The explanation that the officials gave me was simply that we need to make provision for severance payments and other type of anolmonies that will be corrected as a result of, let's say, reclassification and the implementation of pay equity. The implementation of pay equity has caused some anomalies in the work circumstance of some employees who have, as a result of pay equity being implemented, found themselves in a higher position but making less than somebody who had received pay equity awards where they haven't received them. So we have to make corrections, not through the collective bargaining process but in consultations with the unions and the various collective bargaining groups. That is also an area where we anticipate some increased expenditure this year. I cannot identify specifically how much is going to be for pay equity, anomalies corrections, and how much is going to be for severance, but that is the vote that carries these amounts.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Does that mean that many more people will now be eligible for these sorts of ex-gratia payments, or are the amounts that are been awarded significantly higher? Because we have a very significant increase from the $8,021,800, the revised figure of 1999, to the $13,149,100 being proposed for the year 2000. So we are talking, I would assume, Mr. Minister, a significant number of people who would be entitled to and eligible to receive ex-gratia and other payments. Is that correct?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the answer is essentially yes. We anticipate more activity in that area and, as a result, more money having to be expended in that area as a result of what the officials project will be happening with respect to pay equity, anomaly adjustments, and with respect to severance payments.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Is that particular group restricted to members of the civil service, or may it also include individuals who worked at one time for the provincial government, who may have retired but now seek compensation in one form or another? Is that almost a fund which government sets aside to deal with an event that may be unexpected with respect to a former employee of any department?.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, it is a fund that is provided for those types of events that, while not specifically identified at the outset, we know will come forward. I don't know, but my judgement is that if there was, as a result of some extraordinary settlement that was brought to bear, that we would access it under this fund as well.

It is really a line item carrying a vote of funding to deal with a number of areas of extraordinary remunerative type expenses that is not carried in the departmental budgets as line items for departmental salaries. That is simply what it is.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 3.1.01 carried, Consolidated Fund Services.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Executive Council.

CHAIR: Executive Council.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We will have a few questions, I am sure, in Executive Council. There are very large sums of money expended through Executive Council - millions - way up in the big figures. The first item, Government House, I am going to leave that for my colleague for Bonavista South. He might want to spend more time on that particular one.

I will move on, to the Premier's Office. I am sure the Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier, the Member for Bellevue, will be able to be accountable to expenditures under the Premier's thumb in the Office of the Premier under Executive Council.

Everything seems to be increasing in the Premier's office, according to these Estimates here. I don't know if the Member for Bellevue is being that expensive now or whether he is going to blame it on the Premier. I am not sure. I do know he has had differences of opinion with the Premier.

MR. TULK: That is not true, is it?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, on Osborne Lake - I mean Gisborne Lake. Just joking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I made it look like it was a slip, but that gets the point across a bit better, I might add.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I know I have called Executive Council, but the Minister of Finance has to be out of the Province tomorrow afternoon and I am just wondering if the Opposition House Leader - the next department is Finance under this heading. I am just wondering if we could -

MR. SULLIVAN: Finance is done in Committee.

MR. TULK: Well, where am I all mixed up then?

MR. SULLIVAN: Executive Council, then Legislature, and then Contingency Reserve .

AN HON. MEMBER: We can do the Contingency Reserve now.

MR. TULK: No, there are three different heads that we do in the House.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Consolidated Fund Services, Executive Council, Legislature.

MR. TULK: Go ahead, you are right. The Legislature -

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Why don't we do Contingency Reserve?

MR. TULK: Loyola, can we do Contingency Reserve?

MR. SULLIVAN: Right now?

MR. TULK: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, why not?

MR. TULK: Okay, start your speech all over and give it to them.

MR. SULLIVAN: I guess Mr. Chairman will call the Contingency now and we will -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader. We have a motion to deal with the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Contingency Reserve, the $30 million slush fund is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, for little dabbles here and there, unallocated money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: What? It is grand to have $30 million to reach back there in time of great need, I might add. There is a time of great need now in our health care system. Certainly, I suggested last year during a debate that this money should be put into health, what is in the Contingency Reserve.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

Yes, I am sure that the Member for Topsail remembers that conversation. I am on record in the annals of this House in Hansard here to confirm that.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a very eloquent speech, actually.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the flu has taken its toll. I might not be able to show the same exuberance and energy today, I might add, on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: The same amount as you have in GICs.

MR. SULLIVAN: The same amount as I have - $30 million. I wouldn't say that. I would say there is a slight discrepancy in that figure, I might add. I am glad the parliamentary -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You are welcome to it. Go over and have a look at it.

The Member for Bellevue, he gets off the hook for awhile anyway. Under the Premier's Office, Executive Council, I had a lot of tough questions lined up.

Now we will talk about the Contingency Reserve. I think this is, I understand, the third year that we have brought in a contingency reserve fund. In other words it is money that has not been specifically allocated to a particular source, and has been for the past two years, I might add. Tradition has shown that the precedent has been established that it is used for other purposes. It is put to use at the end of the year because if it wasn't we would have been showing a surplus for the past two years. How can we show a surplus for the past two years when we have people knocking on the door for increases out there? That would not be an action this government would want to do, I am sure. So we have a little contingency reserve. We will spend it. We will dump it here, we will dump it there, and we will give it out to the source here and whatever the case may be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Actually, to the Contingency Reserve fund, I was wondering why you didn't start it earlier. Because the federal government has been looking at a contingency reserve fund, and they have - what is it? - $3 billion I believe in their fund or whatever, if I remember correctly. They have $3 billion. It just has a few more zeros. They still got a three at the beginning. The only difference is they have a few more zeros on the end of it federally.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right, about the same basic percentage

MR. MATTHEWS: Now Loyola, cut to the chase. Have you any real hardhitting good questions on Contingency Reserve?

MR. SULLIVAN: On Contingency Reserve, yes. How do you plan on spending the $30 million in the Contingency Reserve? I will let the minister answer. That's hard hitting! Tell us!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I assumed the hon. member would have been asking questions on last year's expenditure of the contingency fund, but if he is asking how we are going to expend the $30 million contingency fund this year, I would say to the hon. member it will be spent with great caution. It will be accessed and used only when it is absolutely necessary to do so, in the best interest of discharging our responsibilities to the people of this Province. We do not have identified expenditures under this. I made this observation to my officials when we were putting together the Budget. Notwithstanding the fact that we have made this provision, and notwithstanding the fact that we usually have to get into the contingency for some reason or other, I told my officials the other day that the standard this year was not one stick of chewing gum's worth of value out of the contingency fund unless it is absolutely necessary, but when it is necessary we as a government will not hesitate to access it for good and beneficial purposes.

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

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

MR. TULK: On a point of order.

I wonder if we could have those words stricken from the record. That sounds like - that is not even a Tory. You belong to that what's-his-name Day from Alberta, boy, getting up here and getting on with the like of that.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: To my hon. friend and the House Leader, I would say Mr. Day will be ‘Day-ja-vu' before very long, as have many other comings and goings of politicians who were wannabes in terms of wanting to be the prime minister of the country. The fact of the matter is, we have the finest Prime Minister that is available to us today, and when a better replacement comes along I'm sure the proper thing will be done by the people of this great Party that I am so proud to be a member of, and in which I hold outstanding membership credentials.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will have to take it as being fact from the minister who is an expert in federal politics and the right-wing, I might add. Basically, he is telling us that Stockwell's ‘day' is pretty well over and it is going to be back to Preston, he is saying -

AN HON. MEMBER: Stockwell's (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: - and the same basic Reform Party. I am sure that is exactly what the minister wants to see now, the same thing he wants to see happen. He should know because he has experience in federal politics. He had a membership in that exclusive 500 Club where he could flash his card and chat with the Prime Minister.

MR. H. HODDER: Is he a Martin supporter?

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know now whether he is. I have a funny feeling that he would be a Paul Martin supporter, that is what I think. Because I suppose anybody with common sense would have to support Paul Martin over the current Prime Minister of Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If they are looking at the best interests of the party.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Do I support him? I don't have a card. I am not a card-carrying federal PC. I don't have one. I had one once in my life, I might add.

MR. TULK: Do you know what the rumors are, Loyola (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: That you are going to be the campaign manager for (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the Member for St. John's South is campaign manager.

AN HON. MEMBER: I heard you were.

MR. SULLIVAN: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, why not?

MR. TULK: You must be having something to do with that federal party.

MR. SULLIVAN: I said I don't have a card in the federal party. I am not a member, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The only time I took out a membership - you have to renew it every year, see? I renewed it when someone came up. Let's take a card. I took out one. I think that only happened once or twice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you support Clark?

MR. SULLIVAN: Support Clark? What is the alternative, let's put it that way? I don't get hung up on federal politics. I don't get hung up on the federal politics end, to be honest with you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know. I can tell you one thing: It will finish ahead of the Liberal candidate in St. John's West, the PC candidate. I make a prediction: In St. John's West, the Liberal candidate will finish third.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Relevancy!

MR. MATTHEWS: Relevancy, yes. (Inaudible). Absolute relevancy.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I will make it relevant.

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. the Member for Ferryland is suggesting where various candidates will place on the ballot, at the end of the counting, on the night of the federal election. I would like to have - for point of clarification for this Legislature - as to whether or not the wagering of that type of game is appropriate. Because if wagering is an activity that is credible within the walls of this Legislature, notwithstanding that I am not a gambler, notwithstanding the fact that I do not wager, notwithstanding the fact that I believe that type of thing is societally counterproductive and negative, I am prepared today to wager with the hon. gentleman - if we can do that in this House - as to whether or not his proposition of the Liberal candidate being third on the ballot at the end of the day is what is going to happen. I am prepared to wager with him that there will be another candidate third on the ballot and the initials might even be L.H., if you want to use that for some source of reference as to whom I might be talking about.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: To the point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not to the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: I guess there is really no point of order on that one, Mr. Minister. We will defer to the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Now to the Contingency Reserve and the relevance of the statements.

MR. MATTHEWS: He is getting away from it now, look, he is afraid to talk about it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I won't get away from it. I have no assurances from the Minister of Finance that the $30 million Contingency Reserve will not be spent in some form to enhance, entice, or to improve the electability of candidates in St. John's West. Until he is going to tell me how that $30 million is going to be spent, how do we know? Anything and everything could be included in that $30 million, so he cannot say it is not relevant, because it is relevant unless the minister stands and tells us how it is going to be spent. We don't know that. There is a strong relevancy here because there are no line items, there is no specific expenditure. It is a whole open discussion. You can talk of any topic under that $30 million because we don't know how it is allocated. You cannot confine somebody to the relevancy of that subject matter unless the minister stands and identifies specific areas of Contingency Reserve expenditure to that purpose. Otherwise it is an open game and you can discuss any topic on it.

It might be to make an announcement to enhance the electability of a candidate in St. John's West. That could be a role of it, that could be a possibility of a contingency reserve, sure it could. It could be a series of announcements of things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Good reasons for spending, good purpose. To spend it up in Gros Morne could be a good use for it. I cannot tell you if it is a good use until I know where it could be spent. If he suggested areas where it could be spent, I would say that could be good, bad, good, bad. I would check them off, but until I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. I would give you my opinion on whether I think it is good or bad. That does not mean it could necessarily be right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) point?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the point I am saying is we can talk about any topic under the Contingency Reserve fund of $30 million because we do not know how it is going to be spent and identified, so it is an open game in discussing that particular topic.

Now, we do have a stack of warrants. Maybe they should be for the arrest of the minister probably, these warrants. We have a contingency reserve and we have a stack of warrants, then comes out with extra money (inaudible). This money was budgeted, it was not allocated. I think as the finance critic said, it certainly wasn't something that was an emergency that had to be tabled here in the House on these special warrants. Special warrants: to meet expenditure for which insufficient legislative provision has been made which is your standard.

I certainly hope that the minister too, under the Contingency Reserve - and even if we do not spend the Contingency Reserve, if I remember correctly it is about $5 million. We would only have a deficit at $4.9 million or something if we do not spend it, if I remember the exact figure. Yes, $34,691,000, so it would be about $4.691 million, if we do not spend it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Less than $5 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. If we don't, I guess as the year moves on I am sure - I do not necessarily disagree with the concept of having a contingency reserve. As broad as it is long, you budget and you build it in, at least you have a little cushion there. I am sure the minister would love to ask me how it was all spent. It is as broad as it is long because we got extra money and we got warrants and we issued warrants to spend and we had the Contingency Reserve that was already allocated in the Legislature but not earmarked specifically. How you cut it is immaterial, how you issue you it, but overall last year, if the minister remembers, and I am sure as the former Minister of Health he is a bit close to that, boards have overspent. I think we paid off the deficit up to March 1998 for boards and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, March 1998, I think, we paid the deficit of health care boards. Since that they have accumulated now, this past year, between $40 million and $50 million.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) we have taken some of that off (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I know, $16 million, but since 1998 up to March 31, 2000 we have had another $40 million to $50 million in there in deficit they have carried, of which they made an allocation in this Budget saying to these boards: We are going to give you $16-point some million toward that. Which means if you operated on a deficit of between $40 million and $50 million in the past year, if we give the same service this year we gave last year we are going to have a similar operating deficit. Therefore, we are going to give $16 million toward it, which means we are going to come - more than that, because it is over $40 million - between $25 million and $30 million short of meeting the operating budgets that they spent last year. We are going to be that much short again. Compounded on top of what is already owed, we are going to

have deficits in the range of $70 million.

That is pretty significant when we are operating $40 million to $50 million a year over and above what we are getting from the Province. There has to be one of two things done to eliminate that basically overall. There has to be a surplus on their operation, or there has to be more money put in. I've said before, in health care, and I've given interviews in the media on the same topic, I have said: When you have a bottomless pit, or something is running out of control and you pour more money in, it is not always the answer. I have said it before. I'm not saying how much, if any, money we need in health care, but I will say more money will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is not what I said. The minister knows I didn't say that. I had a chat with him in private, he knows what I said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is not what they reported. It is what they reported the minister reported. It is what they quoted the minister saying I said, it is not what they reported from me.

Anyway, here is the point I have said. I'm not saying we necessarily need more money in health care, but more money in will improve the service. If some of it is going into inefficiencies you have to get more and more and you will never get enough. You have to fix the problem. I have said there are problems. I have identified dozens of inefficiencies in the system.

I just tossed out a few to the minister here today. He sits on a report over in his office since 1992, I believe it was, saying there is $250,000 in duplication in the ambulance system in the City of Corner Brook alone. They haven't moved to correct it in eight years. Whenever the report came out, I think it was 1992.

There are inefficiencies in operations of boards. There are boards this year awarded contracts without public tender across the Province. No public tenders. They even went so high and awarded a $417,000 contract to a higher bidder. If they are not inefficiencies, what are they?

We must be efficient. There is a little bit of sense to what the Prime Minister is saying. The Prime Minister makes some sense when he says: Why should I give you money? Go back and get your house in order, make it efficient and then we will talk about giving you some money. There is some truth to that, some, but it is not necessarily the solution. The solution, right now, is to work on identifying areas of concern.

There are some areas the federal government is looking at participating in, I understand. I am sure the minister from the weekend and from his conversation with his colleague, the federal Minister of Health, are looking at either pharmacare, home care or some primary health. They are not necessarily saying: Here is a chunk of money, go out and throw it into the operation of hospitals. They want to see some accountability in the various delivery of health care.

This government does not have legislation to do that. There was some general framework for accountability legislation on the books in the last session and it died on the Order Paper. I am calling for this government to bring forward legislation this session similar to - they could investigate and look at what Quebec, Alberta and other parts of this country are doing in accountability legislation for the expenditure of public dollars. Because, when you turn over significant amounts of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, probably in the $600 million range - I will get the exact figure in a minute when I look at the Estimates here - the exact figure that is going into health care across the country, there has to be a certain amount of accountability. We haven't been getting accountability.

We have stymied the process of looking at the books of the Western Health Care Corporation, for example. We still haven't got the Atkinson Report. We are shielding and protecting the corporations from the accountability that the public should have. That is not the answer to improved health care. That is allowing inefficiencies to be covered up and preventing them from being run efficiently. I am sure we all want to see shorter waiting lists. We all want to see more people going through the hospitals and being served by having a workforce that can accommodate them. That is not happening under the current situation.

We have a significant amount of money, $1.25 billion here being the total pot under Health and Community Services. I know they have expanded the department significantly and about $100 million came from the former social services department and has gone to health. When we look at family rehabilitative services, we look at youth services and we look at child protection, they are areas that have come over from the former social services department when it was split.

Here is a point I am making. We are going to turn over to health facilities in the Province almost $700 million to twelve health boards, basically, across the Province. Well, the facilities themselves. There are really eight boards dealing with institutions. We are going to turn that over to eight boards around the Province here and we are not going to show accountability.

Granted, the Auditor General recognized there have been some improvements in accountability in certain areas of the Province, but there are numerous instances where they haven't been following appropriate government policies, they haven't been following appropriate tendering, and numerous other aspects in getting an efficient delivery of health services.

We haven't seen an appropriate level of service occurring out in the communities. What we need to be doing today, so people can come home from hospitals, is the community health being involved, home IVs. I know an issue was raised by my colleague for St. John's South. Some nurses are going out now to community health, doing home IVs to allow people to stay at home and have a visitation from a nurse, getting out of hospital reasonably early, appropriate dressings and so on to reduce infection. That is important. That is more like a home care program. Now there is a difference in home care and home support. Home support is different. Home support is like what we normally call home care, going in to look after the elderly. They may need some personal care attention or some other general care, what we call household type care or work, or cooking meals. That is a little bit different. That is generally under home support; but home care generally is extended care delivered through community health by nurses who visit the houses and check on people there. A lot of that is needed, because if you can move somebody out of a hospital a day earlier, just one day earlier, that is an empty bed for one more person to go in and get the attention they need. It won't cost $800 a day to go into a home and do a dressing or monitor an IV or to alter some medications and things of that nature within - those types of things can be done by community health. There can be appropriate training there and it is an expanded area in health care.

The Member for Twillingate & Fogo introduced a resolution today, gave notice of a private member's resolution that I wholeheartedly endorse; like Licensed Practical Nurses for example. Licensed Practical Nurses have a lot more extensive training than they used to. They go through a training program. They are not even allowed to perform tasks that they were trained to do. Out in Twillingate, I know, there are certain tasks the LPNs perform that they cannot do down in Goose Bay and other parts of the Province. It depends on where you live. There are inconsistencies from one region of the Province to another. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo mentioned that today and made reference to it in the notice of a private member's resolution, and I support that. I feel we have to be doing that, and hopefully that is an indication that something is going to get done when it comes from a government backbencher there. It is indicative that government is onside. It has gone through their caucus and it is something that they can get out in the forefront on, and I support that. Regardless of where it comes from, it is good. I also feel there should be some recognition of increased training.

We have nurses today who have specialized training and who have alleviated a certain role and responsibility of doctors and there should be a certain reclassification to reflect that. LPNs have taken on added responsibility in some things that only nurses used to do, and there has to be a reclassification to reflect those increased responsibilities and increased training. In order to get a reclassification, I understand there has to be a change in their training levels and so on, and a change in the responsibilities that you carry out. They qualify on both of these grounds and that is why it's important. Maybe Contingency Reserve can be used to recognize - and maybe collective bargaining, when they go back to reclassification, maybe that is where the money is going to come from in the Contingency Reserve, I say to the Minister of Finance.

I am sure the Minister of Finance - he might not want to say now, but I am sure the reclassification money may very well come from the Contingency Reserve Fund because I figure with the number of nurses in the Province that we are going to move them up from NS-24 to NS-26, and some of the twenty-six's to twenty-eight on the various levels. We are probably going to need in the vicinity, I would imagine, in excess of $10 million for that item alone. I have not necessarily pinpointed exactly but I would figure in the $10 million to $12 million range or so, the bottom figure of $10 million or more, because for each level there I think we are looking at probably a couple of thousand dollars or more levels. We are probably going to take up maybe close to half of that Contingency Reserve that would be used just in the reclassification of nurses.

Now social workers also, a certain amount would be utilized there. The bulk of the Contingency Reserve Fund could be - because we have not yet done the reclassification, but it will only be part of the year so we won't get the full impact this year out of it. I am not sure; is that intended to be retroactive, I might ask? Really, the President of Treasury Board is probably who I should be asking that to, but is it intended to be retroactive to this fiscal year, April 1, on the reclassification? Is that the general intent, or is it going to take affect when it is done?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The normal date for reclassification requests that come before Treasury Board are the actual date that they are received in Treasury Board.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Having said that, on July 17, 1998, a group of nursing instructors who meet the qualification for reclassification - namely those people who are nursing instructors, have met, their work responsibilities have changed, and they have changed in their level of training. They all have masters degrees now. They have changed. They meet the requirements of reclassification. A letter was received by Treasury Board on July 17, 1998. According to the minister's response, that would be the date when the request - they would be retroactive to July 17, 1998, if I understood the minister saying, from the date they are received at Treasury Board. Would the minister confirm that?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify the issue that the Member for Ferryland just raised.

In the letter that was presented to the union on February 25 -

MR. SULLIVAN: Of this year?

MS THISTLE: Of this year - regarding the classification study of social workers, it was determined that the date would be whatever date the position descriptions were then brought before Treasury Board, after that date.

MR. SULLIVAN: That was February 25?

MS THISTLE: Correct. After that date.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That would be social workers. The point I had asked, on July 17, 1998, a small group of nurses around this Province called nursing instructors - the ones who are instructing, for example, at the Centre For Nursing Studies or at Memorial University or at Western on the West Coast - the ones who are out training future nurses in other areas of responsibility on a similar level in the nursing instructor category - they applied on July 17, 1998 (inaudible) - would these people be considered to be retroactive, because they made a request almost two years ago, or a year-and-a-half ago? What would be the effective date there?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The effective date was announced in the press release that was made February 17 that would be applicable to nurses. The date will be after that date of the news release.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible). We will have two left for tomorrow, then.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, we will do Contingency today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So, the minister is saying from February 17, if the reclassification is completed by July, we would expect really that to be effective? Because we are going back into another calendar year. Would that be effective from February 17? I ask the minister: Would February 17 be the date that, for instance, nursing instructors - I am using them as an example because where they applied before, would that take effect from September or would it only occur from April 1 in this fiscal year? Could she tell me specifically?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The press release that was dated February 17, by myself and the Premier and the Minister of Health, indicated that we would undertake an occupational study review of nurses, and any requests that we received - position descriptions - after the date of February 17, that would be the effective date.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So, anybody who submitted for reclassification before that, it would be considered to be effective on the 17th. Obviously they would not have to reapply again when they have already made the submission. So, anything prior to February 17 could not be retroactive prior to that but it could be considered as being in the possession on February 17. That is the understanding I get from the minister. Does the minister follow what I am saying?

Basically, the request was received on July 17, 1998. Since there was a public release - a joint, three ministers, the Premier and two other ministers - on February 17, would I be correct in stating then that the reclassifications that were submitted before that would only be considered as having been received effective from that date on, and they would be subject to no retroactivity prior to that but from that point on - not July when it is completed, but the date that the announcement was made? Anybody who was in prior to that date, or whatever you received after that date, that date would be the effective date?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I stated earlier, the news release that was made on February 17, which affected both nurses, social workers and Licensed Practical Nurses, where we were going to undertake an occupational nursing study review, that the effective date would be after February 17, once we received the position descriptions regarding those particular positions inside Treasury Board.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Had they been received before that, I would assume, as of February 17, then they could move from that point on, or whenever thereafter; because I do know that the submissions were made a year-and-a-half earlier with one particular group so it wouldn't be necessary to resubmit again for reclassification when it is already acknowledged by the Treasury Board that it is there. It is in the pile, were the words used. It was received July 17, 1998 and we are going to get to it.

One of the questions I think I asked, or my colleague asked in the House, and I spoke with him on it earlier, is this. If it is since July 17, 1998 we are trying to deal with a small group of people, nurses, how are we going to deal with several thousands between now and July? If it is the policy to make it effective the date that it comes in, if the February 17 release said anything before that are not going to get retroactive but starting from this point on, at least these people should be reclassified effective February 17, if they had already filed in there. If some didn't come in until March, well, that would be the effective date, or April or May, whatever the case may be. I would assume the union representing those has made the appropriate requests for all the particular ones under their jurisdiction. I would assume that is in the Treasury Board's hands now. Would the Minister confirm that?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What is important to note at this time is that there was no decision until February17, 2000 to undertake a classification review of nurses, social workers and licenced practical nurses. So any position descriptions we received after that date will carry the effective date after February 17, 2000.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think I'm as confused as I was when I started. I still didn't get a specific answer. I don't know if she is not following the intent of the question or I'm misunderstanding it. I will ask just one more simple question on it and then I will move on.

The point that I am making is that, yes, the announcement on February 17, 2000 said: Any submission to Treasury Board for reclassification would be deemed to be effective from the date they receive it. I am saying to the minister that on July 17, 1998 there was a request made by a group of nursing instructors, a small group of nurses around the Province who were involved in instructing nurses who were graduating from the various programs. Since they had theirs submitted a year and a half earlier, could they assume that the effective date of having to receive it now is February 17, 2000? I'm assuming that you are not going to require people to make another submission when it is already been done, if it was submitted prior to February 17. Am I correct in making that assumption?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I can say, and what I have said before, is that the news release was issued February 17 from Corner Brook on behalf of the Minister of Health, the Premier and myself. At that time we did agree to an occupational study review for nurses, licenced practitioners, and social workers. What I will say to the member opposite, at this time, is that I will look at the Hansard at exactly what you asked and reply to it exactly tomorrow. However, that is the ruling as of today. Whatever was said as of February 17, we would entertain anyone within those classes that we mentioned having received their position descriptions after February 17.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, we will deal with this now. Call it now, the Contingency Reserve fund.

CHAIR: The Contingency Reserve Fund.

All those in favour, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

CHAIR: I declare the Contingency Reserve approved.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Executive Council.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This brings us to the Executive Council. I'm going to leave Government House for my colleague for Bonavista South, who said: Don't let anyone touch the Lieutenant-Government's establishment until I get here. He doesn't want Government House touched at all. That is the exclusive domain of that member. He aspires to be the Lieutenant-Governor some day.

The Premier's Office, 2.1.01, is the next item. We have seen the huge increases in expenditure in all the items here. Look at 2.1.01.01, Salaries, budgeted at $732,900. Thirty thousand, one hundred new dollars of salaries expenditure in the Premier's Office.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is true. In .03, Transportation and Communications increased from $145,000 to $180,000, a $35,000 increase. There is a lot of travel there. Under .04, Supplies, even Supplies almost doubled.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier's Office, page 16, 2.1.01. Under .06, Purchased Services hit the ceiling, $26,500 right up to - almost doubled, too. A 50 per cent increase in .07, Property, Furnishings and Equipment, even more lavish than it was last year. Under .09, Allowances and Assistance stayed the same. If the math is correct there, that is about a $95,700 increase in the Premier's Office. Maybe the Minister of Finance will stand in his place for the parliamentary assistant and tell us where all that money went on those items. If he does a good job, I will even adjourn debate on it. I will give him an opportunity to research this because he really needs to spend some time on it. I will adjourn debate.

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

MR. TULK: He just adjourned debate and he is going to give you all evening so you can go home and research it.

Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee rise, report great 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 on Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have passed without amendment the Estimates, the expenditure of the Consolidated Fund Services and the Contingency Reserve and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole on Supply reports that the committee has considered matters to it referred and have passed the Estimates of the Consolidated Fund Services and the Contingency Reserve 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, if I could have the attention of hon. members on both sides of the House? Before we adjourn, I have just learned that the Member for St. John's East has joined the ranks that I joined last weekend, actually. I became a grandfather last weekend and I would like, on behalf of all my colleagues, my older colleagues in this House especially, to wish Poppy Ottenheimer -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: He is still a step behind me, I say, but nevertheless I do want to wish him well even if he has to perform many of his duties with a cane.

Mr. Speaker, as it is 5:30 p.m., I move that this House adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

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