April 23, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 11


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before I call routine proceedings, I would like to welcome to the gallery today the following people: Mr. Ford Rumbolt, President of the Combined Councils of Labrador; Gaius Trimn, President fo the Labrador Straits Chamber of Commerce; Blair Gillis, President of the Southeastern Labrador Chamber of Commerce; Kelvin Letto, Chair of the Labrador Straits Economic Development Corporation; and Lydia Penny, Vice Chair of the South Eastern Aurora Development Corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the weekend of April 13, the Corner Brook campus of the College of the North Atlantic hosted the 19th annual West Coast Regional Science Fair. Approximately 300 students, representing twenty-six schools from Western Newfoundland and Southern Labrador attended this event.

An innovative aspect of this year's fair is the fact that it was Web-cast by two College of the North Atlantic engineering electronics students, Marcel Blunden and Adam Rideout. The Science Fair provided them with the perfect opportunity to put into practice classroom learning.

Using only a home video camera, a computer and off-the-shelf software, Marcel and Adam interviewed students and judges and showed many of their projects exhibited at the Fair. For those parents unable to accompany their children to Corner Brook, the Web-cast provided the perfect opportunity to allow them to view the Science Fair from the comfort of their homes.

With so many high-calibre projects, the judges had a difficult time in the determining winners in each of the several categories.

In the end, however, the project titled Mars 2002, submitted by Sarah Ball, an Elwood Regional High student from Deer Lake, was judged the best overall project at the Fair. This project was an interactive project that provided information about Mars and future Martian exploration. Sarah was also awarded the Gold in the Computer Science Junior Division, the Aliant Telecom Award and the Women in Science and Engineering Award, as well as an all expense paid trip to this year's National Science Fair in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating all those who took part in this year's Science Fair and the many teachers who gave so freely of their time in organizing this worthwhile event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to report a good news story in support of the art curriculum in our education system. The hon. Speaker and I were very fortunate to be present at Crescent Collegiate, Blaketown last evening to witness what can only be described as a gala in the Arts. This young school community came together to celebrate song, music and art, all by students.

The Crescent Collegiate Concert Band entertained a gathering with a variety of selections including themes from Mission Impossible and Titanic, although their performance of Grandfather's Clock literally wound up the audience. The choir presented traditional songs including: Cape St. Mary's and Drunken Sailor, all to the delight of a very appreciative audience.

Soloist performances by the different students, as well, rounded out a perfect evening.

As well, besides that - the band and the music - we had an auction with over 100 pieces of visual art, the likes of which you will not see in any established art gallery. Bidding was fierce. The look of pride on the artists faces as patrons bid was priceless. All funds raised were reinvested into it.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to indicate that this is the type of art that we witnessed last night; beautiful pieces of art from the students, as you can see, and a final one, a sea gull. These are beautiful prints, by students, which I certainly am very proud to present to this House today.

Mr. Speaker, I know you were proud of the accomplishments of these students as everyone else in attendance was. I would be remiss not to mention the catalysts, the teachers; Mr. David Turner, art teacher and Mr. Rob Lee who is the music teacher, for bringing out the talents of these students. Their dedication, determination and love for the arts, certainly is evident in their students' performances.

Thank yous are extended to the administration of the school, the social studies department, to the parents and friends of the school as well as some corporate sponsors like VOCM, Regional Cable and The Compass for their sponsorship on the evening gala.

I would ask all members of this House to join with the Speaker and me in congratulating these young students of Crescent Collegiate and their teachers on a job well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance; President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: By leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a very sad occasion. Yesterday, Catherine Norris, an employee of the Department of Finance, passed away unexpectedly at the age of forty-one.

Catherine was a warm, friendly individual who was liked by all those who had the honour of knowing her. She was a valued employee who took pride in her work and was always willing to lend a helping hand to her co-workers within the department and the subdivision of Economics and Statistics Branch. She will be sadly missed by all of those who knew her.

This morning as her co-workers were gathered in my boardroom to share their grief, there was a very strong sense of the respect, the loss and the love they felt for their co-worker.

I, along with her colleagues and the Members of the House of Assembly, express our deepest sympathy to her family and to her friends at this time, especially to her husband, Peter, and her son, Peter Michael.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today is National Book Day and I would like to take the occasion to honour those who write books that provide us pleasure and excite people, young and old, to the joys of reading.

Two books that deserve special mention today are winners of the Provincial Book Awards for 2002. The Writers Alliance of Newfoundland and Labrador named Ed Kavanagh as winner of the prize for Best Adult Fiction for his novel The Confessions of Nipper Mooney, and author Janet McNaugfhton received the prize in the children/young adult fiction category for her latest novel, The Secret Under My Skin. There were a record thirty entries in the fiction category, demonstrating the significant amount of quality writing taking place in the Province.

Both these books are excellent examples of fine writing. The Confessions of Nipper Mooney, published locally by Killick Press, is a story about growing up Catholic in the 1950s and 1960s in rural Newfoundland and St. John's. It is a first novel by Ed Kavanagh, who is best known for his Amanda Greenleaf stories, written for children.

This is the fifth award for The Secret Under My Skin, published by Harper Collins, now available in paperback, and is a story set in Western Newfoundland 350 years from now. It is a compelling story with a message that is now being translated into Danish and Dutch, which is a tribute to its universality.

Mr. Speaker, the Writers Alliance of Newfoundland and Labrador also deserves to be recognized today for its work in supporting and nurturing the creative talents of emerging writers and for the dedicating of generous assistance given by seasoned writers to those who are developing their craft.

I would like to end by urging all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to read and support the many fine writers in Newfoundland and Labrador, and get great enjoyment in the bargain.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the people of Charlottetown on the Coast of Labrador on their commitment to raising funds for the Janeway Children's Hospital.

This past weekend, the fourth annual Nicholas Dempster Benefit Night attracted over 300 people and raised over $4,000 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: - which brings the total raised over the last four years to approximately $20,000.

In raising this money, the community has found a very meaningful way to pay respect to Nickie Dempster, a young boy from the community who died tragically at the age of four years old.

This fundraising effort was made possible by many volunteer organizers and talented individuals from all over the district who performed throughout the night, singing words of glory as they paid tribute to Nickie and to their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Lisa Dempster, Nickie's mom, who is in the gallery today, and also her husband, Gaius, for the wonderful contribution that they have made to the Janeway Children's Hospital and to the many sick children of our Province. I would also like to recognize Roxanne Notley, who is also in the gallery today, for the key role that she has played in both organizing and emceeing this event for the past four years. Mr. Speaker, Nicholas Dempster was just a young child, but he has touched the lives of oh, so many people.

I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in extending my congratulations to all who were involved in this successful fundraising event, and to the Dempster family for the remarkable tribute that they have made.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This being volunteer week, I would like to recognize Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are the most generous people in the country in terms of donations to charity. There are many ways besides giving money that our people have been generous over the years. They give freely of their time and energy, their skills and experience, particularly when faced with those who are in need.

It is that spirit of sharing that makes Newfoundland and Labrador the special place it is. Often you hear about large urban centres where people neither know nor really care about their neighbour. In this Province, we have built a strong society against the odds because our people consider their neighbours to be their families. They make strangers friends; they make neighbours family.

You hear of neighbours coming together to rebuild a home destroyed by fire. When the tragedy of September 11 gripped the world, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were the first at the rescue of passengers cut off from their families and away from their homes. It was a stroke of fortune that these passengers were stranded in a place known for its hospitality. Volunteerism is hospitality in action.

Without our volunteer firefighters, what parent would feel safe going to sleep at night? Without people who are willing to put their lives on the line in our volunteer fire departments, lives and property would be in grave jeopardy.

If the philosophy "every man for himself" prevailed in Newfoundland and Labrador, there would be no Newfoundland and Labrador. This place could not have survived without the kind of sharing that is at the heart of volunteerism.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to follow in the comments of the Minister of Finance in the passing of Catherine Norris. Catherine is the sister-in-law of my personal assistant, Ekie O'Reilly. Ekie has informed me that the great moral support from the employees of the department has certainly helped the family get over the past week. It has been a very trying week, as I am sure, most will understand.

We would like to join, on this side of the House, in expressing sympathy to Catherine's family. I would like to inform the House that a trust fund has been set up for five-year old son, Peter Michael. I am sure all members will take in accordance with that. I would just like to add our comments on this side of the House and express our sympathy to the family and thank the minister for her kind words.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advise this hon. House of the recent announcement of the three commissioners who will serve on the Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening our Place in Canada, and to table the Terms of Reference.

I am pleased that Mr. Vic Young, Sister Elizabeth Davis and Judge James Igloliorte will serve as commissioners. These individuals will work on behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to help renew and strengthen this Province's place in the country and around the world.

Mr. Young, Sister Davis and Judge Igloliorte each have diverse skills and experience at senior levels of the public and private sector in Newfoundland and Labrador. Their collective accomplishments, experiences and skills will represent this Province in a thoughtful, comprehensive and inclusive manner. I am certain that all parties in this House will support these commissioners as they undertake a vital and serious task on behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, I am also confident that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will support the work of the Commission. While people may not always agree on how we can improve the position of our Province in the Canadian federation and the global community, our citizens will no doubt express their own unique views on our future.

As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we need to review where we have been and where we are today. We need a renewed comprehensive plan for where we are going and how we can get there. We can make this happen.

To achieve this goal we must follow the principles of open discussion, respectful consideration of differing positions and innovative ideas for the future. We must work within the context of building rather than dividing, and we must put forward an articulate, strong statement about the condition of our Province to build a future.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the best of luck to these dedicated, conscientious individuals who have agreed to take on this monumental and imperative initiative. While they take the next few weeks to meet and discuss what their approach will be, the Commission is expected to have its structure in place and be fully operational by June 1.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to consider what it is they want this Province to be, and make their views known to the Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table in this hon. House the Terms of Reference set out for the Royal Commission.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we welcome today the appointment of the Commission, and there are some prominent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on that Commission. I am sure as they travel throughout this Province and listen to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they will hear an earful of the concerns that people have addressed throughout this Province for many, many year.

Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous task, but I say to the government, the main thing we have to remember here is that, at the end of the day, the proof will be in the action taken on the report and the Commission. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have to remind government that today it is the action of the government that now holds the mandate in this Province. Today is not a time to hide behind any Commission or to wait for a year-and-a-half, to put off anything on issues such as transfer payments, health care, education, fisheries, transportation, and on some very serious issues, Mr. Speaker, on our place in Confederation, that concern Newfoundland and Labrador today.

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, we will hear the report of the Commission, we will address those concerns, but it is today that this government has to act on those issues that concern us most today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We welcome the appointment of the Royal Commission and the commissioners who are all each held in high regard within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a commission that we, ourselves, proposed two years ago; so we support wholeheartedly this effort. There is nothing more significant in Newfoundland's history, Mr. Speaker, and brought about so much rapid change as Confederation with Canada, and the debate still rages as to the details of that arrangement and whether it is good or bad for Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a valuable opportunity to focus that debate, to bring all the arguments together, to have adequate and proper research done, and to establish a consensus in the Province about where we go from here.

Certainly, there are huge implications for the future of any government of any stripe in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of whatever this Commission comes up with. We look forward to deliberations over the next year -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and hopefully we will see a good consensus, a wealth of research and some new ideas and innovative approaches that might be taken.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance; President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to rise to announce that over the weekend, a tentative agreement was reached with the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The recommended tentative agreement will see nurses receive a salary increase of 15 per cent over thirty-six months.

This agreement will enhance nursing recruitment efforts and provides benefits for all nurses. The NLNU will recommend acceptance of the tentative agreement when it is brought to their nurses for ratification vote over the next few weeks.

Mr. Speaker, reaching a negotiated settlement with nurses, reaffirms a new area of cooperation between our government and our public sector unions. Since last June, we have signed twenty agreements with unions representing our public sector employees. I would like to thank specifically our negotiating team for the long hours and the hard work that they have put in during these negotiations. Government appreciates the job that they have done and I am sure the people of the Province also appreciate their efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find it quite amusing that the minister would stand here and reaffirm a new era of cooperation between our government and the nurses union when the very same government turned them to the streets; legislated them back to work. They had to work below the pay of counterparts in Atlantic Canada, then they had to go out and advertise across North America to get them back, pay a travel cost, pay bonuses, I might add -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - to correct the problem they failed to face up to in the beginning. Now, again, I hear they are going to start it all over again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: They are going to drop the bonuses again now. They are going to start the same cycle all over again, Mr. Speaker. Shameful!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are also pleased to see a negotiated settlement between the nurses and government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, are pleased to see a negotiated settlement between government and the nurses' union, one that hopefully will meet the needs of both sides and the public as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: I am sure that this settlement, if ratified by the union in the days to come, will certainly lend, or go a long ways towards lending, stability in the health care in this Province.

Again, it is not like we have seen the last time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: It shows that negotiations can work, and this is living proof of that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions this afternoon are related to the portfolio of Mines and Energy, so they would be first for the Acting Premier or, in the alternative, to the Acting Minister of Mines and Energy.

Mr. Speaker, this government was elected on the mandate that it would not allow Voisey's Bay ore to leave - or concentrate, for that matter - and be processed outside this Province. In fact, the Red Book says, "INCO proposes to take the ore in the Voisey's Bay deposit and ship it elsewhere to be processed. That is not acceptable."

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with that statement. That is not acceptable. That is why it is our party policy to agree with that particular position. In fact, the former Premier, Premier Tobin, said not a single spoonful of ore would leave this Province.

Mr. Speaker, now that the CEO of Inco is stating publicly that Voisey's Bay ore will be used to keep operations in Sudbury and Manitoba competitive for a long period of time, my question for the acting minister is simply this: Would he or she confirm in this Legislature that their party and their government has broken the mandate and trust of the people of this Province by allowing Voisey's Bay ore or concentrate to be shipped to Manitoba and Ontario to create jobs for Manitobans and Ontarians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We have broken no mandate and we will not break a mandate. The only mandate we have is to get the best possible deal for the people of our Province, and that is what we intend to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: We will get a deal that will be supported by the people of our Province or we will not have a deal. The party opposite have been trying to scare the people of our Province for five years now, into the possibility that we would give away the resources of our Province. It is thanks to the government of this Province, to the party on this side of the House, that we have stood firm, that we insist on a proper deal for our Province, and there will not be an agreement until we get a deal that is going to provide prosperity for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to see the acting minister so forceful in his response, and we will discuss the terms of that deal. In fact, as I said before, Mr. Hand, the CEO of Inco, talks in terms of using Voisey's Bay ore to keep Manitobans and Ontarians productive and competitive for a long, long period of time. What I want to know, Mr. Speaker, exactly how long is a long period of time?

I would ask the acting minister to confirm for us today what we are being told, that in fact ore will be shipped to Manitoba and Ontario until at least the year 2011. Would he confirm that for the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, we look forward to working out an arrangement with Inco and Mr. Hand to provide for the development of Voisey's Bay, but it will not be Mr. Hand who will determine how Voisey's Bay is to be developed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: It will be the government of this Province, Mr. Speaker, and the party on this side of the House, and it will only be developed if we get the kind of deal that the people of our Province want; and the deal that we will agree to will ensure the prosperity of Newfoundlanders and the competitiveness and the efficiency of our industry for many years to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is the kind of deal that they promised to the people of this Province. It is what the people want from this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier refuses to answer any of my questions in this House on this particular issue, and I was hoping that the acting minister, presumably a man of principle, would give us some answers in this House on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier chooses, Mr. Speaker, to refuse to answer my questions or state his position outside the House to the media, outside this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the acting minister is: In light of the Premier's statement last week, that ore would not be coming back to this Province for perhaps thirty to thirty-five years, is it possible that if replacement ore is available, it will not be shipped back to Newfoundland and Labrador until the year 2046, which coincidently is the same time we might get our hydroelectric power back.?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is out to lunch on his assumptions in this regard. I do not know where he gets the kind of information that he appears to believe. I remind him, Mr. Speaker, that it is this party that has insisted on the right deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for five years now, and we will not make a deal until we get the kind of deal that the people of our Province want.

I condemn the people on the other side for trying for five years now to scare the people of our Province into believing that we are going to give away something. This Province, this government and this party, Mr. Speaker, will give away nothing without getting the proper kind of deal for our people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I quote the leader of our government, the Premier of the Province, and I use his words, and his minister tells me I am out to lunch. Well, then, what is the logical conclusion? The Premier is also out to lunch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: We do know that he likes to go to lunch and he likes to go to supper and he likes to get a few cheques while he is there, doesn't he?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Acting Minister of Mines and Energy if, in fact, the CEO of Inco has said that Manitoba, Thompson ore will be depleted - in fact, it is nearly depleted now - and if, in fact, the Sudbury find is over 120 years old, where is the ore going to come from? A simple question, a simple answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, the obvious conclusion is that the hon. member opposite does not either know how to read or how to hear, if that is his interpretation of what our Premier's position is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: If the people of Sudbury or Manitoba or anywhere else think that they are going to benefit from the deposit in Voisey's Bay at the expense of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, they will soon find out the facts in that regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, as we have been saying for a number of years now, and as will continue to be the case, there will never be development of Voisey's Bay unless it is on terms acceptable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the acting minister, and I would like to pursue that.

So, if this deal will be acceptable to the people - we have been told by Scott Hand that a deal is close. We were told by former Premier Tulk that, in fact, this would be debated in this Legislature before a deal is signed.

Will the acting minister today make a commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that this matter will be brought before this Legislature in detail before any deal is signed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, it won't be Scott Hand who will determine whether there is an acceptable deal or when the development of Voisey's Bay will go ahead. This government will determine when we believe that we have a deal that is good for our Province and acceptable to the people of our Province. When we are convinced of that, we will make a deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the acting minister again: Will he make the commitment that former Premier Tulk made? Will this be debated in this Legislature before the deal is signed, so that the people will know the terms of the deal?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, we will bring whatever is appropriate for debate in this House to this House, but, as a government, we will decide when we have a deal that we think the people of the Province support and we will carry out our duties to make deals on behalf of the people of our Province in accordance with the responsibilities we have as the government of this Province, and in accordance with the responsibilities that we expect to have for a good while into the future, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the acting minister is also the Member for Virginia Waters. I would like to know, for the record and for the constituents of Virginia Waters: Do you support a deal that allows ore or concentrate to leave this Province, and are you against debate in this Assembly before a deal is signed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, for your constituents.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the people of Virginia Waters have been good enough to elect me four times to this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I believe they have done so because they have confidence in the way I represent them in this House of Assembly. They know that I have a record of saying what I believe, doing what I think is right, supporting what I think is right to do on behalf of our Province, and they know that I will not change at this time in our history. I will support a deal that is in the best interests of our Province, and this government will not propose a deal that does not meet that criteria.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the acting minister: If that deals includes a provision that ore or concentrate from Voisey's Bay will leave this Province, will you support that deal? Answer that for your constituents in Virginia Waters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. members opposite cannot find some other policy issues in our Province to deal with, that would be more appropriate for them to be dealing with than the way they are at this particular time. All they have been doing, and all this particular leader has been doing since he become leader, is fearmongering in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair interrupted the hon. minister when he was answering the question because there was so much noise here that the Chair could not hear what the hon. minister was saying. I will give him an opportunity to finish his answer.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member expects to accomplish by asking the same question over and over and over. If we reach a deal, when we reach a deal, we will advise the public and we will advise him of what deal we have that we are prepared to recommend to the public of our Province. When that happens, he will have ample opportunity to respond to it and give his advice on what he thinks should be done. Before that time, none of us know what will be in the final deal, not even the people on this side of the House. We cannot talk about a hypothetical deal. When we have a deal, the hon. member will be informed, as well as everybody else in the Province. Then the people of the Province will decide whether it is acceptable to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, each hon. minister and each hon. member opposite has to stand up and be counted on this one. I would like to ask a question, a supplementary, to the Minister of Labour, who is next to the acting minister. I ask the Minister of Labour, as the Member for Grand Fall-Buchans: Will she, in fact, support a deal that includes ore or concentrate from Voisey's Bay leaving this Province for processing and creating jobs elsewhere?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the Chair wants to inform hon. members that they can address the questions to members of the House, to government, but they cannot decide what member will respond. We cannot go jumping from one minister to the other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. Leader of the Opposition has been on a rather steep learning curb since he became a member of this House. He seems to be on a particularly difficult learning curve when it comes to understanding what we are saying about Voisey's Bay. I do not know how many times we need to say it in order to get through to him. Perhaps, if he would like to take a new tact on this issue, he might start by telling us what his proposal is for the development of Voisey's Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador know what our position is. We have stated it time and time again in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Very clear, unequivocally clear: No ore leaves this Province for processing elsewhere. End of statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Member for Topsail what his position is with regard -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair just interrupted the member on a previous question directed to a different minister. If questions are to be asked, that they be asked to the government. The government will determine which member will respond to that question. So, I ask the hon. member to direct his questions to the appropriate minister.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have no further questions, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for any member in government who chooses to answer, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Last year this government took $68 million from hydro in dividends, the year ending March 31. This year they are proposing taking another $44 million in dividends, for $112 million out of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in dividends.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask the minister, Mr Speaker, if I can over the voice of the Member for Bay of Islands shouting out. I would like to ask the minister what affect will this have on the debt to equity ratio of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance; President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I got really excited, I thought the member opposite was going to stand up and congratulate the staff and government for achieving a tentative agreement with the nurses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I know he is very disappointed that happened this weekend. I could tell by his reaction to our statement, as I am sure the people of the Province could as well.

But, in response to the question, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows in fact -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Unless it is an urgent point of order, the Chair reminds members that during Question Period points of order should be kept until the end of the Question Period.

The hon. the Minister of Finance; President of Treasury Board.

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

As the member asked the question previously as it relates to hydro - and I also think the president of hydro, the chair of hydro also pointed out - this would not impact on that ratio. It would not be impacting because, as Mr. Bill Wells said, they would be borrowing the money regardless this year for capital, et cetera. So it is not an impact.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to know where Mr. Wells said that borrowing money does not impact on the debt to equity ratio. The $68 million that was spent last year, given to this government by hydro - the hydro that you wanted to privatize - was already spent on transmission lines and power plants which means that hydro now has to borrow money. When you borrow money you increase your debt, and then your debt to equity ratio increases, I say.

Mr. Speaker, I say to this minister, when we are taking from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul, we are robbing Peter to pay Peter. I want to ask the minister: How is this going to enhance the bottom line of our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, everybody in the Province knows, as was read out when I did my Budget Speech, what our plan was for pushing forward monies to offset deficits in outgoing years. We all know, as well, what a better place - this is owned. We are the shareholders, the people of the Province, of hydro. We know what it is being spent for. It is being spent to offset our own deficit to provide services for health and education, and all the roads and infrastructure that is needed. The member opposite is well aware of what it is being used for. There is nothing hidden. It was read out in this year's Budget. It was read out last year what our plans were, and it is there for the whole Province to see. There is nothing happening here that hasn't been read publicly and openly to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This minister does not know what she is talking about, Mr. Speaker. If we take money from hydro we will experience clawbacks on equalization a year or two down the road. This is a quick fix, I say to the minister. It is a one-time haul down and we pay the piper later. That is why previous governments did not do this, minister.

I want to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister stand and tell the House the economics behind those decisions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the economics -

MR. SULLIVAN: Voodoo economics.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker. To the member opposite, you are the master of voodoo economics. We, here, are the master of telling it the way it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to say here: What is the economics of this? The economics of this is that we have linked our social and our economic needs of the Province. We have made a conscious choice that we will spend the money on our number one priority: on health care and education, and we stand by that decision today in this House, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: In March 2000, the present Premier, who was then Minister of Health, announced a $2 million initiative for a breast health centre, the purpose of which was to reduce waiting lists for breast screening and to enable early detection.

I would like to ask the minister: Is he aware that the present waiting list for a mammography appointment for a person who is under fifty years of age, even with a history of a breast abnormality, is almost a year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is, indeed, aware of the situation. As a matter of fact, in my own district within the past year I had occasion to meet with a committee that was active out there in terms of advocating for this very important service.

We, as a government, as the hon. member has mentioned, have committed funds to deal with this issue. We have moved forward as part of a comprehensive plan on the wellness side in terms of trying to deal with these issues that are out there. We recognize, again, that as we move forward in dealing with all of the concerns that are out there that we are not - as I have indicated in this House, on any given day there are people who are going to be in this Province standing and saying that we should be doing more of this and we should be doing more of that. That, Mr. Speaker, is the simplest thing to do. Hon. members opposite relish in this everyday, on their feet standing and saying: Why don't you spend more money here? Why don't you spend more money there? Well, the reality is that this government, and the people of this Province, do not have unlimited funds. It would be a very simple issue if this minister, and this government, had unlimited funds that we could dip into to deal with every reality that is out there.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to hon. members, and to the people of this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: - that at the present time, with the money that we have committed, some forty-five cents of every dollar being spent this year, that is certainly an indication of the importance which we attribute to health care in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is very traumatic for a woman to detect a breast abnormality and this is certainly compounded when there are further delays in getting a diagnosis. A woman in such a condition, with a requisition from her doctor, tried in March to get an appointment for a mammogram. The earliest one was in January, 2003. Can the minister confirm that the backlog and the waiting list is due to evening screening being discontinued due to cutbacks?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm what the hon. member has just suggested.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Ferryland is still in his usual mode today, being the expert on everything in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: I wish he would take the time to start listening.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member's question, I concede and acknowledge that it is an important question. For people who are availing and waiting for that service, it is important. Any wait list, I am sure, for a person in that situation, any waiting time is too long.

Mr. Speaker, this government - we have working with the health care corporations - moved to reduce the wait lists. We have made additional resources available, and we will continue to work with the health care corporations, and the professionals who deliver that service to the people of the Province, to continue to reduce the length of these wait lists.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

I say to the minister, I have spoken with truck drivers from Labrador West this weekend who used the road from Labrador West to Happy Valley-Goose Bay to transport goods to make a living. Mr. Speaker, they log up to 200,000 kilometres a year on this road. The truckers have been calling the minister for about a year now to speak directly with them but none of their calls are being returned.

The section of road between Labrador West and Churchill Falls, Mr. Speaker, is deteriorated with serious washouts and potholes. Truckers and residents in the area are very concerned, not only about sustaining damage to their vehicle, but their public safety as well. I say to the minister, there are supposed to be three graders on this section of road, repairing and grading it. However, right now and for the last while there has been only one covering a distance of 500 kilometres return. I say to the minister, that is the same distance as from St. John's to Terra Nova Park return; one grader on a gravel road. Mr. Speaker, this road is such an unacceptable condition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. COLLINS: - that it requires immediate response from the minister; a response to the truckers and the travelling public.

I ask the minister: What is he going to do, immediately, to get this section of road repaired and ensure that the required amount of equipment is available at all times?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, that section of road that the hon. member is talking about has been identified as a problem within the department. This government has addressed the issue and has allocated money this year to provide a new Class A material on that road. The contract for that particular road is done by a private contractor. The money has been allocated to do it, and I will investigate to see if there is any problem with the contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, that seventy kilometres of that road is not even in the area that you are going to upgrade this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Will he go to Labrador and meet with the truckers, hear their concerns and take action where required?

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

MR. BARRETT: This minister is prepared to meet with any group, anywhere in this Province, at any time, depending on the scheduling. As a matter of fact, I was in Little Bay Islands addressing some concerns with the people of Little Bay Islands on Friday, and had a fantastic meeting. The member was not there but I met with the group in Little Bay Islands and addressed some concerns with the road - and in Bonavista South and all around this Province. I am prepared, at any time, to go to Labrador to address the issue; but the problem with gravel roads at this time of the year, when we have such freezing and thawing, it is very difficult to maintain and very difficult to grade. It is a problem that exists with gravel roads, but we are addressing the problem to the best of our ability.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is wondering if I am rising to ask to spend more money. No, I am asking the minister to allocate money in the budget that has already been debated here in this House to address a very serious problem under the jurisdiction of his department.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The people in the Port Kirwan and Fermeuse areas are asking this House to call upon the government to pave the remaining two kilometres of road that needs to be resurfaced.

Back four years ago the department saw it necessary - the road was in such bad shape that they decided to do half of it. Four years later they have not come back to do the remaining half. That road is in desperate shape, as the minister knows full well. I gave him a letter last week in this House, and I gave him photographs of that road, about fifteen photographs or more of that road that is in a deplorable condition. I invited the minister, Mr. Speaker, to come up to the area, to drive on the road, to look at it and judge for himself the condition of that particular road.

Mr. Speaker, I am just asking the minister to look at the needs here, to allocate funding in areas of priority, and a road that was a priority four years ago has not been finished since. It should be a much higher priority today because it is in much worse shape than it was, even four years ago.

There are potholes, pavement is eaten away. There are areas where you cannot meet a vehicle on it without going off on the shoulder of the road; a very serious condition. While the minister did not visit the area to see it, I provided him with numerous photographs; an opportunity just to see firsthand basically, from these photographs what it was like.

I ask the minister, when he makes his announcement, to announce funding to fix this very serious problem. In fact, truckers, delivery people, the fire department and numerous people have made reference to and representation that it is not safe to drive over; there are hills there, it is not in very good condition. It is a risk for ambulances, fire trucks and people visiting that community. In fact, it is the only community in my district that had an increase in population. It had over an 11 per cent increase in population in the last census there; the only one. We cannot say it is a community that is dying. It is a community that people are coming back to live there. It is increasing in size. So why don't we give it appropriate attention here and get something done about it?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too, have a petition, Mr. Speaker. I would like to read the pray of the petition if I could:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned citizens of the Cape Shore area, hereby draw your attention to the unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions as they now exist on Route 100, Cape Shore;

WHEREAS it the duty of government through the enactment and enforcement of the Highways Safety Act to protect its citizens not only from commuters but also from unsafe highways; and

WHEREAS the safety of the travelling public must be the number one priority of any government;

THEREFORE your petitioners ask that the government provide the necessary funding to carry out the much needed repairs to Route 100, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first of several petitions that will be sent my way, I have been informed by the residents of the Cape Shore area, in relation to the conditions of the road on Route 100, especially from just outside of Angel's Cove, on what we call Cuslett lookout, over to the community of Branch. It is about twenty-five to thirty kilometres of road, Mr. Speaker, that is in a deplorable condition. Much work needs to be done in that area. The initial paving was done in 1979, and it has been patched up in many cases ever since.

There are tremendous holes, Mr. Speaker, and it is providing a very unsafe condition for the travelling public. I have talked to many people in the area that have received hundreds of dollars worth of damage to their vehicles and continuously having a problem with trying to manoeuver on the road due to the unsafe conditions. There are some incredible holes, Mr. Speaker. One gentleman said to me the other day, we would have been better off if we had to stay with the gravel road than the condition of the pavement as it is there now.

Mr. Speaker, I bring this petition forward on behalf of the residents of the communities, mostly here in this situation of St. Brides, Branch and Point Lance. I ask the minister to take into consideration the work that needs to be done in that area. We did receive some recapping last year under the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. Again, the road is in a deplorable condition and needs much work done this year.

I take the opportunity today to invite the minister - as the Member for Ferryland just did before me - to take a visit down that way himself over the next few days, to have a look before he brings down his final budget numbers for this year on road work in the Province. I realize the restraints on the finances that are available to the minister as he deals with the situation in the Province.

We have, in our area, one of the major tourist attractions for the Province, the Cape St. Mary's Ecological Reserve. We get thousands of visitors, within the next month, the end of May or early June, who will start returning to Cape St. Mary's. As I said, we get thousands and thousands of visitors there every year. We have people who come in travel homes, Rvs, who are going to find it very, very difficult. We had a lot of complaints last year and I am sure it will be no stranger to more complaints this year.

I present this petition to the House today and ask the minister to take into consideration the needs that are needed on Route 100. I present the petition on behalf of the people in the area, and as I said, Mr. Speaker, there will be more petitions coming.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!.

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: The people in the area have decided to make this issue an important issue here in the House and I intend to do that on their behalf.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to put forward a petition. The petition reads:

To the House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the unsigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS the roads in the areas of Jamestown and Winter Brook are in very poor condition and are in desperate need of paving;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to pave approximately one kilometre of road in Jamestown, and approximately six kilometres of road leading to and including part of the community of Winter Brook, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is just another of the many petitions that I have brought forward here in this House of Assembly since I became the member representing that part of the District of Bonavista South in 1996. Back in 1995 this particular road was upgraded and made ready for paving. Paving was promised the following year, and the residents of Winter Brook are still waiting to see the main road, the only road, to their community paved.

Last year I took the minister down, and we met with some concerned citizens there who gathered on the side of the road to express their concern and frustration in dealing with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation; and trying to highlight their concern in this Legislature here to have the only road leading to their community upgraded and paved.

Those people in Winter Brook are not asking for something that this government cannot afford. They are not asking for something that this government has not done to almost every other community in Newfoundland and Labrador. The people in Winter Brook are asking the minister if they could be included in this year's capital works budget to complete the road leading to their community. On that particular road, Mr. Speaker, as I have said here before, is a sawmill operation that employs anywhere from sixty to eighty people. The owner of that particular sawmill has gone out and paved his parking lot to try to do away with a problem of dust coming in and dulling the knives and the saws that he uses to do his milling work. He has asked the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he has asked the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to kindly adhere to his wish, and the wishes of the people who live in Winter Brook, to have this particular road paved. It does not need to be upgraded and paved, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, because the road has already been upgraded. I suggest to the minister, it is probably the cheapest six kilometers of pavement that he will lay in this Province in this coming summer. I do not know what the cost or rule of thumb is per kilometer for paving, but this one would certainly be at the low scale.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he would give the people in Winter Brook -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - the basic needs of having their road, the main road, the only road to their community, paved in this year's budget, in this coming construction season.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great privilege to rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents of Labrador West. The petition is to the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled. The petition addresses the issue of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund that was set up with $347.6 million from the federal government for transportation in Labrador.

They are saying, by way of petition, that they believe the raiding of the Labrador Transportation Fund is a gross violation of the purpose of the fund, a breach of trust with the people of Labrador, and hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to immediately put this $97 million back into the fund to be spent on transportation initiatives in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, my question today was for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation concerning roads in Labrador, roads that are deteriorating to a degree where it is unsafe to be used by the public, and particularly for those who have to travel that highway to make a living to provide for them and their families.

The section of road that the minister referred to in his answer today is but one section of road that has deteriorated. The other section between Ashuanipi River and Labrador West, there is no money allocated for that this year and that road is certainly going the same as the section from Ashuanipi to Esker turnoff. I say that is indicative of what a gravel road is in the spring of the year, there is no question about that, but it is a continuous job. As one section of road is upgraded, another section is deteriorating. That is going to be constant work throughout the number of years that a road exists as gravel rather than being paved.

Mr. Speaker, this highway started in 1984. That is eighteen years ago now, and the road is still not complete. By taking money out of the fund, as government has done, what that means in the future years is that Labrador is going to have to compete with the meager dollars that are spent on road repair in this Province with all other parts of the Province, including the island portion; whereas before we had this pot of money that we could draw on, even using the interest, Mr. Speaker, that would go a long ways toward doing considerable roadwork and upgrading in Labrador. We are very much afraid that will be jeopardized in the years to come because the dollars will just not be there for the Province to be able to do it in spite of the promises that they made to complete the section from Cartwright to Happy Valley-Goose Bay over a six-year period following the EIS study being completed and accepted. That, Mr. Speaker, is not something that is going to happen tomorrow. That is going to take time, so it is six years from then. The earliest we are looking at a road connection through Labrador is certainly not in the foreseeable future.

Going back to the fund itself, and the section of road on the Labrador Highway right now, monies from his fund could be used to upgrade that section of highway to a level where people could use it safely -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: The monies in that fund could be used, Mr. Speaker, to put that section of road in a condition so that the travelling public can use it safely, so that tourists will not hesitate to return as a result of travelling over that road, and that truckers, who spend $150,000 or more for their vehicles, can deliver goods and services throughout Labrador without doing serious damage to their vehicles and jeopardizing their own personal safety.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I say the petition calls for the government to change their mind on this $97 million, to leave it there and use it for the purpose that the fund was intended.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Order 2, Mr. Speaker. I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee on Supply to debate the Estimates of the Executive Council.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister has indicated that she had a report to table under Presenting Reports but did not have it available. I wonder if we could just revert before we go into Committee so she can table that.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

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

This is very good information for members opposite, Mr. Speaker. I am sure they will be happy to have this.

I have here, the tabling of pre-commitments; three of those under subsection 26.5(a) of the Financial Administration Act. One relates to a pre-commitment of up to $1 million for Tourism, Culture and Recreation purposes, and members opposite would know we need to book this in advance to avail of the tourism market for the coming year. Another amount is for $109,000 and this was, again, to fulfil a contract for the production of religious education student and teaching learning resources in our system. The third one is a pre-commitment of $4.5 million for the purchase of textbooks for the school.

Pursuant to section 26.(5) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling three Orders in Council relating to funding commitments for the year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 fiscal years.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I am also tabling today the creation of new activities of expenditure as required again under subsection 28.(4) of the Financial Administration Act, as it relates to a new activity. The first one is in relation to a vote within the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Again, this was for $750,000. This a federal-provincial agreement whereby, rather than lose the federal funds, we re-profiled that to allow us to receive the federal share of the program, $600,000 which otherwise would have been returned to Ottawa.

Our second creation of a new activity is to cover, again from the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology. This was to provide marine infrastructure improvements in the Community of Cartwright to facilitate forestry and related industry development in this area, and that was at a cost of $2.75 million.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 28.(4) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling two Orders-in-Council for the creation of two new activities of expenditure for the fiscal year 2001-2002.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

The Estimates for the Executive Council, the Premier's Office.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Subhead 1.1.01.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

Mr. Chair, I was just wondering, with the concurrence of members opposite, if we could revert for a moment to the Consolidated Fund Services, to answer a question that was asked relating to the loan guarantee fees. The member opposite asked about the other corporate guarantees which were covered for a total of $59,500.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave to revert?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: This is a report of -

MR. SULLIVAN: Could you refer to the section, please?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, this is section 1.4.01.02., under Revenue - Provincial. It is in respect to the schedule of loan guarantees. The question was asked about the other corporate guarantees to the amount of $59,500.

Those amounts refer to AL Stuckless and Sons for an amount of $12,000; Fogo Island Co-op for $20,000; Island By-Products Limited for $2,500; Newfoundland Liquor Corporation $2,000; Newfoundland Symphony Orchestra Association $1,000; Smith's Seafoods Limited $1,000 and Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative Society Limited $21,000. That adds up to the total of $59,500.

MR. SULLIVAN: What was the last one?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The last one was the Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative Society Limited, for a total of $59,500.

MR. SULLIVAN: What was the amount for Torngat Fish Producers?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The amount for Torngat was $21,000.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I do understand that we are going to go directly to the Executive Council, and I wanted to ask a couple of questions to the minister relative to the operation of Government House. It is found on page 13 of the Estimates documents. I do note that there have been some variations, but one of the variation that we note there is in the Purchased Services. It is item 1.1.01.06. Last year, the allocation was for $24,600 and that is the allocation this year. Last year, the actual expenditure was $66,000. I want to ask the minister: Did some emergency occur? What happened at Government House that we would have an increase here, in a time of fiscal restraint, that amounts to an almost tripling of monies allocated under Purchased Services? Did something happen that was unforseen? What was the rationale for the increase from $24,600 in the budget of last year to an actual expenditure of $66,000?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

The answer to the question is really around an increase in charges for a number of expenditure items, I say to the Member for Waterford Valley, including photocopier charges, printing costs, advertising costs, entertainment expenses, photography charges, also repairs and maintenance of the Government House vehicles, gardening equipment that needed to be repaired, and some household appliances needed to be replaced. Also, there was some minor refurbishing of the period furniture related to the house. Also, as you know, and many of you would know this, there was also - I want to compliment the Lieutenant-Governor on putting together a historical walk-through of Government House for the people of our Province. I know it has been on display across the country and in Europe. In fact, I know there is an delegation of Sisters of Mercy who are now going to Ireland to celebrate Sister McAuley and her creation of the Order of the Sisters of Mercy. I know this is one of the things they will be bringing with them to promote the Province and to go through the historical perspective. This is put together very much with the help of the Lieutenant-Governor and also, of course, by Jean Edwards Stacey, who also did much of the writing for us. They are some of the reasons why the expenditures increased, as you have pointed out.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Madam Minister, we too compliment His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, on the production of this wonderful booklet which will help to explain to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and also help to explain to the people across our Province, the functioning of Government House. However, I do note with some concern that many of the items the minister has mentioned are indeed routine expenditures. When you talk about photocopying, these things are very predictable. I do not find the rationale sufficient to justify moving from $24,600 to $66,000 in one year. It seems that particular expenditure either should have been budgeted for beforehand - many things the minister has mentioned are indeed very predictable. It should have been predictable that repairs would be needed to some of the furniture that is there, or some of the work that she has mentioned in her answer. I am wondering if the minister has knowledge of any upcoming expenditures this year that are not accounted for in the budget that is here now?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

I think, in all fairness to the Lieutenant-Governor and the house that is maintained down there, many of the things that you list off, you are not aware. Obviously, if you have an appliance that needs to be repaired - I didn't know that my fridge was going to break down two weeks ago. I had no prior knowledge and I had to replace it. With all due respect, I think some of these may be predictable, and I did point out the ones that are predictable. Again, I refer to this book. This was a $15,000 cost of the amount that you are seeing there, which would not happen again.

Did the Lieutenant-Governor know at the beginning of the last budget year that this would be an item? No, I do not think so, but it was something that he wanted to do on behalf of the Queen, who he represents for us in this Province, as part of a legacy which I think would be very much appreciated, quite frankly, by the people of the Province. I think it was particularly timely, in light of the Queen Mother's death this year, that we have something like this to show the history of our Province, and the people of the Province support this very much.

So, over and above that one-time expense, I can say that some of the gardening equipment that broke - the grounds are part of keeping the Lieutenant-Governor's house. This government made a conscious decision to support Government House, and you cannot say that you support it without providing money.

Now, the increase from $24,000 to $66,000 for this one item, again, $15,000 of it was for a book. Some of it was for photocopying. Yes, some of those expenses are already budgeted but they went over. I suspect some of it was in relation to this. Some of it may be in relation to the video that also went with the historical walk-through down Military Road, to show part of the history associated with the churches and schools, all the way up to Cabot Tower.

The household appliances, I do not think were planned upon. They were things that happened and had to be addressed. Again, the advertising costs and printing costs associated with this were things that are one time. The answer is, no, I do know of any outstanding items other than what is itemized here in the budget of $24,600.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, in the next category there is a similar situation occurs and I think perhaps the same answer might apply where, under section 1.1.01.07., under Property Furnishings and Equipment, we notice that there was $3,500 allocated but the actual expenditure was $28,500. When you combine that with the extra $42,000 that was included in the previous vote, and now we are going to add in here another $25,000 extra, now we are up to approximately $67,000 spent last year at Government House that was not included in the budget.

We are not critical of the fact that these things may be needed. All we are saying is that the budgetary process is supposed to be based on reasonable expectations of expenditure. Certainly, in doing a budget, you would put in a certain amount of money for regular maintenance. Fixing the stove, as the minister said, would be included under some regular maintenance.

I am assuming here that these expenditures that are increased here - the total amount is about $65,000 - must be for things that were not able to be predicted, were not able to be included in the budgetary process last year. Therefore we are asking, again to the minister, if she could explain the increase under Property, Furnishings and Equipment of an extra $25,000, which is extra to the $42,000 or $43,000 that we mentioned in the previous vote.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

The itemized amount is a short one, actually, and that is that, during last year, the tractor that was purchased in 1989 had to be replaced. That was at a cost of $26,500. We used a portion of the amount that was not used and added it to this. That is why the amount is increased as it is.

Again, anybody who has been to the Government House, or is aware of it, or would like to become aware of it with this new book, can see that the grounds are quite extensive. If you were to hire manual help to do the garden, the flowers, and all the things that make it such a very beautiful historic landmark for us, it would cost a lot more. This itemized amount increased because it cost $26,500 to actually replace a 1989 tractor. That accounts for the expenditure item as it is.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Yes, I am well aware of the size of the grounds at Government House. When I was a university student, one of the jobs I had one summer was actually mowing the lawns down at Government House, and I enjoyed my summer work there, I should say.

Madam Minister, I am well aware. The only thing is, I assume that when we bought the new tractor that we called tenders and that the tenders would have indicated that we would have gotten the best value for our purchasing dollar.

Madam Minister, I would like to move now to the next section, which is the Premier's Office. If we look at the totals for the Premier's Office, we note that last year the Premier put forward a budget to run his office of $1,101,600. The revised budget says that he actually spent $1,366,500, and this year he doesn't think he can do it for that amount even; it is going to $1,450,000. Now, Madam Minister, that is quite an increase. That is an increase of $348,400 from last year. This is occurring, of course, at a time when everybody else is talking about fiscal restraint. Everybody else is talking about: we have to bring some commonsense to our expenditures. The minister, and all ministers, are telling the House everyday: we haven't got anymore money; when the Minister of Health, last summer, was telling people in this Province we have to cut $20 million out of health care; when the St. John's Health Care Corporation was told you have find ways to cut $8 million; when we are telling people who need mammography testing done - as my good colleague, the Member for St. John's West mentioned today, that because of cutbacks, restraints and waiting lists, that it is going to take a year, after the doctor goes and says to a lady: you should have this test done. We have cases where, if you are under fifty years old, you have to wait for a year - at a time when record numbers of people in this Province are moving out of the Province. Each year we note that there are more people moving out than are moving in.

We have had a loss of 40,000 people over the last decade. When all of that is happening, the Premier of this Province can find an extra $348,400 to run his office. I am wondering if the minister can find any rationale, any potential rationale, even a little smidgeon of rationale, one iota that would convince the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that it is logical, at a time when everybody else is cutting back; when municipalities have to turn off the lights in their town to be able to keep within their budget; when you have fishermen out there who are trying to get by on ten and twelve weeks at their local fish plants trying to make ends meet; and yet the Premier of the Province says: I cannot run my office unless I have an extra $348,400 more than I had last year.

Madam Minister, I go back to the campaign slogan of 1996 when this Liberal government said that the whole thing was about making choices. Remember the campaign slogan? It was making choices, making decisions. Well, obviously, this Premier has decided to make some choices. What he is saying is: I have to have an extra $348,000 more than I was budgeted for last year to run my office; while the Minister of Health is saying: I have to cut back. While people are being told: No, there is a waiting list now for certain procedures. Your doctor might think it is necessary but the waiting list is still there. It is getting longer. When we have to look at the fact that people are moving out of our Province every day - when we know that the people who are forced to live on assistance from the government by way of social benefits, they are told: No, we can't cover furniture any more. We can't cover some of the things we used to cover because we can't afford to cover these things for people who have to live on, I guess, help from the public service or from the public system.

So, Madam Minister, I wonder if you can tell us, in a comprehensive way, first of all, why is it that in a time of restraint, at a time when we are telling everybody else, you have to live within your means, that last year the Premier had a budget of $1,101,600, he spent an extra $235,000, and now this year he wants to increase it to be $348,000 more than it was last year? There must be a rationale. We can't have a situation develop where the Premier is saying one thing to the people of the Province, and then he is saying: I don't want to follow these rules. These rules are made, cut back everybody else, but don't cut back in my office. I need almost half-a-million dollars more than I had last year.

Just to give you some percentages here. The percentages, of course, would mean that the Premier's Office here has increased by over 20 per cent in one year. Why, when everybody else is saying cut this and cut that, and the Premier says, no, I have to have more money?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Yes, I would be happy to speak about the Premier's Office and the associated expenses. If the member opposite would remember, and I am sure he would remember the Auditor General's report, one of the recommendations from the Auditor General was, in fact, that the Premier would charge off his own travel to his own department. Previously, one of the things that the Premier's Office did, in part, was associate different travel with line departments. It was suggested by the Auditor General that we bring it all in-house under the Premier's Office. Many times it would have been sent to the protocol office, the appropriate analysis would be done and then it would be reassigned to the various line departments, like Mines and Energy or whatever. Now, what we have done, on the recommendation of the Auditor General, is to bring that component in under the Premier's Office.

Also, I would like to point out that Salaries in the Premier's Office includes sixteen permanent positions. That has been sort of relatively low compared to - we don't want to dredge up 1989, and prior days, when we were looking at twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five and twenty-six, all those kinds of numbers. We have identified sixteen permanent positions and that includes temporary assistants and overtime as well.

Also, if you want me to speak generically about the Premier's Office, which I can continue to do, the travel, as I said, is higher than last year, because the travel that would have been allocated to the line departments, now will be identified under the budget for the Premier's Office. The fiscal year increase for 2002-2003 has increased by $348,000 overall. Of this amount, $107,000 relates to salary and $235,000 relates to the travel. This $235,000 that relates to travel was that which was again realigned to the line departments, and now we have brought in extra for the Premier's own travel budget. Also, an increase of $5,800 for supplies because of the predicted increase.

So, the total budget for the Premier's Office is increased for those reasons, because the travel will be realigned, because of an extra salary, and also because of the amount for supplies.

If you want, I can also go into the other pieces. If you want to look at Purchased Services, for example, a portion of why that is increased: As you know, when Premier Grimes took office he opened up a Grand Falls office, and items under Purchased Services increased by $6,000, and that was partly to help set up the office in Grand Falls.

Also, if you look at the Property, Furnishings and Equipment budget, that increased as well, and that was to help set up the office and supply the necessary equipment, et cetera, that goes with setting up an office. I think all of the other amounts are identified without any increases, as you can see in this vote under the budget, as you identified on page 14 of the Estimates. If you want any more clarity I will certainly be happy to provide that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, yes, we do recognize that probably I am going to take the minister's word that the allocations that have previously been shown for travel by the Premier - we do know the incidents that have happened whereby the Premier taking flights all over the nation and internationally has decided that he would sub-divide it. It was a famous $62,000 expenditure, or something like that. Then you divided that by the number of people who travelled, and all that kind of nonsense that went on in recent communications out of the Premier's Office. However, Madam Minister, certainly if you are saying that the amounts that you have now included in the Premier's Office for Transportation and Communication, this extra $235,000, then I think it is incumbent upon the minister to explain to us, and to identify for us, where the amounts in the other budgets have been decreased. In other words, my quick glancing the other day indicated to me that I could not find a balance here. I could not find where, if this amount has gone up in the Premier's Office, where there is a corresponding decrease in the other offices. Because, if not, we have just spent an extra $235,000 on travel that we did not spend last year. W should be able to show in other departments where there has been a corresponding decrease. If we keep the numbers in the other departments at the same level, then we have not achieved anything other than to transfer an amount into the Premier's Office. In other words, we have increased the total expenditure for travel by an extra $235,000.

Madam Minister, we do note that you did mention Salaries here, in section 2.1.01.01. You mentioned that it had been increased by a little over $100,000, from $883,200 to $880,000, which was the actual spent, and then it is $990,000. That is $107,600. I do believe you said that was because of an extra position that was added in Grand Falls. I am not quite sure. You mentioned the Grand Falls number. Maybe you could tell us exactly, Madam Minister, why we have an increase of $107,600 in the budgetary allocation for Salaries within the Premier's Office?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

That allocation was for a special adviser to the Premier. That position is not filled currently. As far as I know, it is vacant. I would assume, I am not making any assumptions for the Premier, but it is unfilled at the moment, so what I would recommend and I am sure the Premier would concur, is that we offset, right now, that position, where it is vacant, and offset it towards savings. That, in fact, would bring our Salary vote for the Premier's Office down by approximately $100,000, if you add in benefits and all of the other pieces associated with setting up that office and that sort of thing. It was in relation to a special adviser to the Premier, not in relation to the Grand Falls office.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Is the minister now saying that there is no intention on the government's part to fill that position in this calendar year? It is not the minister's position to say, I am sure, but her answer indicated that if he does not fill the position, there would be a decrease of $107,000. That is how I read the answer, I say to the minister.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Or whatever the appropriate (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Or whatever proportion of the year is left on a pro-rated basis.

I wanted to move again to the section on Supplies. We note that last year it was $19,400 for supplies and you spent $40,000. It is back this year to $25,200 which is a small increase, really, of about $6,000 or $7,000. What happened for us to expend - the amount here is really a 100 per cent increase more than was budgeted last year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

I think the member opposite may have missed it, but I spoke to that specific item. I went through each of those items but I certainly have no problem repeating it again. This piece is in reflection of the Grand Falls office opening, and there is a slight increase there as it relates to setting up the office and requiring, obviously, the supplies and the necessary pieces associated with opening a new office in Grand Falls.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: If I could ask one further question, Madam Minister, it has to do with section 09., Allowances and Assistance. It is $20.000. Does this refer to the amount that the Premier is allocated for his entertainment, or primarily entertainment he would do in his own home when it is necessary for him to entertain guests at the public expense in order to conduct public business? Is this the appropriate allocation where that particular amount is incurred?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

This really is a direct response to, I believe it was Premier Peckford who was the last Premier to actually live in a public residence that was paid for by the people of the Province. Since, I guess, the Liberal Administration has taken over, the last Premier being Premier Brian Peckford, we no longer house the Premier in a private residence with his own private dining room. In relation to that, there is a stipend in lieu of that and that is the number to which you refer. We don't do that anymore.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, just recently there was some comment in the public press to the effect that the $20,000 was the minimum and that the public purse of this Province is now assuming responsibility for snow clearing at the Premier's residence, for security at the Premier's residence, for taking care of lawns and other regular mundane things that any taxpayer would certainly know about.

Madam Minister, do you have any data which would indicate how much was spent last year over and above the $20,000 that was allocated? And where in the budget is there provision this year for the kinds of expenditures that have occurred in the last year? Like, for example, maintenance of his private property, for security, for snow clearing and other similar items.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

All of the numbers associated with the Premier's Office are here in this budget estimate that you are seeing, so all of the amounts would either come out of the allowances or under a section, for example, that the Premier has access to like any of the members in the House that would apply to expenses that are approved and able to be claimed for under his expense. Just like you, under your MHA allowance, can claim for different things as it relates to a computer or a camera or whatever it is that you get and you can claim for. The Premier would only claim for those things that apply to him.

I know there are issues over and above that are often provided, for example. Oftentimes if he goes to functions that are Liberal functions, that would be paid for by the Liberal party. What you are seeing in here is covered within the expenses of what you are seeing, whether it be the $20,000 or any of the other benefits that any of us can receive as Members of the House of Assembly.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Madam Minister indicates that there is some commonality in the rules here. She compares it to the allowance that every member of this House gets, a constituency allowance; however, I am not aware, in the guidelines for constituency allowances, where any member is allowed, for example, to charge off snow clearing for his private residence or for lawn care. I can make an argument for security to the Premier's person and to his home; however, there is a difference here. The people of this Province, we are told, have paid for expenditures at the Premier's residence that are over and above the $20,000 and they would include such things as snow clearing, taking care of his lawn, this kind of thing. Certainly, I am questioning where the guidelines are, what guidelines really exist in terms of what will be paid for out of the public purse to take care of the Premier's property and what will not be paid for.

There are guidelines for MHAs expenditures, but where do we find guidelines that would tell us if the Premier can have his snow clearing done at public expense, or he can have his lawn cared for at public expense. Nobody else can have that. I am not aware of where that is possible for any other member. The question is: Where does that money come from?

It is nice to say it is all wrapped in this total figure, but certainly somebody within the department responsible must have allocated money to look after that. Yet, it is not included here because the public has been told, no, it is not included in $20,000.

I am just trying to find out where these other expenditures are included. What are the guidelines that apply to the Premier? Does he have guidelines that are different from other MHAs? Should he have, is a good question? What else is included other than the items that I have already mentioned?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I guess the bigger question: Is the Member for Waterford Valley requesting we go back to the $2 million days of Brian Peckford and Frank Moores when they lived in their own house and they had their own garden and their own private dining room? The answer is, Mr. Chair, and I will say again that all of the information -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I never heard what the Member for Bonavista South was saying but I am sure he will get a chance to ask a question maybe when he gets to his feet.

But what I will say is that the expenditures here for the Premier's Office are outlined. It relates to all of the pieces that come out of the public purse. I would say to the member opposite, this government has no intention of going back to setting a Premier up in a private residence with a private dining room, unless the members opposite are suggesting - we moved away from that. In fact, we are leaving the days when, you know, the cost of running the Premier's Office was almost as much as it is today. In fact, it is less in some years, and here we are now talking about twelve, thirteen years later. If you factor in inflation and salaries, and just the nature of travel, I think it has been very well contained. I guess the people of the Province will decide whether they believe it is or it isn't. While I am saying that, the Premier certainly has benefits for being a Premier, in lieu of the fact that he is not put up in a publicly paid house with a publicly paid dining room, with access to all kinds of liquor and cigars and all that sort of thing. He does not get any that stuff. He does get a stipend for doing that, and members opposite know that we have moved away from that direction.

What I will say to the member opposite is that what you see here in terms of the salaries and costs, are the salaries and costs associated with the public purse, associated with being a Premier; and the Premier is an MHA as well, as members opposite said, and he has access to claiming different charges, as do all of us, if they meet the requirements. I would say to the member opposite, the numbers here are reflective of the cost of running the Premier's Office.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Madam Minister, we are not saying that the Premier should have, shall we say, not some flexibility. He should have flexibility. He is the Premier of the Province. However, what we are saying is that if that flexibility is there, then it has to be publicly accountable. I would like to refer the minister to what was said in the Speech from the Throne on page 5. It says: "...My Government's commitment to a greater level of openness and accountability." Also, it says the real hallmark of this government is supposed to be real accountability. It is page 5, and it says that this government will disclose almost everything that can be disclosed. All I am saying is, if we are going to pay for certain things for the Premier's private home, then don't give me a rationale of what was done twenty years ago.

I have Harold Horwood's book here and I could quote you what was done in 1968, in Joey's day. I do read a lot of history. I could quote you back forty years ago, if you want to go back forty years ago. That is not a problem. However, what we are talking about today in this world, in 2002, the Premier has said: (a) he is going to run a government that is very open, very accountable and he is going to disclose everything in terms of the public's right to know. However, I say to the minister, when we hear stories of the Premier using the public Treasury for regular mundane things, like having his driveway cleared of snow, we get concerned. All we ask you today is that there must be guidelines, breakdowns or some way of telling us what items are paid for out of the public Treasury in terms of the Premier's expenses and what items are excluded.

We know, for example, there are guidelines for MHAs. If I were to submit an invoice to the Speaker's officer for cleaning my driveway, it would get turned down; and so it should. However, if I am travelling on member's business then certainly there is an rationale that that would be included. So, I say to the minister, when the Speech from the Throne talked about real accountability and talked about openness, we are now saying to the minister: Here is the opportunity for you to tell us what the guidelines are in terms of what will be paid for out of the public purse and what will not be paid for out of the public purse.

I ask the minister: Is there a set of guidelines that apply exclusively to the Premier? We know he has expenditures because we know the Treasury has already paid for them, like snow clearing, lawn care and this kind of thing. We are saying to the minister: Is there a set of guidelines that apply to the Premier's Office, and is there expenditures that are different from these which apply to ordinary MHAs?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Chair, what I will say to the member opposite again is that the public purse, as it relates to the cost of the Premier's Office, is identified right here. What is provided for the Premier is a stipend of $20,000; which does not mean that we provide the Premier to live in a private residence with his own private dining room, as has been the past.

Now the member said: Let's not talk about the past. Let's forget the past and let's move on. I am glad to hear that. I am glad to hear that we are moving on because everyday of the week we hear about the past. So it is good to hear him and his party talking about moving forward. What I will say is that we will not delve on the past. We will not delve on the fact that our Premier does not live in a house that is paid by the public. We will not delve on the fact that he does not have a private dining room, and we will not delve on the fact that he does not have certain expenses. What we will say is that - for the people of the Province, in the Estimates that is tabled before all the people of the Province - the cost of the Premier's Office, as it relates to salaries, travel, allowances, assistance, everything is identified here. I spoke to the rationale for the increases as it relates to salaries, extra travel for the line departments, and it is all here.

Mr. Chair, again, as I pointed out, the amount is here for the people of the Province and the expenditure from the public purse is recorded here in these Estimates.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I am pleased to stand to participate in the debate on the Budget, in particular dealing with Executive Council which deals with the Premier's Office and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Office as well.

I have been listening with some interest to the Minister of Finance's responses to the questions relayed to her by the Member for Waterford Valley. In particular, she talks about, you know: Let's not talk about the past. Let me put in context some of the statements that she made, and then I have some questions as well.

In 1989 there was a review of government expenditures that occurred. Former Premier Clyde Wells undertook to have a look at what where legitimate and bona fide expenses. In the process of doing that, a number of recommendations and decisions were made. First of all, the dining room which was put in place by former Premier Smallwood, I guess used by both former Premiers, Frank Moores and Brian Peckford, it was decided at that point in time that public policy dictated it would be good public policy - and I believe it was good public policy - that that dining room should be closed.

Secondly, one of the other issues that was dealt with, as well, was that there was a residence on Mount Scio called Mount Scio House, for example, that was designed or there for the purpose and use exclusively of the Premier, whatever political stripe. At that time as well, it was decided that the cost of running that - we could turn it into offices; good public policy. Let's remember, I suppose, that in lieu of giving that up a decision was made that $20,000 be given, carte blanche, to the Premier, whoever he or she may be, of whatever political stripe, for home costs and entertainment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No. I am just putting it in a historical context for those who may be watching the debate or for those in the House who may not be aware of it.

Another decision that was made in 1989 was that every minister in government was entitled to a government car. There was a huge issue, in 1988-1989, prior to the election, made about that, by some of my hon. colleagues across the way. So, a decision was made that the issuance to ministers of government cars would be gone. In essence, what it was replaced by was an $8,000 car allowance per minister, which certainly more than covers any legitimate or bona fide expense for any reasonable car over a period of a year in terms of car payments. So, while we took the physical aspect of it away, the government of the day - certainly I am not disputing or debating it, I am just putting it in context, that at that time the means for ministers to still enjoy the privileges of a car or whatever the case may be, it being paid for, certainly was provided.

I have also noticed with interest, in looking in the Estimates, the Premier's salary details and the Premier's expenditure - what I am more interested in is what is not there, as opposed to what is there. I say to the Minister of Finance, that according to the Salary Details and the statements that you have made today, you say there were fourteen people working out of the Premier's Office.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Sixteen.

MR. E. BYRNE: Sixteen.

Now, nowhere in the Salary Details, for example, in the Budget - my estimate is there are twenty based on the knowledge that I have. Now, they could be put somewhere else, but I would like to know where they are because I cannot find them in the Budget. For example, the Premier has two people, from what I understand, who work as executive assistants in the district office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two?

MR. E. BYRNE: Two people, in his district office, that is my understanding. Now, on top of that -

AN HON. MEMBER: How many do we get?

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on now. On top of that, I say to my colleague, there is also a government office, a Grand Falls office. There are two people working in the Grand Falls office. So, I wonder if the minister could tell us who those people are; that is four people. There is a Grand Falls office. I guess that is to be enjoyed by all people in the region. I do not know, maybe the Minister of Labour has an office that she operates out of there. I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One second. I am getting to all of that, I say to my colleague. Just hang on to your horses. All the questions will come out, and the answers, and we will see what they are.

There is a government office for the Premier, I suppose, where two people work out of, and then he has a district office where another two people work out of. Where would I find those in the budget?

Again I am not saying that there should not be; I am just asking the question. In Corner Brook, for example, the Premier has an office in the Sir Richard Squires building in Corner Brook. How many people work out of that office? The Member for Bay of Islands, as Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier, has an office there, and so he should, he is Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier. Does the Member for Humber East, for example, work out of that office as well? How many staff are there? Why aren't they included in the Premier's Office total salary budget, for example?

Mr. Chair, these are legitimate questions, I think, that need to be asked. Certainly a government office in Corner Brook, I say to the Minister of Works, Services, and Transportation, does not fall under the auspices of the House of Assembly. If it does, I can tell you this: the next IEC meeting is going to be a very interesting one, if that is the case; but I do not think it does, and nor should it.

The question I ask the minister in terms of some of the observations that I have put forward: for example, there is special projects, and you may have dealt with this already. Former Chief of Staff of the Premier, a former minister in this House, a person that I had a good working relationship with certainly in the capacity in dealing with issues in my own district, does he fall under the Premier's staff as listed here or does that person work outside in another department, or does that money come from both him and the personal assistant or administrative assistant that works with him? Does that fall under the auspices of the Premier's office? Because, if that is the case, there are twenty people, not sixteen, who work out of the Premier's Office. I just pose a few of those questions before I get into the remainder of the debate dealing with Executive Council.

I will say this: what is interesting about the budget in Executive Council, if you take time to go through it, if you look at it and compare it to every other department in government, this is the one department that clearly - because it is what we are about to vote upon - that clearly has not come under the 8 per cent reduction in operating costs, which was an initiative launched by the minister's department, and a 5 per cent reduction in wage costs. This is the one area that, if you look at it, compare it to last year's budget, what was projected, what was actually spent, then what is projected this year, the total budget for Executive Council as compared to last year, over $1 million extra is being requested of this House. We will get to that in each section, subhead by subhead, to the minister's department. We will not get to all of it today, but we will get through some of it today.

I will just make that general comment, that it is striking and it is very revealing at the same time, that while every department in government, including members here in the House of Assembly, for example, had no choice, really, but to obey the directives as set down by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board in leading up to the actual Budget day, that every department in government was asked on the one hand, and was expected on the other, to adhere to and find that 8 per cent on operating costs in each of their budgets and 5 per cent on wages.

Executive Council is the only exception, the only exception that I can find. There may be some others, and the minister may like to point them out; but, in pointing them out, she has to acknowledge that Executive Council certainly is one of the exceptions to that rule and directive that Treasury Board has put forward. We will get a chance to debate that.

I will sit down for a moment and give the minister an opportunity to answer some of the questions of where all of the people who work either directly or indirectly for the Premier, where we can find them all, and I can stress the words: all in this Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. FITZGERALD: Give us you confession.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

I say to the Member for Bonavista South, I will do a confession and I will do an historical confession. Everybody gave a little historical preview and I would like an opportunity to do the same thing too.

Talk about the $20,000 allocation for the Premier. I think that is an important piece, and the member opposite talked about the car allowance and why those things are important. I think it is important for the people of the Province to understand how we have gotten from here to where we are now, because it is important. Let me give you just this one example. I guess you could call it Peckford's perks or you can just call it history if you want, but it is important because it puts in perspective why we have moved from where we were to where we are today. Members opposite may not want to hear it, but it is important for the people of the Province. It speaks to a history that all of you speak to from time to time, and I think it is important for the people of the Province.

Let's just talk about why the Premier gets an allocation of $20,000 for all of the costs associated with living in his own home. One of the reasons was because one of the amounts tabled for Mount Scio House, which is where the Premier of the day, Premier Peckford, lived, included costs of $118,000 for redecorating; $3,500 for a housekeeper's apartment; $44,000 for four security guards; $9,600 for one housekeeper, and $9,100 for one domestic worker. That is one of the reasons we moved from where we were to where we are today.

Now, let's move a little bit further along and talk about later on when we talked about the cost of Premier Peckford's private dining room, and why we have moved to providing a private dining room and a house at the public expense to where we are today. That was because the cost for one year of the private dining room cost the taxpayers of our Province $19,000 alone for the meals; but, of course, the chef who did the fine dining meals, was at a cost of $22,000. That is approximately a $40,000 charge just for the dining room expenses. That is why the people of the Province need to know we have moved from there to where we are now.

It goes on and on. For example, expenses associated with the Premier of the day in 1988, which was again Premier Peckford, before his exit to Vancouver, spent over $200,000: $67,000 for a personal bodyguard; $9,000 or $10,000 for a four-wheel drive Blazer; $6,000 for the Tory party statement; $47,000 for food, drink and dry cleaning. Again, we could move on and on. There is the cost of the private dining room at the weekly cost of $1,500 a week to operate; renovations to the Premier's suite, which cost $500,000. This is part of the history that the people of the Province obviously can appreciate, that shows why we have moved from where we were to where we are now.

The member opposite also speaks to some questions that are related to the number of people. I will not go on with the rest of these indications in 1989 about furniture purchased for the Premier's office of the day, or any of those pieces, because I think the point is made that we have moved from where we were to where we are today. We like where we are today, with moving away from providing a publicly paid for house in Mount Scio with enormous expenses, to one where we have a stipend for all of the costs associated with being Premier of the Province and all the extra responsibilities that are associated with that.

I would say to the member opposite that - I notice he never used a name, and I respect that when you ask a question - I will provide for him the names of the people he is asking for associated with the offices because I think it is important.

I can clarify one issue. I already answered it for the Member for Waterford Valley, but I will answer it again. You talked about the special adviser, who was a minister of this House, and who is former Chief of Staff for the Province, who served a very integral role in government. I can speak to that one particular point. That particular individual held the special advisory position, which is no longer filled. That is a vacant position. It is the Premier's discretion whether it would be filled, but my view would be that if it is not filled - and perhaps it will not be - that it will be used to offset the savings associated with Executive Council.

I also can say to the members opposite, to the Member for Kilbride, that the Executive Council will achieve its 8 per cent and 5 per cent savings as a whole here. There are pieces like - and I will raise this specifically - we did not apply the 8 per cent and 5 per cent to the Lieutenant-Governor's house but we achieved the overall savings through the vote of Executive Council. That is how we have achieved - if you look at all of the listing of the various components of Executive Council, we will achieve the 8 per cent and 5 per cent from that area. We made a conscious decision to do that, but that is not to eliminate or to rule out the possibility that all of these various components of Executive Council will be asked to conduct their business as frugally as possible and to try to even offset further savings if possible through reductions in their services and program areas. We will ask them all to do that. So the 8 per cent and 5 per cent will be achieved.

I also would say to the Member for Kilbride that some of the people he referred to would come out of the Premier's constituency fund and not out of the Premier's Office. Again, I will identify that for his Grand Falls constituency office, for the member opposite, because he kind of rolled all that into one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Constituency office.

Again, I would say that throughout - and when a member is looking at how we have calculated these reductions - remember, we have a 5 per cent increase added on to the Budget from last year, and this year there is a 3.75 per cent increase. It applies to six months of the year because of the way of the 2.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent apply to government departments. So, the 5 per cent was reduced from last year, but you will see an increase of 3.75 per cent because of the compounding associated with the two increases over a six-month period this year.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I would like to pose some of the questions I asked before. I appreciate the minister's comments. Certainly, in naming the positions that I have - and the people who are employed in them are not the subject of my inquiry this afternoon, nor should they be. These are my fellow citizens in the Province who are performing their jobs and roles as their political bosses and superiors have asked them to do.

The point I want to make is that there has been an impression left by the minister, whether rightly or wrongly - that will be determined throughout the course of the debate - that there are only sixteen people working in the Premier's Office. Here is what I have, I say to the Minister of Finance: director of communications; chief of staff; secretary; assistant to the chief of staff; director of operations; director of finance administration; executive assistant in the district office; executive assistant in the district office. For the record, not many of us - and I believe including the Premier, in terms of district allowances - have the ability to hire two full-time people under district allowances because it would not allow for anything else to do. So it is a legitimate and bonafide question. On top of that, there is an administrative assistant; reception-secretary; communications special assistant, which drives the Premier; special assistant in Corner Brook; political assistant; secretary; executive assistant; another executive assistant; political assistant, who works out of the eighth floor but I believe it is paid for by the government member's budget, but that person actually works out of the Premier's Office, so that is an important consideration; special projects person; secretary; executive assistant to Grand Falls office; secretary to Grand Falls Office; and a cleaner who works on the eighth floor all day. Now I am not questioning the people. What I am questioning is - if that is the case, well fair enough, but if that is the case, the information that I have, why isn't it in here? Why are we saying there are only sixteen people when there could be as high as twenty-four?

The other question that I asked the minister: Where does the expenditure come from for the Grand Falls government office? What part of the Budget does that office fall under? How much do we pay for that office a year? What is the use or purpose of that office? Is it just for Cabinet ministers? Something like the Sir Richard Squires Building - which is our second city on the West Coast, as it is commonly and often referred to, Corner Brook, where there is a legitimate government presence in that part of the Province in terms of the Sir Richard Squires Building. So does Grand Fall, Central Newfoundland - it now has a Grand Falls office. How much do we pay for it? What is the purpose of that Grand Falls office? Who gets to utilize the Grand Falls office? For what purpose is the Grand Falls office utilized ? Could the minister answer some of those questions, please?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Again, I would say to the member opposite - as I said to him previously when he said I did not answer the question. I told him I would provide the names of the people who are working in the Premier's Office. I will do that. Again, I respect the fact that he does not want me to name names here. I would say, again, that the expenses associated with the Premier's Office, as I said to the Member for Waterford Valley, are identified in the public component of this, the $1.45 million associated with the Premier's Office. I will provide for him the names of the people who are working in the office.

I would also say, and I think it is important for the people from Central Newfoundland listening, that it is very important - and I think that we all recognize there are very key components in our Province. We have, this year, a ministry set up in Labrador to acknowledge the integral components and to identify Labrador as a key component of our Province. The Premier has set up a special department to identify that, with a minister there and a staff. That is a separate issue but it speaks to an issue.

We have a Premier's Office in Corner Brook because, again, it is a city. It is one that historically, for many reasons, have had a Premier's Office with positions there; a very important one to serve the West Coast. I would say that the people of the Province, particularly those in Central Newfoundland, are very appreciative and recognize the commitment of a Premier from Central Newfoundland to set up a Central Newfoundland office to meet the needs, and also to give it the credence and credibility of it being a very important region of the Province. I am sure the members opposite from central also appreciate the notoriety associated with the Premier's Office being set up in Central Newfoundland.

I will say again, in the spirt of openness, as the members refer to, that I will provide for him. I do not have the list of all of the people by name who are working in the Premier's Office. The numbers are there. I will certainly provide those names for the member opposite and answer the questions around the people, but I know that part of the salaries associated with the constituency office comes from his constituency fund, as we all have. Some of us who get smaller amounts than others - because they happen to be living in more urban areas are not able to do those kinds of things but, again, that is reflective of the culture of who we are in Newfoundland and Labrador and how difficult it is to provide our services within the Province. So, I will provide that information to the member.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Let me be clear, because I would not want either the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board or anyone else in the government to try to spin out that members in the Official Opposition are against or disagree with the government or the Premier having a presence in the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor as its Central Newfoundland location, because nothing would be further from the truth. This is the Budget Debate, and we are debating expenditures under Executive Council which deal with the Premier's Office, which deal with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Office and as we go through the Budget Debate every night - tonight, for example, there is a meeting dealing with the Department of Environment with its expenditures with one of the committees of the House. So this is the process we are into, but I did not get any answers to the questions that I have asked.

For example, I will ask again, who gets to utilize the government's office in Central Newfoundland, in the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor?

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The people who want to go in there, the Minister of Fisheries says.

Does the Member for Windsor-Springdale -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) want to go in there?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, hold on now.

Does the Member for Windsor-Springdale have the ability to have a presence there? Members opposite -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on now, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. You can stand up and participate in this debate but your yapping across the floor is not going to be tolerated by this member. I am not going to put up with it. Now, if you want to sit in your seat and participate legitimately in debate, then fair enough. We will allow you to stand up.

The fact is this, as a private member - are there private members, for example, either in government's office in Corner Brook or in government's office in Grand Falls, who have the luxury and the opportunity to do their district work out of those offices? Because there is a principle in this House that all members adhere to: that every private member is to be treated equally and fairly. Those are some of the reasons why I have asked the questions. Maybe I can ask the Minister of Labour, in terms of being the Central Newfoundland minister: Do all members - I would assume all members of Cabinet have access to that office and can enjoy it. The questions that I have asked, and I think the minister has made a point of saying that she will get the answers but it is important, I think, from the perspective of when we are participating in the Budget Debate, that what is said here - there could be as many as six or eight more who are either working directly or indirectly for the Premier, who are not showing up under the Premier's Office. If that is the case then, why not? Why aren't they? Why are they in certain subheads or other departments in terms of salary allowances?

I want to say from that perspective, to the minister, you have not provided the answers. I hope that you will. You have given an assurance, I suppose is the best way to put it, that you will provide those. In so doing, I want to know if the minister can provide this assurance. That in terms of the government office in the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, as a central location - which we have no problem with. I want to be crystal clear. I would not want the Minister of Fisheries or any other minister to go out of here tomorrow or today and say: Boy, you should have heard the Member for Kilbride, the Opposition House Leader, up in the House yesterday. He doesn't agree with having a government office in Central Newfoundland and Labrador; because nothing is further from the truth. It is not as if they have not done it; not as if our words haven't been taken here and spun somewhere else in a different context. I want to be clear that we have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador having a presence in Central Newfoundland, in the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor.

The questions I want asked is: Who has access to that office? The Premier is next door, he has a district office, fair enough. Who has access to that office? Is it just for government business or is there private members, district business going on in those offices? Because if that is the case, then the Member for Windsor-Springdale should have open access to the same services as a private member in this House, as should every other member on both sides or all sides of the Legislature.

So, I wonder if the minister could give, I guess, a commitment that when she goes looking for those answers - she cannot tell me where the expenditure for that office is right now because if I could look to that and find it, you know it might be self-explanatory. I am somewhat surprised that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board cannot tell me exactly where, in the Budget Estimates, the expenditure for that office is. I am really surprised at that. However, if she can, could she give an assurance that she would report back on the questions with the answers that we have asked for?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

I think it is interesting that the member opposite would love to leave the impression with the people of the Province that I do not know what I am doing over here, because I think that is quite inaccurate. I have answered the questions and I have undertaken to provide the answers to the questions that were asked that require more details, and I will do that.

I will say to the member opposite that I can tell you that for the office in Corner Brook - I will say this specifically - it is used very much as a public building. The people come and have meetings. Other staff come and have meetings there. I understand that even the judges have used the board room from time to time.

I am not sure if the Member for Windsor-Springdale has requested to come to the Premier's constituency office or the office set up out in Central Newfoundland, but I can verify who has requested to have meetings or whatever. I can also say to the member opposite that there are increased allocations under Supplies of almost $20,000 and also of Purchased Services, also Property Furnishing and Equipment, that I spoke specifically to being in relation to Grand Falls. I answered the question when the member - perhaps he was out of the room when I answered it - but I did speak to the amount of money, where it came from, and that it was specifically for Grand Falls.

With respect to all of the other issues, as I have said, he wants names of people, who is using the office and who is requesting to use it. I will provide that for him. I will provide the names of the people who are working in the Premier's Office and I will also provide the names of the people who are working in the other offices as well.

I say to the member opposite, I do not have the list of every person working in all of the various departments and components of this, but the undertaking is there to provide it. I would say to the member opposite, I did answer the question. I did provide the information to his colleague. Perhaps he was out of the room or was not listening when that information was provided.

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

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

Madam Minister, certainly what we are trying to achieve this afternoon is asking the minister to speak on behalf of her government to make sure that this government is accountable. A few moments ago, my colleague from Kilbride was illustrating how some services are provided in Newfoundland and Labrador for some members but are not available to others. What we are saying is that we are not against an office in Corner Brook. We are not against an office in Grand Falls. However, if these offices are to be used on behalf of members then they should be available to all members, so that if a member who is from Central Newfoundland, like my colleague from Windsor-Springdale, if there is an office there that is paid for by the public Treasury, we cannot treat one part of this government differently than another.

For some time, members who live in certain districts have said they would like to have an office in their local district; however, financially it cannot happen. However, if you are on the other side of this Legislature, on the government side, there are offices that are used, either directly or indirectly, by members who sit opposite to put forward government services to constituents. I am sure that is done, but there are also other benefits that would be coming to members in carrying out their own political purposes.

Madam Minister, I wanted to comment on that. I also wanted to bring back again the issue of accountability, because this government has said that it is going to be very accountable; however, the Auditor General does not give such a ringing endorsement. The Auditor General said that this government is among the most unaccountable governments all across the country. We say to the Premier that he should be leading by example. For example, how can he say one thing one day and say to the public service, say to the health care boards, that you have to cut back, and then, on the other hand, he increases the expenditures for his own office? How can the Minister of Health be saying that you have cut $20 million out of health care and then turn around and increase the allocations for the Premier's office?

I noted just a few moments ago that the minister, in one of her replies, said that it did not really matter what the individual item said as long as there was a savings achieved in the overall vote for the Executive Council. I want to make sure that the minister is aware of my interpretation of what she said. I understand the minister to have said that the individual items within the Executive Council budgetary allocation are not as significant as is the total figure. However, let's look at the total figures. Let's look at the total figures.

My data on page 26, turn to page 26 of the budget statements and we get the total figures. Last year the budget for Executive Council was $30,301,800. When it was revised, it came down to the revised figure of $27,988,500 and the new budget is $30,964,700. Now, the minister said a few moments ago that the individual line items do not matter as long as the total achieved savings are accrued in terms of the total vote for Executive Council. However, unless this data is wrong, if I were to take last year's revised budget data of $27,988,500 and were to subtract 8 per cent, the minister said that there would be savings achieved in the total budget allocation; but the data on page 26 does not support what the minister said.

I want to give the minister a chance to explain how come there is an inconsistency between what she just said to the House, there would be an overall savings in Executive Council of 8 per cent. Where does that occur when the data in the budget indicates that there is indeed an increase from the actual last year to expenditures this year of almost an extra $3 million allocated for the vote this year compared to last year's actual revised expenditures? How can the minister say that she has an overall savings of 8 per cent in Executive Council when in reality the data here indicates a $3 million increase?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I am very pleased to answer the questions, because I think they are very important, particularly as it relates to accountability, which this government is very proud to say, and continues to be accountable.

I also have to make a comment though, before I start, that the Auditor General made a statement - and I think the member opposite really is shortchanging government and the people of the Province, by trying to leave the impression that we are not accountable, when the Auditor General said that we provide some of the best financial statements in the country. In fact, Madam Chair, we have been asked to present on our accountability document at a conference for excellence in accountability. So, I think the people of the Province need to hear that as well.

In relation to this very important question about why the Budget overall has increased from $27,988,500 to $30,964,700, it is answered this way. I would say, first of all, there is funding for what we call the Organizational Development Initiative. This is a $2 million fund which traditionally has been allocated to the line departments. In other words, this fund is used for a number of initiatives around human resources, succession planning, for communications, for training. It is an Organizational Development Fund and it speaks to government committing money to plan for succession, to plan for HR training, communications and all of those initiatives.

Previous to this year, that particular amount of money, the $2 million, was allocated to each of the line departments within government. This year, Treasury Board has decided to take in the amount of $2 million, which is not a new or additional amount of money. It is the same amount of money, but now it will be housed in Treasury Board, allocated from Treasury Board, and recorded in Treasury Board, as opposed to being allocated out to the various line departments. That accounts for $2 million of the $3 million to which you referred.

In addition to that, there is an allocation of $200,000 for the Council of Atlantic Premiers. This is a specific council that is together to deal with issues like the Fight for Fairness Campaign, initiatives that are very much around the whole realm of trying to grow the Atlantic region in Canada, putting together the Atlantic Canadian strategy, whereby we look at ways to bring our GDP from 69 per cent to 85 per cent of the national GDP. That allocation is for $200,000.

There is another allocation in here that is recorded in this section of half-a-million dollars for the Royal Commission that was announced on Friday. Again, that comprises a component of the $3 million.

Lastly, Madam Chair, I think a very important amount is that $550,000 has been allocated for the Opening Doors Program. That is another reason why this amount of money has increased. This is new money that has been allocated to provide an extra ten positions in the Opening Doors Program of Treasury Board which focuses on trying to find, encourage, shape and develop people in our public service who have disabilities; and one that we, as a government in this Province, are very proud of how we have promoted that. This identifies, again, about half-a-million dollars for this initiative.

So, all told, I would say to the Member for Waterford Valley, the $3 million extra to which he is referring has been identified in new money because there are new initiatives. I will also say to the member that we have achieved the 5 per cent reduction, even though some of the departments are shown as being slightly higher. Even though we have identified the 5 per cent saving, we also acknowledge that this year there is a 3.75 per cent increase because of the 2.5 per cent. Then the following six months there is another 2.5 per cent, but because of the percentage compounding, it works out to 1.25 per cent. All total for the year it is a 3.75 per cent increase.

So, that accounts for the member's $3 million to which he was referring, and I hope that answers all your questions with respect to the increased amount.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to respond to the minister's comments about the increases, particularly for the Opening Doors Program. I am pleased to see that the Opening Doors Program is receiving some extra money. The minister mentions $500,000 under the Organizational Development Initiatives Fund. Also the budget, itself, shows an additional $500,000 over what was spent last year. That may be the amount the minister is talking about, but it is there in the Opening Doors line under the Treasury Board Secretariat.

Madam Chair, you may be aware - I know the minister is - that, under the previous year's Budget, the Opening Doors Program is able to be accessed by various caucuses of this House to enable an individual to be employed in each caucus under the Opening Doors Program. It is support for people with disabilities. I know there is some talk about whether or not this program will be able to be continued, and I have been told so far that it will not be able to be continued because the allocation, not from this particular head but from the Legislative head, of $5,000 per caucus is not available even though the bulk of the money actually comes from the Opening Doors Program. I know it is of pretty much significance to me, Madam Chair, because we have, in fact, identified someone who could fill a position in this particular role and I was disappointed to learn that this might not be available this year.

I wonder could the minister comment on how the Opening Doors budget relates to those particular positions.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

Again, I acknowledge that this is a very important program and I also acknowledge to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that the allocation of $5,000 per caucus was originally proposed to be removed from the IEC and, without discussing the contents or the outcomes of IEC, I know it is an agenda item for us that we will talk about again at our meeting. I think it is tomorrow, in fact, and, hopefully, we can resolve it.

I also want to say, because it is important - we talked about the 8 per cent and 5 per cent reduction - we did not add the 8 per cent and 5 per cent reduction to the Opening Doors Program, I think, for two reasons. One is because it is a program that speaks to bringing people with disabilities into government, and also because we believed, overall in the Executive Council, we can achieve the 8 per cent and 5 per cent without doing this reduction. All told, we have funding for a total of seventy-seven people throughout all of the departments in government through the Opening Doors Program. As you can see from the subtitle here, we also get federal revenue, and that is another good reason not to reduce the overall budget for the Opening Doors Program, because, in fact, we probably would end up losing federal funding to offset the costs provided in this program.

So, I would say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi, that we will be raising the issue around the hiring of a person with a disability through the IEC. Hopefully, we will be able to resolve that through the IEC, but again it is not for me to say. It has not gone there yet, but I know it is on the agenda to deal with it there.

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

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

We still have not gotten back answers to questions that we asked some time ago about the Premier being fully accountable. I have tried to point out to the House the inconsistency between the way in which the Premier's Office spends money and the way in which directions are given to the general public as to how other government departments should be run. For example, the rules that apply to the Premier's Office do not apply to health care. The Premier can have a 31 per cent increase in allocation to his department compared to the money allocated last year, and health care is told: You have to cut back. We know, as well, that this kind of a way of spending money has to be a deep insult to the hardworking health-care workers in our Province who are trying to do more with less.

We know, as well - for example, just to illustrate the impact of the budgetary restraints, a few days ago I got a call from a nurse who works at the Waterford Hospital. She told me that, because of the restraints that are occurring, there are six people working on her unit. Last year they had provisions made where two people could go on vacation at the same time. Consequently, that meant that they could have their vacation in July and August. This year they have been told there will be no allocations made for casuals. Therefore, what is happening in this particular division - this nurse, who has been there for thirteen years but is still junior on the seniority list within her division, has been told she cannot have any vacation time, not one day, in June, July or August. Last year, when they were having vacation, they would say: We have one person off, we can absorb that, we will hire one casual; meaning two people could be on vacation at the same time in that unit. This year, no money for casuals. This nurse, who has a young family, has been told: Sorry, you are still low on the totem pole, even though you have been here for thirteen years, you cannot have one single vacation day in June, July or August. That is totally unfair after thirteen years. Last year she could have her vacation in August, this year she does not get one single day.

Now that is the kind of grassroots impact that the government's restraint is having on ordinary people. At the same time that is occurring, the Premier can have additional expenditures in his office. We are trying to bring out here today the absolute inconsistency between what the Premier is doing in his office, the allocations for his office, and what is happening for ordinary folks.

Of course, we also know, as well, that the Premier has a bit of a history of changing his mind. In fact, if you would look at it, the Premier reminds me of what was said when I was a student at MUN doing my English courses, when we talked about the works of Aristotle. Aristotle talked about writing a novel. He said: You have to be consistent, you have to be very consistent all the way through, beginning, middle and end. However, he said, if you cannot be consistent, be consistently inconsistent. Well, the Premier is consistently inconsistent.

For example, I do remember the contradictions in the House, brought up today by the Leader of the Opposition, on the Voisey's Bay file. The Premier says one thing and does something else, or one of his ministers says one thing and then the Premier contradicts them the next day.

You will remember the contradiction in the House on the eighteenth day of May of 1999 when we had a debate here and, of course, the commitment was made that everything relative to Voisey's Bay would be released. When we had the debate here, the then Deputy Premier stood and said: Yes, we are going to have a public debate on Voisey's Bay. Then later on he said: No we are not going to have that. So, these inconsistences between what the Premier says and what other people say has been the legacy of his administration.

Same way, for example, on the finances, when the Premier is saying one thing applies to the way he is going to run the Premier's office, and the same rules don't apply when it comes to running other government divisions. Ordinary folks have to deal with restraint. The Premier's office can have a 30 per cent increase. People have questions about that. People wonder if that is good decision making. People wonder about the government's commitment. In 1996 they were saying government is all about making choices, making decisions. We know from the Premier's actions in terms of his own office what kinds of decisions his legacy will show. It will show that there are two different sets of rules, one for the ordinary folk who are waiting to have testing procedures done in the medical system and another set of rules for the way in which the Premier allocates the staff and resources to his own office.

So, we would say to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and to the government in general, that the public of this Province have just cause to be concerned. They have just cause to be concerned about the inconsistency between what the Premier says has to apply to ordinary folks and what has to apply to his very office.

I want to say to the government opposite, that that message has not been lost on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, nor should it be. We can say one thing about the Premier, that we never know from one day to the next what his position is going to be. So, as Aristotle would say about writing a novel, he is consistently inconsistent. Of course, that certainly is part of the legacy. It is time for this Premier, this government, when they talk about accountability, do not dismiss what the Auditor General says. Listen to what she says. Do not try to fluff it over. Do not talk about how you have been invited to some conference to talk about accountability, because the Auditor General, in her commentary on this government, gave a very serious indictment and said that this government, the legacy of this government, is not being very accountable.

The government, I guess, hoped that if they talked about accountability long enough that people would believe that they are being, indeed, accountable, but that is not likely to happen because the history of this government is that they are saying one thing and doing something else. It is like they are saying to the people: You have to live on restraint, you have to cut back, you cannot have this, you cannot have that, and then they go out and increase the expenditures on the Premier's Office.

Madam Chair, I know many of my colleagues here want to have a chance to talk in this debate. We know that time is slipping by in terms of the total time allocated for this debate. In order to facilitate that, I just want to leave one final message: It is no good to say things in the Budget report, no good to say things in the Speech From the Throne. The truth is, when you allocate resources, there has to be consistency between what you allocate to the Premier's Office and what you are saying to the unemployed people, what you are saying to the people who are out there looking for support in the school system, who do not have the resources to give their children an equal opportunity, what you are saying to the people who are waiting in lineups at the hospitals for necessary diagnostic procedures, you have to be consistent, and right now what is happening in this Province is that a message has been delivered today that there is one set of rules for the Premier's Office and there is a different set of rules altogether for everybody else.

The Premier can talk about accountability as long as he wants, but until he is willing to bring his office in line with what is happening with everybody else in this Province, he is kind of being very inconsistent. The people know it. The people know you cannot have a 30 per cent increase in expenditures to the Premier's Office and then expect the government to be believable when they are saying to everybody else that you have to live under a minimum of an 8 per cent or 10 per cent decrease in your budget allocations.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just like to have a few words to say about the Executive Council and the Office of the Premier.

Madam Chair, when I do visit the provincial building in Grand Falls-Windsor, I talk to a lot of the employees of government while in that building. In the Estimates, on page 14, subhead 2.1.01.07., with respect to the increase in the Property, Furnishings and Equipment, it is only about $8,500.

Madam Chair, the type of furnishings that the Premier has in his office, I think, far exceeds that amount of money for last year. I am not sure if this section of the Premier's Office covers the cost of the Premier's furniture, but I know one thing. The people who work at the provincial building in Grand Falls-Windsor are certainly not happy with the way the Premier's Office spends money with respect to where the Premier sits and his work is conducted. When we have people in different departments in the provincial building in Grand Falls-Windsor having to deal with a lack of supplies, unsuitable conditions in their offices, unsuitable furniture in their offices, these people notice when the government comes in and spends many weeks preparing for the Premier's Office, getting the work done so that the Premier could have that office.

As my colleague said, we are not against the Premier and this government and the House of Assembly having representation in strategic places in the Province, where any MHA, any government member, can have access to a Premier's office or boardroom. We are certainly not against that but I would like to say, Madam Chair, that the numbers that I see in this section of Executive Council, Premier's Office, do not reflect the true figures in the amount that was spent in preparing the Premier's Office in the provincial building in Grand Falls-Windsor.

In 2.1.01.01., Madam Chair, there is an increase of $107,600 for support for the Premier's Office, in Salaries. I know the minister explained, even as of yet one position is not filled. If those positions are going to be filled in that office, Madam Chair, then the services of that office should be available to all of us, myself included, representing part of the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor.

I see under 03., Transportation and Communications, the Premier's office spent over and above budgeted for last year, $235,000, and again allowed in this year's budget. It is an exorbitant amount of money, when we see our own workers in offices near the Premier's offices, next door to the Premier's offices, that have to go in in the mornings and see what they have to deal with, with the small amount of money that they have in their budgets.

It is confusing, it is frustrating, for our employees in our provincial buildings and government offices. It is hard for them to do a good day's work when we see large amounts of money being spent by the Premier either in travelling or in communications or in office furniture. I am very skeptical of the way some of the dealings are done with respect to the way the Premier's Office has been developed. I do have questions about the purchasing of furniture for the Premier's offices. Were fair competition rules and policies given to equal suppliers?

Madam Chair, it seems like people complain because they see this work being done but not seeing an honest effort given to other people in supplying the needs of the Premier's Office. I would like to see the Premier's Office more accountable for the money that this office is spending. I would like to see it broken down in the Estimates under the Premier's Office cost of spending, or exactly to show us what it costs the taxpayers of this Province to open that office in Grand Falls-Windsor, to open the office in Corner Brook, so we can see exactly what the cost was; and the people who work in nearby offices to the Premier could understand where this money was spent, how it was spent, and how come, in their offices, equal opportunity wasn't given to government workers to have a decent place to work. I am sure any member in this House, any minister, or even the Premier, can talk to the people in the provincial building in Grand Fall-Windsor and get their side of the story; get their side of a story where other offices are not being treated fairly and equally. Maybe it is time that the government and the Premier should be more accountable for the amount of money that he spends. Maybe it is time the Premier should take a closer look at all the departments and see where the money is being spent, to see how this government spends the money with respect to all of the departments, including Works, Services and Transportation, and Forest Resources and Agrifoods. Does the Premier really know what the money is being spent on in the departments? I can tell you, Madam Chair, and I can show you, show the ministers, a lot of places in this government where thousands and thousands of dollars are spent on projects that even the ministers do not know about, where the Premier does not know; thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars. We have to be accountable to the taxpayers. The departments, the ministers and the Premier have to be accountable to the taxpayers. If the ministers want examples, I can bring up lots of examples.

With respect to the population of this Province, go back fifty years, sixty years, when a young man in his early twenties had to go to work in very harsh conditions, probably in the woods, probably in the mines, where they had to leave on a Monday morning and walk for two or three days to find out if they could get a couple of days work with a bucksaw in the woods. They did not have the conditions and the furnishings and the budgets to make their lives as luxurious as what ministers and premiers have, Madam Chair. These same people today, after living their life full, contributing many, many years to our economy, contributing many, many hours of free labour with respect to volunteering, to keeping their communities vibrant, these same people today are looking to us to help them in their dilemmas with health care, home care.

I can tell you of a case I heard of, even last night, when a lady called me. She had to live on $420 per month. Her husband passed away only a couple of months ago. Now she is down to $420 a month. I can tell you, Madam Chair, that this lady does not have luxuries. This lady does not have furniture worth thousands and thousands of dollars. She can barely survive, barely eat, with an overdue light bill of nearly $1,000. Where do these people turn when they need hand-up and handout from government, when there is nothing there available, so that lady can say to her creditors: Yes, I can give you $20 or $50 a month on my bill. Four hundred and twenty dollars a month today for one senior person living alone in a two-storey house, who have been there for fifty years. It is not enough to keep our seniors in their homes. A very health woman who can't get any help, can't get any money, to get her through the rough times of the winter periods. If the Premier's Office could only cut back a little bit - whether it is regarding salaries, supplies, purchasing services - and give that one person just an extra $200 a month, that one person would be a happy person today.

Madam Chair, there are thousands and thousands of examples of people, particularly seniors, particularly seniors living alone in their own homes, who need a bit of help to get through difficulty periods. Yet, we spend $235,000 in the Premier's Office on Transportation and Communications. I do not know how anybody can justify increasing $235,000 when we have desperate seniors needing help, not big amounts of help, small dollars compared to salaries that the Premier has in his office. When you increase salaries and the number of employees in your office to sixteen or twenty people - in the Premier's Office drawing these good salaries - it is a bit difficult trying to sleep at night when you know these seniors who need this handout and hand-up.

Madam Chair, I say to hon. members and ministers across the way: Yes, we scrutinize the Premier's Office. Yes, we will ask questions on any increases in costs in the Premier's Office because we are concerned that if money is taken out of this hand and put in this hand, then somewhere in between somebody has to pay the price. We cannot sit idle here and listen while the Premier's Office spends all this money and lets these questions go unanswered. I say to the ministers -

MR. BARRETT: Are you going to talk about (inaudible) in the Budget?

MR. HUNTER: I could talk about a lot about things. I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I will have another opportunity to speak on a lot of things that are going on in his department. The promises and commitments that he has made, that he is not keeping. I will bring up those at another time. I will mention things about the commitments to the government that they do not keep. I will mention things in comments to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and it will be including the Long Island causeway. What did you do with the $2 million set aside for the Long Island causeway? Also, what are you doing to make sure that this project is going to be done? The commitments that you made and that I am going to keep you accountable to; but this is not the time to do it right now.

My colleagues want to speak on Executive Council, and I am going to respect the wishes of my colleagues and give them a chance. Again, I will say to the ministers, we will keep your toes close to the fire.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Just a few quick questions on Executive Support for the minister in terms of Cabinet Secretariat. It says under this section, Cabinet Secretariat: Appropriations provide for executive support for the effective and efficient operation of the Cabinet process and support to the Cabinet and its Committees, and includes the senior planning and direction of the Cabinet Secretariat, including the establishment and evaluation of policies and objectives.

I wonder if the minister could just give a general overview? There is a general increase in the Budget this year. Last year it was projected that you would spend $1,127,900, you actually ended up only spending $993,000, and this year you projected to spend $1,115,800. I wonder if the minister could give just a general overview on the amount of that expenditure? Where will it go? A little bit more detail, I guess, is what we are looking for from what is contained in Executive Support. As the minister knows, in the committee process we get a chance to do, at the committee level, what we are doing here right now in terms of searching for more detail than you can legitimately provide on the pages here. I am just asking the minister, under that section, could she give just a little bit more detail and further elaborate on the appropriation that the House is being asked to vote upon here today?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

The first thing I would like to say is that the appropriate 5 per cent reduction has been identified in this section. Also, I would like to say the reason why the expenditure is lower this year - the revised amount was lower than the budgeted amount - was because our Deputy Clerk was on secondment to the Royal Commission on Health Care with Roy Romano, and he was away from his position. This position has not been backfilled for that part of the fiscal year. Also, we had an ADM for Strategic Planning. That position was vacant as well for four months. So that accounts for the decrease in the budget and also includes a 5 per cent reduction. It also speaks to twelve permanent positions, temporary assistance plus overtime, all included into this amount.

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The minister just referred to section 2.2.02, Economic and Social Policy Analysis. The minister makes some comment - and I look at this particular section here and I also look at just a little further on, under Strategic Social Plan, the allocations in that area; and I also refer to the Policy and Strategy Planning section under Industry, Trade and Rural Development. I am just wondering, is there some redundancy here? Because under Industry, Trade and Rural Development, where the focus is economic development, there is an allocation here for that particular purpose, and the Strategic Social Plan deals with social policy but yet this particular appropriation here has $454,000 allocated for the exact same purpose. If you look at those three categories together, minister, is there some redundancy in their roles? If not, could you break them out and define for us how they differ?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak about this particular section and to help educate the member opposite on what these various components of the budget are, as well as their very important function.

First of all, under Economic and Social Policy; this is a group of very talented and well-prepared people we have to support both the economic committee of Cabinet, as well as the Economic Policy Committee Cabinet, as well as the social policy of Cabinet.

Economic Policy of Cabinet is chaired by my colleague, the hon. Lloyd Matthews, and the Chair of the Social Policy is chaired by my colleague, the hon. Judy Foote. Both of these deal specifically with issues around social policy on behalf of Cabinet, subcommittee of Cabinet, as well as economic policy dealing with the economic policies, just like we have a Treasury Board Secretariat to deal with issues around Treasury Board. This is our permanent staff. It consists of five permanent staff, plus temporary assistants, and overtime. It relates to their function. They travel with us from time to time. We take both of these committees to go out to all parts of our Province: Labrador, West Coast, South Coast, Central Newfoundland, Avalon.

Most recently, both secretariats have been out around the Province doing consultations in some places or giving people, who normally would not be able to travel into St. John's, the opportunity to make presentations to either the social policy or to the economic policy committee of Cabinet. I know recently the social policy of Cabinet has travelled all around the Province and have heard presentations and have also promoted the Strategic Social Plan because it is a major social policy for this government, as the member opposite I am sure would remember from just a few months back. This is this particular piece of it.

This is totally different from the other component which is - again, I am very delighted to have an opportunity to talk to it but I know my colleague will speak to it in more detail; my colleague, Gerald Smith, Minister of Health and Community Services and minister responsible for the Strategic Social Plan. Now, this is a $2 million allocation that holds very important function for the people of the Province and most importantly, it has been an initiative of government which has allowed us to lead the country in a number of initiatives. The most important being a social audit, which is in the process of being completed.

We have appointed a number of people from all walks of life, chaired by a former Member of the House of Assembly, a well-educated, well-qualified individual, under a name of Dr. Phil Warren. He is the Chair of the Strategic Social Plan Advisory Committee and works very clearly to work with the staff that have been identified specifically for the implementation of the Strategic Social Plan.

This is not a redundancy because what this does specifically is deal with the Strategic Social Plan, which we all know in this Province and was announced in the Budget, that we hope to merge with an economic policy to have one plan before too much longer; but, there is a lot of work that needs to be done. As I said, my colleague will speak to that. It has a separate staff. It also provides money for groups in many of our communities in rural and urban Newfoundland and Labrador that allows us to test new initiatives and to allow us to make the right decisions as it relates to prevention, early intervention and community partnering. These are the hallmarks of the Strategic Social Plan. This is a whole different strategy.

I think they are the three that you were talking to, the economic policy, the strategic policy, and again they are totally separate in their whole initiative.

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Economic Development is on page 128, Minister. Under Industry, Trade and Rural Development, that whole section there dealing with Policy and Strategic Planning, that is not covered off by this Cabinet Secretariat focus? Is that what you are suggesting, they are two very different focuses?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Again, I think this is an excellent question because it allows, first of all, the people of the Province to appreciate that there is little understanding, quite frankly, for how we are trying to grow the economy, the economic development as well as the strategic social development.

As you know, the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development is a department which my colleague, I am sure, will speak to when you do it in Estimates, when you get there. This is not part of Executive Council. In fact, this is a whole section that relates to Policy and Strategic Planning as it relates to the growth and jobs agenda, implementing what we heard through a major consultation, providing salaries and a secretariat to do that, allowing travel around the Province to hear from people outside of St. John's, in urban centres. Again, it allows the minister to move forward on economic initiatives that require policy. Policies are not restricted to social planning. They are also very much a part of economic planning and monitoring the sorts of things that we are doing.

This is a very important piece of planning for economic policy around the growth and jobs agenda that was done in a very wide consultation around the Province. It is done, I cannot say quite exclusively of, but it is, in and of itself, a very important component of the department. But, each of these areas in government, through both the social policy of Cabinet and the economic policy of Cabinet, maintain an alliance with the departments so that everybody is on the right track with the right social and economic policies. Again, a very distinct component of a very distinct department, which you will all have ample opportunity to question the minister on, when he does his own Estimates on that department.

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I am extremely pleased to see that government has such a focus on strategic planning and recognizes the merits of marrying social and economic policy, I guess, which leaves me even more surprised that, on constant questioning here in the House about, where is government's master plan and strategic plan for the Province's health system, that we still do not have that but yet we are moving forward and feeling comfortable making some major decisions about how we allocate funding in the absence of having any real strong vision of where we are going.

I suggest to the minister, if this is the kind of focus that she alludes to, and that is the kind of attention that government has given historically to planning and proposes to give to planning, then it is really surprising that we do not yet have a master strategic plan for our health system and we have her colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, telling us it is still not ready. We will have it some time later on. We will have it some time in the spring. Yet, we are moving forward and operating a health system that is falling apart before us and in a major crisis with physicians leaving the Province.

I heard a colleague today ask a question about mammography screening. People diagnosed with breast cancer are not able to get appropriate screening. We are moving forward with an action in our health system without having any real sense of direction and no strategic plan, and the minister just shared with us a vision of government strategy in and around planning, and this document uses a lot of terms about policy, research, and strategic planning. It is great to see it in a document but it really has to come off the paper here and become a reality in each government department so we can see clearly where we are going with health, where we are going with education, where we are going with a roads program, and the list goes on because we have yet to see. We do not have a master plan for health in this Province. We do not have a master plan for road construction and maintenance in this Province. We do not have a plan in this Province. This government does not have a plan for any of those kinds of major services. I think if the minister is going to talk about their focus with strategic planning and research, then we need to see it manifested in some of the those key core services of health, education and road construction. I am calling on the minister and her colleagues to show this government's plan in those key major areas.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am not sure if the member opposite heard some of the heckling over here as it relates to people's plans for you, is what they said. Somebody said John Efford has a plan for you. I am not sure.

What I will say, I think it is important that the three departments, the three components that you asked about, are very unique and specific to economic policy planning of Cabinet, social policy planning of Cabinet, and developing a Strategic Social Plan combined with a Strategic Economic Plan, to create one new plan. The difference between what the member says and what we are doing over here is that we are going to the people. This will be the people's plan through consultation. You cannot bring it up from a book if you have not gone to the people and asked for it. We have been out there. The former Minister of Health, I think, has done a superb job in her consultation with respect to a health plan focused on wellness. The current Minister of Health is doing a fabulous job in implementing the wellness strategy and moving forward, and it is a plan that has been consistent, but it is one that incorporates the people of the Province through consultation and one that is very important.

I would also like to take the opportunity, if I can, to say to the Member for Kilbride that the number of positions - again, I have the names here. I am not prepared to read the names out, and I will get you a clean copy.

AN HON. MEMBER: The names are (inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The names are on it, but the sixteen people identified are the sixteen people who are working for the Premier and that includes the constituency office and the Grand Falls office. So that is the full sixteen permanent people who are working there.

As well, I will say to the member, the office in Grand Falls is used in the same purpose as the office in Corner Brook, and that is for meetings or any other function that may be deemed important by the public. It is separate, I understand, from the office of the Leader of the Opposition. He has been set up somewhere else with his own office and boardroom, I understand. That is not anything to do with this, but he is not in the building that the Premier is in.

Also I know, and I think it is important, that of these sixteen staff who work in the Premier's Office, it has been pointed out that there are eleven staff who work for the Leader of the Opposition. I think that is certainly comparative when you consider the role and function of a Premier of a government compared to the role and function of a Leader of a Opposition. I think it is important for the people of the Province to know that having eleven people to do the work of the Leader of the Opposition is important work, but not any more important than having sixteen people to do the work of the Premier. I just wanted to point that information out for the people of the Province.

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: One closing comment, Madam Chair, to the minister. I appreciate the value of public consultation, but I really suggest to the minister and her Cabinet colleagues, as part of this planning exercise, that they would really change their strategy around public consultation and not repeat what was done with the health forums in the fall where it was by very special invitation, a very select group of people who could attend, and only a very select group of people were able to participate in the discussions. I offer that suggestion to the minister and her colleagues.

I thank the hon. members across the House for the attention they give me when I speak, because obviously my comments have some significant impact given the level of reaction. Obviously, I either prompt some reaction because my comments have merit, or I raised some questions that speak to some very sensitive issues on the members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

On motion, subheads 2.2.01. and 2.2.02., carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall subhead 2.2.03. carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Again, just a quick question, more information seeking than anything. Subhead 2.2.03. under the Budget is called the Offshore Fund - Administration. The explanation in the Budget provides that: Appropriations - that the House is being asked to vote upon - provide for the monitoring of projects funded under the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Fund.

Minister, in terms of the fund itself, are you satisfied that the type of monitoring that is viewed to be taking place within this section of Executive Council is, in fact, working; is, in fact, being effective; and is, in fact, providing the type of information to Cabinet related to the development of an industry in terms of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Fund and the projects that we are funding under it? Are you satisfied that the type of monitoring that is occurring is providing the Cabinet, the government itself, with the type of information necessary to make seriously informed judgements and decisions based upon what information is being brought back to the Cabinet and through the process described in the Executive Council section of the Budget?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

I think it is important to note in this section that this is a fund that is provided for the monitoring of various projects that are funded, and it is not the overall initiative as it relates to offshore; because I think that would be more specifically a response that my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Energy, would make.

I am confident that the monitoring that has been provided around some of the major cost-shared projects has been effective and are very worthwhile projects, and I think it is important just to name a few of those so that you and the people of the Province can see some of the benefits of this Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Fund agreement. They include: the Earth Resources Centre through Memorial University of $27.1 million; Career Development Awards Program of $17.5 million; the Petroleum Technology Program $22.6 million; the Marine Offshore Simulator Training Centre, which everybody knows at the Marine Institute has been a fabulous initiative and has attracted many people and many countries to our Province for that kind of training; the Hibernia GBS construction of $95 million; and the Segmented Wave Maker, which I will not delve into, at $3.5 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: Won't dive into it.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I won't dive into it either, no.

It is a fund that has very strict guidelines because again it has to be Newfoundland as well as Canada to agree on the projects and the amount of money. Yes, to answer your question, we are confident that the monitoring of this fund is effective in promoting the offshore component of the agreement.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: There was a project funded under that subhead, the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Fund, for a project on the West Coast, if I am not mistaken, one dealing strictly out of the St. George's area. I recall with some interest, a story that appeared in the paper probably several years ago that a company was going to export aggregate through a port in the area to the Eastern Seaboard, particularly the Boston, New York area, which is a huge market for aggregate.

As a Province, it is a natural advantage that we have in terms of the geographic location where we are and the type of rocks and aggregate available for the construction industry, something that is lacking in that area. People who were involved in that project have spoken to me, as I know they have spoken to a variety of members on the other side of the House, and there was some difficulty from what I understand. I am not clear on what the difficulty is, but there was some difficulty in terms of that project in launching their product from that area; and this is a project that was funded - not the company that is shipping aggregate but the infrastructure surrounding the area - that was a project that was funded under the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Fund. I want to know: Has there been any advice provided to either the minister - I would not say to you directly because it is not your department, obviously - but if you are aware of any advice to the Cabinet, generally, on why this initiative really hasn't taken off. Why hasn't it provided the type of economic stimulus that we have a natural advantage to provide to other parts of the world, particularly along the coast and the sea lanes that can bring that very worthwhile industry, a growing industry, a way to grow the economy in Western Newfoundland by shipping something that we have an abundance of on the one hand, that another part of the world has a need for on the other hand - and this was prior to the requirements for that product, prior to the tragic events surrounding September 11 - and the subsequent construction activity that will be required over the next decade to deal with that?

I wonder if the minister has any first-hand knowledge of that project. What information from the Offshore Administration Fund dealing with the monitoring of projects - surely, from that point of view, this project must have ben monitored. There must have been some paper trail to suggest how this project is going or not going, and why it is not going the way that it has been foreseen or was originally seen to go in the direction that the people who were the proponents of the project saw fit to put in the proposal?

I am looking for an update, I guess, from the monitoring point of view under Executive Council, or any information that either you can provide now or, if you cannot, that you may be able to provide some time in the very near future.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

I would say to the Member for Kilbride, any specifics related to the question that you asked as it relates to the monitoring or the paper trail of a specific project which would be related to offshore development would be fed through the Department of Mines and Energy or the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, whichever one would be most appropriate.

As you asked the question, I just made a note for my colleague, Lloyd Matthews, so that he can follow up on any monitoring. I can say that of the money we have, $1.3 million, $1.1 million has been spent so far. There is a very small portion to be spent in the upcoming year, and the agreement expires March 31 of next year.

What I will say to you is that I will undertake to find out the information as it relates to the monitoring of this particular - I am not sure, from what you said, if we have the exact description of the project, but I will pass the information on to my colleague who would have more detailed information. Clearly, if they were going to improve upon the research component associated with offshore development, his department and his officials would be able to provide the information about any monitoring or any suggestions for future plans as it relates to the project. So, I have written a note for my colleague to follow up, to give you that information.

As it relates to the provision of the fund, which is my responsibility as it relates to this, we are assured that the projects that have been chosen, that have met the criteria, are very much related to either training and development or promoting the offshore development. Of the $1.3 million, as I said $1.1 million is spent leaving only $200 thousand for this year.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall subheads 2.2.03. to 2.2.05 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay

On motion, subheads 2.2.03 through 2.2.05, carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall 2.2.06 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Just before I get into my commentary on this, I will just seek some guidance from the Government House Leader in terms of: Is it now or will we continue on?

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Depending on the answers here now, we may be able to conclude subhead 2.2.06.

Anyway, thank you, Madam Chair and Government House Leader, for some clarification.

This section under Executive Council, Cabinet Secretariat (Cont'd) deals with Protocol. "Appropriations provide for official, diplomatic and royal visits as well as protocol related official functions and duties of the Premier." It is an absolute necessity, the department. There is no question about that. There are a number of events that surround heads of state, heads of government, and/or their representatives, that members in this House, the Premier, ministers, are expected to attend.

Just a couple of questions. Last year you budgeted $625,200 and spent $338,600, which was almost a 50 per cent savings. This year you have indicated that Transportation and Communications is estimated to be at $180,000, up from what you spent last year of $50,000. I wonder if you could give some background or reason as to why you thought that - there may be legitimate reasons for it, but just to provide some more detail in terms of what was the reasoning behind increasing the Budget in that area so much.

Also, dealing with, down the line, Purchased Services, up about $30,000. Again, I wonder if you could provide a general background of what the rationale was. Are there more functions expected? Are these related to any celebrations that the government is having? Is it related to other potential visits by other heads of state, other Provinces in Canada, or other countries in the world that may be coming to the Province? I am just looking, again, for additional information and clarification, more detail, on the questions that we have just posed.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

What I would do, if it is okay with the member opposite, is just run through the categories, and I can give you an explanation on them. We have a salary cost of two permanent positions in here. We have a slightly higher salary this year because we had a temporary protocol officer which is not scheduled again, or budgeted for this year. The Transportation was budgeted at $250,000 last year, we spent $50,000 and much of that can be related to September 11. In fact, that is what happened. We had a lot of scheduled diplomatic travel, which was greatly reduced as a result of September 11. What we did spend in that, of course, and what we have budgeted for is the Newfoundland Volunteer Service Medal awards. Originally, we had planned to get people to come into St. John's. What the committee did was, they moved out to the various parts of the Province. That saved money for people and allowed more family members to attend the Volunteer Service Medal award ceremonies.

Most of our 8 per cent for the Executive Council is coming out of this section. We thought this was an appropriate place to take it rather than Opening Doors, Government House, or whatever. That is the reason for that.

Who is coming? Who is visiting next and why is the amount up there? You can see that each of these costs have been reduced. We are anticipating that we will have a couple of official visits. They are not confirmed yet, so I hesitate to say who they would be, but they are planned for this year. In terms of our Purchased Services, whenever we do have people visiting, obviously through Protocol Office, there are expenses associated with the banquets and all of the other dignitary associated receptions and that sort of thing. Other than that, it is just vehicle rentals, photocopier charges, advertising costs, ground maintenance and security, that is provided when you have a dignitary visiting the Province. Other than that, the bulk of it is the 8 per cent.

On motion , subhead 2.2.06 carried.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have approved heads 1.1.01 to 2.2.06, have made some progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole on Supply reports that the Committee has considered the matter to her referred, have directed her to report some progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if hon. members would allow the hon. Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island to give notice of his motion for tomorrow, Private Members' Day.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS the film industry in Newfoundland and Labrador has grown significantly over the last number of years due to the creation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation, and supported by such measures as the Telefilm Equity Investment Program and the Telefilm Industry Tax Credit Program; and

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Industry has reached a level that provides a foundation for significant future growth but needs further infrastructure to increase the local and guest film and television productions; and

WHEREAS recent large-scale film and television productions, such as The Shipping News, Rare Birds and Random Passage will enhance the profile of Newfoundland and Labrador to a worldwide audience and may encourage other filmmakers to film in this Province; and

WHEREAS the enhancement of the local film industry to a higher level was one of the areas supported by the final report on the Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth; and

WHEREAS the impact of the film and televison productions can enhance the economies of both urban and rural Newfoundland and Labrador;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador continue to support initiatives that promote the continued growth of the Newfoundland and Labrador film industry; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in conjunction with the local film industry representatives continue to lobby the federal government for funding to support the growth of the industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House do now adjourn.

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